Compare and contrast.

An internet blogger has been jailed for 12 years after admitting soliciting the murder of MPs who had voted in favour of the Iraq War.

Now, he’s a very naughty boy. I may occasionally talk about lamposts and piano wire, but I don’t for one moment counsel such a course of action. You can’t go round inciting people to murder and expect to be given a free pass. And even accounting for:

Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, 23, from Wolverhampton, was also sentenced for other terrorism offences.

We have to assume that as these ‘other terrorism offences’ aren’t disclosed in the article that they aren’t sufficiently sexy or, dare I say it, explosive to bother about.

12 years does seem a little steep, mind. Trying to get someone to off an MP is one thing, actually making them do it is another. Given that no-one is in the dock on a charge of conspiracy to do so, or on a charge of actually doing it suggests he wasn’t that effective.

In what has been a bad news day for my fair city of Canterbury, I cannot help compare the sentence handed down to Ahmad with the sentence handed down to our former Sheriff:

A former Sheriff of Canterbury has been sent to prison today after admitting indecently assaulting a vulnerable youngster and downloading child pornography.

It turns out he’s got a young girl to undress and sit on his lap, he also seems to have, somehow, managed to get himself into a situation where he’s been able to grope a woman under her clothing, and also whilst she was in bed. I’m assuming he wasn’t in the bed at the time. Then there’s the 11 charges of indecent images, including sado-masochism being visited upon one poor child that he’s also been convicted of.

Fisher [. . .] was jailed for a total of 15 months and banned him from working with children for 10 years.

Really? 15 months?

I’m not going to blame the judge as she has a framework she has to work from, but it doesn’t seem right to me that writing about killing MPs is in the eyes of the courts almost ten times as worse as actually engaging in a physical act of sexual abuse against a child.

Something is very wrong here.

Also available on the new thesnowolf.com

And another one.

Wolfers' note: Also available on the new thesnowolf.com 

Isn’t it weird that when Ken Clarke starts banging on about the right to defend oneself that we now start getting cases that fit the bill?

An elderly shopkeeper has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a armed raider was killed in a botched robbery and a second left in hospital.

Attempted? He’s dead mate. Anyway, I thought this was a defensible course of action now. Scrub that, I thought this had always been a defensible course of action.

Cecil Coley, 72, is in police custody today after dramatic scenes at a florists on Shewsbury Street, Old Trafford, at 9.40pm last night.

It is understood the shop was closed at the time and Mr Coley, a well-known Jamaican man known as ‘Papa’ in the community, was playing dominoes with a friend inside when two men armed with. . .

(wait for it)

. . . guns broke in.

A struggle followed which saw one of the raiders, a 30-year-old man, fatally stabbed in the chest.

So, two strapping young blokes, tooled up with shooters (as I believe the criminal fraternity phrase it) burst in on an OAP and get stabbed? You’re not supposed to lose when you bring a gun to a knife fight. He probably died of shame.

A second man, who was wearing a mask, was seen running away from the premises.

It is thought he went to Manchester Royal Infirmary later where he was treated for a stab wound.

Fair play Papa, is what I say.

A police source said: “Early indications are that this is a robbery that has gone wrong.”

No shit.

The shopkeeper was described by residents as a regular church-goer who had run the shop as a fancy goods store for 40 years before handing it over to his children and retiring six weeks ago. They have been running it as a florists.

Local resident Leon Richards, 33, said: “He’s a proud man, very proud of his family. He used to go to the local church regularly and was a real part of the community.

“He is a quiet man, but a good man. He never caused anyone any trouble, he just got on with his business.”

Excellent, so when he’s described as being ‘well known’ in the community that isn’t code for him being some Yardie honcho. Well known would appear to mean a decent, respected and admired gentleman.

Perhaps if we get three of four more of these cases, and if, as is right, no action is taken against those who are defending themselves, the message may get back to the sort of sub-human scum who think it is OK to rob 72 year old shopkeepers at gunpoint. The message? Your turn to be scared.

Free Cecil Coley. Free the Manchester One.

Well, shucks.

Police said the stabbed man was found on Hospital Road and died a short time later.


Ch Supt Kevin Mulligan, who heads Greater Manchester Police's Salford division, said the man suffered "at least one stab wound" during an altercation in the house involving at least one person from the address and four people breaking in.


