Monday, May 15, 2006

The Afghan hijackers - legal and human rights

I've seen a few comments around various blogs hoping for a proper "lawyers" breakdown of the Afghan hijackers case. I don't have the legal knowledge to do such a thing. Fortunately, Tony Hatfield does:
It is often forgotten that the Stansted Nine were acquitted of all criminal charges arising out of the “hijack” of an Ariana Boeing 727 from Kabul in February 2000.
Read the rest, seriously, it's a very good breakdown of the legal case. Brian Barder:
This is dangerous populist grandstanding, deliberately intended to confuse the issues and to give the misleading impression that the legal position can be changed by amending the HRA. In fact there are two separate issues here.
Both highlighted on Unity's excellent post, in which he also observes:
there have been systemic failings in the workings of the Parole Board and Probation service, failings that are the direct result of a wholesale’ lack of competence in the area of Human Rights law compounded by a desire, at seeming all costs, to avoid cases being brought to judicial review, where they can be dealt with appropriately by a competent authority.
Which brings me to this excremental peice of dung:
But instead their kids and their wives have all been told they can come and live here in houses that most Brits earning a decent wage couldn't afford, and all without ever having to dirty their hands with work.
Does anyone have any experience of reporting such columnists to the PCC? I'd research how to do it from scratch but if someone has done it before?

(Thanks to Andrew in comments here for bringing the odious Ms Malone to my heretofore innocent attention)

4 comments:

Longrider said...

This is, I'm afraid, just another example of the gutter press not allowing the facts to get in the way of a story. Cliché maybe, but true for all that.

BondWoman said...

I'm glad to see the "strong liberals" (if I may use this term) starting to pick up the issues of the HRA and the criminal justice system, and its interface with deportation (and the treatment of foreigners more generally). It seems to me that these questions raise as many issues which we ought to be worried about as ID cards. Your mate Unity got it spot on with the parallel to Pastor Niemoeller.

MatGB said...

It's as good a term as any. It's one of those "bubbling under" issues; at the last GE, Paul and I discussed the Tory proposal to withdraw from ECHR, we were both horrified by the idiocy of the idea.

Essentially, ID cards, HRA abuse, etc all fall under the same basic problem; the Govt is playing to the populist, tabloid driven gallery. That bothers me.

If we do make the switch to Wordpress, we'll probably have a catch all "bonfire of the liberties" category. I just hope Campbell can get his act in gear and get ont he offensive on the issue, and do it well.

. said...

Carole Malone is a Glenda Slagg at their collective worst. I often visit my grandmother's on a Sunday, and for some reason she gets the Sunday Mirror. It's a poor man's News of the Screws, if that. The only good thing about it is Richard Stott, who occasionally covers the same topics as Carole Malone, but usually has the opposite view, which is amusing to say the least.

Anyway, Malone is one of those columnists that gets away with talking complete crap but because it's a tabloid it's alright to write utter bollocks. Maybe one day I'll give her a through going over, but she seems hardly worth it.