|
Written by Uponnothing
|
|
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 19:50 |
|
Emma,
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and in such detail.
Having checked the email I sent it was definately went to that address and hasn't bounced back. Perhaps you should check spam folders etc in case you might be missing mail from other people getting in touch as well.
Obviously Le Salaud makes some relevant points to your response, so i'll deal with different points to save repetition.
1) Tagging: Whether you accept the 'guilt of this particular lady' is irrelevent. You used the example to highlight 'Labour's misguided laws' and as an example it says more about the attempts of tabloid newspapers to create faux outrage by hiding the real facts of a judges decision. When you accept that there was a charge on animal cruelty as well as simply selling a goldfish to an underage customer you can start to argue that the judge may well have used tagging accordingly. Whether the person being tagged is a grandmother, great grandmother or even the queen is not relevant, except to stoke up the idea in the minds of simple Daily Mail readers that such people can never really be real criminals.
Like any good tabloid you happily switch between a false story about a dear old grandmother being tagged to 'terrorists not being deported as it would be against their 'rights''. Again, you imply that sweet old ladies are persecuted under Labour whilst terrorists avoid punishment thanks to human rights.
2) You talk about human rights without addressing my main point: your inverted commas implied that Terrorists should not have rights. In your response you state: 'Every person, no matter what their citizenship or status, deserves protection of their fundemental rights under the law' - then why use inverted commas?
Also, why follow this statement with a 'but the current act is falling short and causing unnecessary tension in our communities'. I'd argue as before: terrible tabloid journalism and lies about 'yuman rites' is causing this tension, not the HRA. We need to pander less to gullible tabloid readers and have a bit more guts to stand up for human rights.
3) Will Conservative cuts not effect the bail system?
4) In your leaflet you talk about immigration, not illegal immigration, so I stand by my original assertion. I do not think it helps a sensible discussion on immigration wedging it under the heading 'safer communities' and between crime and drug addiction.
5) You didnt confess that you got that story badly wrong and that it undermines your commendable pledge to increase drug addiction programmes to reduce offending.
Finally, thanks again for taking the time to respond. I may not agree with all of your points, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to mine. Politics is not dead yet.
|