He said he could not comment further on the injuries or the cause of death until a post-mortem examination had been carried out.

Jesus, so four people break into someone's house and the householder gets stabbed to death?

Well, no, not exactly.

A burglar has been stabbed to death and the householder arrested on suspicion of murder after an attempted break-in at his house in Salford.

Four masked men attempted to get into a house in Ethel Avenue before midnight on Wednesday.

So, four masked men broke into someone's house and one of the intruders got stabbed and died. Well, them's the breaks, the stabber was probably scared out of his wits. The fact that there was only one stabee and that he only got stuck once would suggest that this was not a frenzied, rage fuelled attack of revenge. Preditcably:

Peter Flanagan, 57, son Neil, 29, and his son's girlfriend are being held.


The men and the 21-year-old woman are being questioned on suspicion of murder.

I cannot and do not support the death penalty, but if you and three mates mask up and break into someone's house, all bets are off. This, from the evidence at hand, seems to be a clear case of defense of property and life. In my opinion, a murder charge is not appropriate.

It is possible that the CPS will go for manslaughter, but even though the defender may end up escaping a jail term, he or she will still be stuck with a criminal record that could effect their life for the rest of their days. It seems unfair in the extreme to me.

Meanwhile over the pond:



No problem for law enforcement over there, and quite right too, you cannot cross someone's threshold and expect to be protected. IF the homeowner is lying in wait with the plan to kill the intruder, that is different, but in my opinion in a heat of the moment reaction there should be only one outcome. No charge.

Just to show there's no honour amongst thieves:

The stabbed man, 26, is believed to have been carried away by the other intruders as they fled, before being dumped in a street in Pendlebury.

Classy.

Clots, or how the system can work.

I'm waiting for the wailing, but it hasn't started yet. It will do once the Righteous finish their organic, free range, home knitted yoghurt, unhusked bran and pond water smoothies this morning.

Two events this week are proof if proof be need be that there is a new menace on our streets. Surely something must be done?

I give you Exhibit A:

A third teenager has appeared in court in connection with an airgun attack near a school in which 11 youngsters were injured.

The 15-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged at Ayr Sheriff Court with assault.

He made no plea or declaration and was released on bail.

Two youths have already been charged over the incident in Auchinleck, East Ayrshire, on Wednesday lunchtime.

Five girls and six boys aged between 12 and 16 were struck by pellets in the Church Street area of the town. 

No-one was seriously injured.

And Exhibit B:

SOCCER ace Ashley Cole left a fan "bleeding profusely" after shooting him at Chelsea's training ground, it has been reported. 

The controversial England defender allegedly took a .22 air rifle - the most powerful gun available without a licence in the UK - with him to training last Sunday.


The News of the World reports that Cole was messing around with the weapon in the dressing room when he inadvertently shot Tom Cowan, a sports science student on work placement with Chelsea.

It is high time that these weapons were banned before some other poor innocent bystander is injured in a slightly inconvenient manner which doesn't threaten their lives in the slightest.

I'm being slightly flippant. I'd be really pissed off if some lack-wit arseclown shot me with an air gun, and yes, to wheel out the favourite line of safety types, someone could have lost an eye.

But let's face facts here, the system appears to be working. The clots in Scotland are up before the beak, and because they've not done something really heinous, like dropping some fag ash on the floor, or something trivial like stubbing said cigarette out on a baby, they'll probably get a sentence that fits the crime.

Meanwhile Mr. Cole, a man who is a better clot than he is a left back, and he's a world class left back, probably thought he got away with it, but may find that now that the news of the screws has got hold of it he may face some action after all. The damage this article has done to his reputation is nil, due to the fact that his reputation is already lower than a snake's belly anyway.

What is it about some professional footballers (certainly not all, it is always the same half a dozen names that crop up) that makes them act like a complete arse?

There are differences between these cases, the lads in Scotland acted with malice and should be treated accordingly by the courts. Cashley was just an idiot, I don't think there was any intent, but it is symptomatic of his class. He's famous and rich, so whilst what happened to the young student in question is regrettable it will be just a bit of a joke to him, as the other guy isn't rich and famous and doesn't really count. We've seen time and time again how Cole has little regard for others, especially 'little people', if he's put up before the beak what can we expect? A fine and a victim surcharge which will never get anywhere near the victim and will not even make a dent in his wage packet of £100k per week plus. If I were given free reign, I'd give an order to spend the next 4 months training with his local TA regiment, where he would learn weapons discipline, get some humility and order, and if the evenings when the regiment train happen to clash with evenings when Chelsea play, then tough luck, perhaps the lost income will make you consider your actions in the future. It may also give him an appreciation of proper teamwork and the lot of those who do properly important jobs. His crime is not malice, it is a selfish lack of thought.

Of course that won't happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Nevertheless, the calls for the banning of air guns will probably grow in volume, because it is so much easier to call for the restriction of items than to hold those who misuse them to account for their actions. Once again, the majority will be made to suffer for the idiotic actions of the minority.

*Prize of a juicy bone to the person who points out the gratuitous Chris Morris reference.

Food for thought.

This woman is 51.

Gillian McKeith used to claim to be a doctor, until she was told to stop it. She promotes herself as a 'nutritionalist'. TV has bought into this in the UK and across the Atlantic. She has had TV shows where she advocates a 'holistic' approach to nutrition and ill health, promoting exercise, a pescetarian diet high in organic fruits and vegetables. She recommends detox diets colonic irrigation and supplements, also making statements that yeast is harmful, that the colour of food is nutritionally significant, and about the utility of lingual and faecal examination. She is a brow-beating, shreiking, foot-stamping, Righteous, harridan.

I'm betting she eats alone, in silence, probably indulging in a spot of scouring at the same time.



This woman is 50.

Nigella Lawson is a TV cook. Her entire output would have McKeith going purple with rage. She eats nothing but meat, butter and deserts. Half-fat is a mystery to her. No meal is complete without accompanying alcohol. She is one of the most popular figures in the UK. Admired by women for showing that real women exist and loved by men because, well, look at her.

I'm betting she eats with friends and family, surrounded by contented chatter and laughter. Except when she's tucking into the leftover chocolate mousse just before going to bed.

These two pictures demonstrate what the Righteous, the people that would have you smoke-free, drink-free, fat-free, friend-free, choice-free, freedom-free actually look like, and what they want you to look like. It also shows how those who want everyone to spend the time we have on this Earth actually living and loving, rather than surviving and cowering in fear, look.

Which would you rather be?

The Delusions of the Criminal.

What a shame to see Tommy Sheridan sent down for three years today. I hope he enjoys his first night in Barlinnie.

I just couldn't help but respond to his reaction to the verdict and sentence.

This multi million-pound prosecution will separate me from my wife and child and that will be heartbreaking.

Well, yes. But it could all have been avoided if you hadn't, you know, lied through your teeth in court.

But I will continue to fight a system that protects the real criminals - the rich and powerful.

Ah yes, the old Socialist mantra, rich equals evil. But where do you draw the line? Let's take Lord 'Sirallun' Sugar. As he's so fond of telling us, he started out selling tat from the back of his van in the East End, with a 20p loan from his old man, or something. At that point he was poor, he then progressed to being comfortable, before arriving at the station marked rich. But where are the dividing lines between the three? At what point did he become criminal in his richness? Who did he injure or hurt whilst he followed his programme of selling cheap electricals?

Does one become rich when say, ooooh, I don't know, £200,000 pounds falls into your lap? £200k which you got by lying?

I have today instructed my solicitor to lodge an appeal against conviction.

As is your right. I don't think you'll win though.

But also to launch legal action against the News of the World, the Metropolitan Police and Glenn Mulcaire over phone hacking.

And what in the wide, wide world of sports does that have to do with you being the most terrible liar?

In addition my solicitors will begin to contact a dossier of Scottish names handed to them of those whose phones may have been hacked.

May have been hacked? May? Angus McTavish. That's a Scottish name. Jock Campbell, there's another. Do you have any proof? It'd be terrible if you found yourself on the end of a defamation suit, wouldn't it?

Andy Coulson may have resigned for the second time but if he and others are not above the law then it is time that they faced justice.

Again? What does that have to do with you being a liar, liar pants on fire?

That chapter is yet to be written.

Yes, and we'll enjoy reading it hugely, I could do with a laugh.

His wife is equally as loopy.

Tommy has dedicated his life to helping others.

Yes, as long as they sing the hymns they are told to. He's also dedicated his life to helping himself of large amounts of Rupert Murdoch's cash, by telling the most awful lies.

The real reason why he's been imprisoned today is because he has fought injustice and inequality with every beat of his heart.

No, the reason he's been imprisoned today is because he is a bloody liar, and lied under oath, whilst taking someone else for every penny he could get. But hey! It's OK, because they are rich, and therefore by Tommy's definition, criminals.

But it won't be long before Tommy is back stronger and continuing the fight.

Yeah, about three years. Continuing the fight? Against what? Strengthening his already fleeting relationship with reality?

She then went off to have a few miniatures of Famous Grouse and Remy Martin she happened to have lying around the place. (possibly)

His mates are snivelling as well.

Solidarity will continue to give our full backing and support and backing to Tommy, and in particular to Gail Sheridan and the family at this difficult time.

Well, with a name like Solidarity, you couldn't very well not, could you? Come back and say hello in three years, see where you are then.

Neither Tommy Sheridan nor Solidarity will be broken. We stand, as always, in solidarity.

Oooh, does that mean you're all going to get an arsehole like the Japanese flag as well?

Solidarity condemns as barbaric and draconian the sentence imposed today on Tommy Sheridan. We believe the lengthy jail term imposed by the judge is vindictive.

Possibly, but then for some reason judges take a dim view of people standing in their courtroom, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and then committing perjury. It annoys them. It's a funny little thing, but that's just the way some people are.

It will reinforce the widespread view that this is the culmination of a brutal vendetta carried out by the rich and powerful against Scotland's most prominent socialist.

Widespread? Amongst whom? What's it like in the land of talking trees and chocolate bees? I was talking to a colleague who is as red as red can be, and even he was chuckling about it, saying how it had cheered him up.

Not all of his former mates are so keen though, there's the frantic sound of back pedaling here:

Today's proceedings finally end the ill-advised action Tommy Sheridan initiated six years ago in suing a tabloid over allegations he knew to be true.

He alone is responsible for where he sleeps tonight, no-one else. He pursued legal action full in the knowledge he would lie in court.

He asked his closest political allies and friends to join him in that crazy strategy and then turned on us because we refused.

He still shows no sign of taking responsibility for his own actions.

Quite. The most sensible thing that has been said from those around this ridiculous caricature of a man in a long, long time.

Seriously Tommy, give it up. You're starting to look properly mad here, real dressing up as Napoleon and persecution complex stuff. You gave it your best shot, I can't blame you for that. You've got through more briefs than Nick Faldo has had golf clubs, but you've lost, you deserved to lose, you were always going to lose. You're one step shy of being carted off to the McFunny Farm.

No, no, no, no. That's a no.

Another assault on our God given rights today. This is not a civil liberty, this is not a 'nice to have in the ideal world', this is not an 'only if you qualify.'

This cannot be taken away. It is not in Parliament's power to remove from us the inalienable rights which were granted to us by God before Parliament came to be.

When Louise Casey says that:

"We should not view the right to a jury trial as being so sacrosanct that its exercise should be at the cost of victims of serious crimes"

She is attempting to usurp God, she is placing herself above the concept of the Almighty creator that is so important to the constitution of the country. She is also portraying herself as one of the most disgusting, odious, objectionable people in the country.

Victims' Commissioner? What? We are all victims if this is introduced. If I were to be tried under this scheme by a Magistrate, I would find myself in Court refusing to comply or cooperate and shouting, very loud, that my God given rights had been infringed by a body which has no power to do so.

Perhaps the money spent on this department would be better spent on the Police or Courts Service, because I'll tell you what victims want; they want the criminal who has wronged them to be caught, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to a proper punishment that is really, properly proportionate to the offence committed. What they don't want is another self-important, attention whoring, mindless fucking quango headed up by another poorly tailored suit of toss all with a mouth that looks like a slit in the side canvas of a curtain sided artic.

Got it?

Just in case you are in any doubt, here is the clause of Magna Carta, which has served us perfectly well for the last 795 years, written in a plain style of English that is easy to understand, salient, concise and quite beyond anything that a shower like Louise Casey could write if her miserable, insignificant and pointless life fucking depended on it:

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.

Fuck you and the broomstick you rode in on, Casey.

You want to do away with this for the sake of expediency? I'll tell you this, doing away with the right to trial by jury (yes, even in the case of like, really complicated fraud trials) is but one step removed from sweeping away innocent until proven guilty.

More of this please.

The best way of learning is through one's mistakes.

So when Saeed Khan, the man who, as far as I can make out, runs the only remaining branch of the Post Office in Kent not situated in a bastard WHSmith, was robbed in his shop, he considered the chain of events and wasn't about to make the mistake of being caught unprepared again.

So. . .

Saeed Khan, 62, was alone in his shop in Byron Road when a man armed with a knife entered and demanded money. 

Mr Khan said he had kept a hammer near the counter to protect himself after his shop was targeted last month.

He said: "I hit him on his arm, but then he tried to come closer so I raised the hammer again and that's when he ran off.

Fair play to Mr Khan. Mr Khan sounds like just the sort of chap we need more of in this country.

However. . .

Mr Khan, who has run the post office for 27 years, said he believed the same man was involved on both occasions.

So it would appear our robber has now learned a valuable lesson; don't try and turn over Saeed Khan's Post Office, because he'll hit you with a hammer, and that bloody hurts.

The outcome? Well, this may be a little shocking.

You think I'm going to tell you he's been nicked for twatting this cretin with a hammer, don't you? Well, he hasn't been. I doubt this is due to an outbreak of common sense at Gillingham CID, it is probably down to the fact that the robber has not come forward to make a complaint.

No, the outcome is actually quite predictable.

Det Insp Ann Lisseman said: "(Mr Khan) was very brave but I wouldn't advise that people make use of weapons nearby or try and physically challenge offenders." 

Now, if we had country where the Police (and I attach no blame to the rank and file here) actually arrived when asked and had a better than average chance of catching the little scrote, where protestations about being hit with a hammer whilst engaging in the act of robbing a Post Office being a flagrant breach of one's human rights would be dismissed with suitable alacrity, and where the judiciary had the latitude and disposition to lock these arseholes up in a proper prison for a term longer than the 50% handed down, then this would probably be decent advice.

My advice would be the opposite. Keep a hammer near, and if someone tries to turn your gaff over, go at him with said hammer like a kid with ADHD at a fairground whack-a-mole stall. Once someone tries to harm you and/or yours or to take you and yours stuff, all bets are off. You get what you deserve.

Mr. Khan, I salute you.

As an aside, and to highlight the wonderful stupidity of some of the criminals within our midst, a couple with whom Mrs. Wolfers and I are friendly with had cause to have a late supper at one of my city's numerous Indian restaurants recently. They were surprised when the old bill arrived during an unremarkable dinner service and thoroughly enjoyed the sideshow as two men sat a table nearby were arrested following the inspection of CCTV footage shot within the restaurant earlier that evening.

It transpired that the two gentlemen in question had entered the restaurant earlier that evening and had swiped the tips jar sat on the counter. No doubt having exchanged the contents of the jar for some drinks in one of the city's fine hostelries, they felt a little peckish and decided to go for a curry.

In the same place they'd turned over earlier, where they were instantly recognised by the staff.

/facepalm.

Late to the party.

I've not had the opportunity to fly a proper sortie over Blogland for the last few days, still haven't this morning to be honest.

This from Anna Raccoon is a wonderful piece of work, important, blood pressure raising and heartening in the response to it.

I've nothing to add to what Anna has written. Please do go and read it.

The One That Says You Should Be Careful Who You Pick Fights With. . .

Old Holborn has posted a very entertaining video of two idiots in Swansea making a pain in the arse of themselves and then coming across someone who very efficiently cleaned their clocks, but it isn't just skinny shirtless (or in the case of the other one, a lard arsed 9XL T-shirt clad) pissheads that can make this mistake.

A group of Somali pirates has been captured after attacking a French navy ship by mistake, apparently thinking it was a harmless cargo vessel.

Ooops, that wasn't a terrific plan, was it?

(. . .)the pirates attacked in skiffs late at night some 500km (310 miles) off the Somali coast.

But the command and supply ship, the Somme, repelled the attack and chased the pirates, capturing five of them.

Now if this were a British ship, the Pirates would have been treated with kid gloves, not the fault of our matelots, it's the ridiculous touchy feely attitude we have towards everything.

Admiral Prazuck told French TV station La Chaine Info the pirates seemed to be surprised that the navy ship fought back.

"Once they realised they were facing a ship that was responding and was heading towards them, they stopped shooting and attempted to flee," he said.

I bet they bloody did. It's all smiles and laughter as you approach the unarmed cargo ship, isn't it? Not so much fun when you get some back. Cowards.

"The Somme gave chase and intercepted one of the pirates' boats. All the weapons had apparently been tossed into the sea and the suspected pirates are now being held on board the Somme."

I've seen the French Police National and the CRS in action at fairly close quarters (thankfully I wasn't the focus of their ire), I'm sure that these pirates were given a decent pasting for their efforts.

No doubt there will be people moaning that the French navy are nasty people for not looking significantly enough like a military vessel with guns and trained personnel.

Well done the Frogs.

The One That Says 'Just Stop It, Will You?'. . .

Another day, another senior policeman (retired) trying to make the law rather than enforcing it.

The government should review the Contempt of Court Act, the UK's former top anti-terror police officer says.

Peter Clarke said the law, designed to ensure fair trials by limiting reporting of cases, made it harder for anti-terrorism police to do their jobs.

When the police arrest someone in controversial circumstances, he wants them to be able to shout in the media about what they had done, why they had done it, and that these people are terrible terrorists.

No, Paul. That is what the court room is for. In the court room, the suspect (and do try and remember that in this country it is still, by and large, innocent until proven guilty. I know you HATE it.) can refute the allegations and defend themselves. The suspect will not be able to hold his/her own press conference to do this, on account of them sitting in a locked room with a little blue plastic matress.

That is not fair. Fairness is very important, Paul. Even if they are bang to rights, they still have the right to a fair trial. To do away with that will make us no better than Iran or Myanmar.

Perhaps you see yourself as Judge Dredd? Perhaps you would like to be able to pass judgement yourself, on the street? Then you can tell the media that you proved he was a terrorist and passed sentence as appropriate, but can't give details for security purposes.

Perhaps we can change some more laws to make your job easier?

- Removal of a right to representation? Those defence barristers are a shower, aren't they? They stand up in court and say you're telling porkies, or have got it wrong. If you did away with them, then your job would be much easier.

- Removal of the right to trial by jury? We're getting there already. Bugger Magna Carta, sometimes a jury makes the 'wrong' decision. That has to be a pain in the arse.

- Removal of the right to mounting a defence? If the nasty terrorist wasn't allowed to refute the accusations made, or contest the evidence presented, then it would save an awful lot of police and court time, wouldn't it? Of course, if you did that then you could work on . . .

- Removal of the necessity of presenting evidence? I mean, you are a senior policeman. People should just be quiet and do what you say, your word obviously should be law. You're hardly likely to use duff evidence, are you? No, it would be much better all round if you just led the accused into the dock and said 'Your Honour, he's a terrorist, we can prove it, but don't see the point in wasting everyone's time by showing that evidence, we'll just take him out back and shoot him, then we can all have an early lunch. That OK?'

Once you remove even the thinnest slice of a right to a fair trial, all the above could follow suit as easy as could be.

I don't trust you Paul. Wittering on to the press about this, that and the other won't change that. I want the courts to be robust and to follow a set procedure that has served us well enough over the years. It offers me protection against nasty people. Sometimes those nasty people wear uniform and carry warrant cards. The courts and the rule of law have primacy over you. I'll set it out in simple terms.

The law is made my MP's elected by us.

This means the law is made by us.

The Police are there to enforce the law made by us.

The Police are in this position because the law sets out the need for and responsibilities of the police.

As we make the law, the police are there because we want them to be.

Do you see, Paul? We employ you to do our bidding. We employ the MPs to do our bidding. We do not employ the MP's to do your bidding. We do not employ you to do your bidding.

Another new law has presented itself to me:

Senior Policemen who make bloody stupid comments to be deposited in North Korea with proscribed material on their person, so they can experience first hand the police state they seem so keen to introduce.

The One That Is Going To Pay Up. . .

. . . Eventually.

Ministers are to trim the number of DNA profiles on a national database by up to 850,000 after a court ruled innocent people must be removed.

Thank God for that, because just as with the Gurkhas, the government seemed determined to ignore what they were told and do what they wanted anyway.

Those arrested, but later released or acquitted, will have their profiles wiped after between six and 12 years.

Oh well, I suppose I can follow their example. I'll withold my council and road tax, and when they come calling I'll tell them I will pay, within the next six to twelve years. How much water do you think that would hold?

The Wonders What Will Be Done . . .

It's been reported this afternoon that Mohamed Al-Fayed will not face charges over the accusation that he sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl. This Al-Beeb report is a little light on detail, but Sky News broadcast an interesting report on the news this afternoon.

From what I recall, the accusation was that the assault took place in Harrods on a Saturday afternoon. Al-Fayed had a fairly watertight alibi in as much as that at the time in question he was at Craven Cottage (home of Fulham FC, the football club he owns) in front of around 20,000 spectators and the Match of the Day and Sky Sports cameras. 'No realistic prospect of conviction' said the CPS, oh, really, do you think?

Now I've no love for Al-Fayed, but if he didn't sexually assault a 15 year old girl, then he didn't sexually assault a 15 year old girl. Given Al-Fayed's courtroom history you can bet he'd assemble a pool of talent to defend him in the criminal courts that would make the respective talents of his Premierleague footballers look positively Sunday League standard. The CPS would have known this, but would they have been so far-sighted had the accusation been Joe Schmoe?

A question; given that the accusation was made in May of last year, why has it taken a full nine months for these accusations to be batted away? Assuming Plod popped round and said 'Look Mo, this girl's said this.' They could have NFA'd it when he said, 'I've 20,000 witnesses who'll say I was elsewhere at the time of the 'attack'.' The whole thing could have been dealt with within an hour and a half, tops.

The thing is, being accused of child abuse, paedophilia or sexual offences are the single worst accusations that can be laid at someone's door. I'd rather people thought I was a murderer, a terrorist or a bank robber, than a nonce. Al-Fayed will survive this slight because it now seems obvious that these allegations are tosh, however for the average man, the damage would be almost beyond repair. The looks on the street, whispers in the corner shop, threats or acts of violence in the pub, not because he's done anything wrong, but because a false allegation, for whatever reason, has been made against him.

Yes, any allegation will now result in your photograph, fingerprints and DNA being taken and stored, but if refused charge on almost any other count your community will by and large take that at face value. Get nicked for a sexual offence, and there's no smoke without fire.

For too long in this country, victims of sexual assault, abuse or rape would not be believed or would be seen to have been 'asking for it'. Thankfully now that situation has passed, however as with so many other things, it has swung the other way. Whereas before any accusation would be discounted as fantasy, now any plea of innocence from the alleged wrongdoer is also dismissed.

It is right and proper that the alleged victim is given anonymity, however the same must be extended to the alleged perpetrator, their identity must only be released in the case of a conviction. I would even go so far as to suggest that cases of this nature should be held in camera, to safeguard the reputations of all involved. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that if the alleged assailant here was Alfie Yed rather than Al-Fayed, a press release from the CPS on the matter would not have been forthcoming.

What of the complainant? Well, if as seems to be the case here, the accusation is manifestly untrue then she must be prosecuted for wasting police time. Whilst I think too many laws have been passed in the last ten years, and if one does not exist at this time, I believe there should be a criminal offence of wilfully seeking to damage an individual's reputation by making vexatious accusations of sexual assault. Make it carry a prison sentence. It is fair to say that a number of cases will go either way, but in cases where it is obvious that the whole thing has been a monumental waste of everyone's time, then it is time for action.

In this case the young lady is a minor, she should be afforded some protection in light of that fact, but should be shown the error of her ways, however in the case of adults I believe these vexatious claimants should be publicly named. A male convicted of rape would be publicly named, to warn the women of his community to give him a wide berth. False claimants should be given the same treatment, to warn the men of her community to do likewise.

The One That Wonders What The Court System Is For. . .

Yet another blow for the judicial system which has served us fairly well since 1215, Al-Beeb reports that the government has decided that absentee parents who do not pay their child support bills can have their passports and driving licences seized by the Department of Work and Pensions.

Odd that, I wonder if the DVLA can seize the pension payments of motorists who don't pay parking fines. or if the Identity and Passport Service can intercept your wages if you don't play ball with the government over their ID card scheme?

But that's not the best bit, the DWP can take these documents from you without a court order. So the only assumption is that an agent of the state will be able to come round to your house and enter your property without a warrant issued by a magistrate and rifle through your belongings until they find your passport and driving licence, which they can then take away.

Here's a scenario: Bob is a lorry driver and has a bit of a fling with Doris, Bob is sensible and always bags up. After a couple of weeks, Bob discovers Doris is a very friendly young lady who has showered other men in her town with affection whilst he's been picking up widgets from the factory in Bratislava for delivery to a plant in Coventry. Bob does not appreciate this lack of exclusivity and dumps Doris in a humiliating fashion.

Nine months later, Doris gives birth to a beautiful baby boy. Despite Bob's rule about using condoms, Doris wants him to be the father of the boy so names him on the birth certificate and chases him for support payments.

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission come calling and demand he support his child. 'Hang on a bloody minute,' says Bob 'what sprog? There's no way in the world this is mine, I always used a condom when I screwed the bitch.' He reasonably demands a DNA test. Doris, so keen for the truth to remain hidden, obstructs this with objections and ooman rights allegations so the case file gets sent to the 'It's not my bloody kid' team where it is lost in short order in a chaotic filing system buried under doughnut boxes.

After a spell of nothing happening at the CMEC, Doris kicks up a stink about her lack of cash, the CMEC take details of Bob, because they can't find the file, and send an agent round to get his passport and driving licence, whilst the office is turned up-side down looking for the file.

Bob then has to explain to his boss that he is unable to go to Bratislava to pick up this week's shipments of widgets as some crazy bitch has relieved him of his passport and driving licence. Bob's boss, Keith is sympathetic, but they rely on the widget contract, and he has no option but to let Bob go.

Of course the politicians and senior managers would say this could never happen. But, dear reader, you forget I am a civil servant. I know how an office which is populated by demotivated staff and subject to budget cuts whilst the budget for diversity training and Panglossian glossy in-house magazines goes through the roof, runs. It will happen. The pressure on middle managers from their senior counterparts to meet ever increasing targets means the front line staff are encouraged to cut corners, they are told 'just do it.' Then we get to lessons learned', blah blah.

You cannot deprive people of their liberty without the say so of the courts. This has been the case for 800 years now. It isn't about making the system 'faster, simpler and easier for the taxpayer', it is about propriety, accuracy and proportionality.

Yes, of course it should be an offence to father/mother a child and then bugger off leaving the other half to bring the kid up by themselves. I should imagine it is also an offence to make an application to the CMEC and wilfully claiming that an innocent party is the father. This is what courts are for, and the main duty of government agencies are to ensure that the decisions made and actions taken are the correct ones, not the cheapest ones.

Believe me people, the goverment does not know best. They are not best placed to make decisions in cases regarding parentage and their financial means. 'The Government' is not an expert organisation, it is staffed by normal, flawed human beings, under pressure to make things run in the face of a system that must make savings, but not in areas of Righteous control.

It can only end in tears.

The One That Is, To Be Frank, Amazed. . .

By this story.

Not the fact that she's been sacked.

The fact that she's been sacked without pay.

Did you ever?

What a pretty situation we find ourselves in now. What is the country coming to when a perfectly incompetent public servant, who totally fails to deliver on what she is paid to do, and is responsible for failing to prevent the spectacular death of a little boy, loses her job and doesn't trouser an enormous pay-off?

This sets a very dangerous precedent indeed. I hope the taxpayer takes note. . .

The One That Is Glad. . .

Further to my rant of yesterday, the High Court have dismissed Chambers' application for an injunction against the BOA.

I'm bloody delighted.

He has until close of court business today to lodge an appeal. Let's see how fast the fucker really is.

And to make today better, tonight is the Canterbury beer festival. I intend to drink more than my daily allowance of alcoholic units.