Category Archives: Law & Order

E-Waste & the Law

BBC World put out a documentary yesterday about e-waste from the UK. This is discarded electronic equipment, a large part of which is televisions. The lasting image from the programme is of a young Ghanaian teenager  burning a whole bunch of wiring, the aim being to extract the raw copper, which earns him about $1 a day. His hands were black, pitted and scarred and no doubt his lungs were full of toxic fumes, as were those of the other kids scavenging the dump.

The destruction and/or recycling of electronic waste is dangerous, principally because of the toxic nature of many of the materials, including lead. This is why it is ILLEGAL to export it; it HAS to go to a specialist recycling centre in the UK. We saw one; the owner said a massive investment had been made in state-of-the-art processing facilities, but the plant was running at only around 40% capacity. Why? Because even today it is believed that over HALF of the e-waste produced in Britain is being illegally exported. It ends up in dumps in Nigeria, Ghana and other poor countries.

OK so far ….. NOW, the punishment for breaking this law about exporting e-waste is A) unlimited fines and B) up to two years’ imprisonment. However, according to the programme, NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN JAILED for breaking this law and the HIGHEST FINE EVER IMPOSED was £12,500.

Those who complain about too many people being sent to jail should perhaps consider what the hell is going on here. Criminals are CALLOUSLY exporting toxic and dangerous material to poor countries KNOWING that people (children are people, too ……..) will be POISONED and in many cases have their health ruined FOR EVER.

The chances of the criminals getting caught are – it seems – small, and even if they ARE caught, the punishments cannot in ANY way be considered a deterrent. This situation is a MASSIVE betrayal of poor people – principally in Africa.

Toxic fumes waft across the dump ......

Many people – including me – will think the law is a sick joke. Wanting REALISTIC punishments which will act as a deterrent is not the mark of a “hang-em-high” Tory but the mark of a rational person who is disgusted by the – in this case British – exploitation and poisoning of the poor of another country. What is the POINT of (feeling good about) giving aid with the LEFT hand while the RIGHT hand is tolerating the poisoning of the poor?

So Mr Ken Clarke? Where do YOU stand on this?


Tags: , , , ,

Legal Farce

From “The Daily Mail”:

Two thirds of serial criminals dodge jail: Thousands with 15 convictions or more ‘let off’ with fines or community service

Instead of being put behind bars, more than 62,000 offenders were given the lesser punishments last year according to shocking new figures. On top of this more than 4,000 walked out of court with only a caution as the figures revealed that serial offenders are less likely to be given a jail sentence today than at any time in the past decade.

One suspects that those responsible for this laissez-faire attitude are not principally the same as those who suffer from it.

The bottom line is;

A) crime usually involves being NASTY to someone else and
B) nobody FORCES you to commit a crime; you make a deliberate choice

As things are going at the moment, the concept of “deterrent” and its place in a criminal’s decision about whether to commit a crime or not is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 30, 2011 in Law & Order


Tags: , ,

Hit & Run Killer Stays in Britain

HM Courts Services ,   102 Petty France, LONDON
Dear Mr Meek

The hit-and-run driver who killed a young girl while banned

  • This man should never have been in the UK in the first place, let alone allowed to stay once he had already committed crimes here.
  • His “punishment” for killing the girl was stupefyingly-pathetic (as of course most punishments are).
  • The idea that sending him back to Iraq “breaches his human rights” is stupid and disgusting; 99% of people wouldn’t agree with it, but of course they are only plebs and don’t count for ANYTHING.
  • Our men are fighting and dying for the freedom of his country – he could do the same instead of fleeing here and killing our citizens.
  • The family of the victim now have to live knowing that this scum is free to walk the streets, almost certainly on benefits.

He has children? Oh yes, well apart from the fact that he should not have been here to father children to be brought up at public expense his children are hardly going to benefit from being brought up by a habitual criminal and killer. He should have been given the option to return to Iraq with or without the children.

Committing a crime means being DELIBERATELY very nasty to someone. People committing crimes should be “punished”. If your own child is VERY NASTY to someone, then you punish the child, no? Otherwise he or she is going to think it’s OK, that nobody takes it seriously and that there’s no particular reason not to do it again.

Of course, being rich and important and no doubt living behind fortified doors and windows and protected by the security services, Messrs Clarke & Clegg run far less risk of suffering personally from crime than ordinary people, ESPECIALLY the weak and poor. This is the real problem; we need a Justice Minister who is poor and lives on a crap housing estate. THEN they would understand.

A young woman was convicted yesterday of KICKING TO DEATH a man in Trafalgar Square (the next day she boasted about it on Facebook.) I’m waiting to see what sentence she gets. What do you reckon it’s worth, kicking someone to death on the streets of London? 5 years, out in 2? Or perhaps an ASBO? As I said, it is all a farce.

We are in a situation now Mr Meek where only the BNP seems to offer the criminal justice system that the majority of people clearly want. Does that make Mr Clarke happy?

Yours sincerely


Leave a comment

Posted by on December 17, 2010 in Britain, Law & Order


Tags: , ,


“Call over hard drugs ‘irresponsible'”

That ALWAYS say that. Anyone who speaks their mind rationally on a sensitive topic AGAINST the prevailing PC nonsense is called “irresponsible”.

It’s EXACTLY like those calling for a reduction in immigration are called “racist” (or bigots of course!), those who accuse the EU elite of rampant cronyism, lies and legalist theft “eurosceptics” and those asking for guilty of multiple repeat burglaries to be locked up are called “reactionary” or of course “fascist” – very fashionable these days.

Disagreeing with the current PC-thinking on anything is likely to bring down on you a series of insulting, personal attacks and rubbishing and is the level to which serious debate has descended in the circles of our so-called betters who, of course, always know best.

If people A can’t speak their minds without being rubbished and People B have closed minds then we will never get far.

I know how Galileo must have felt.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 16, 2010 in Core Thought, Law & Order


Ludicrous Penal Policy

HM Courts Services                                                  2 December, 2010
102 Petty France

Dear Mr Meek

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me. I am sure you have enough to do without being pestered by persistent whingers, but I feel compelled to put my point of view.

I appreciate your comments; Of course, judges in the UK are independent of the legislature, which is one of the crowning glories (there are still a few left) of our country. Unfortunately, this argument doesn’t cut the mustard, even when one takes the inadequacy of press-reporting into account (And the press is not always wrong, either.)

Parliament is sovereign. It makes the laws; judges interpret them. I see many judgements as plain daft, and this can’t be blamed on judges or inadequate reporting. Judges are human, so a certain % of them are no doubt as daft as any other group. The point is, the framework of action of judges is decided by Parliament. Unfortunately, I am not alone in thinking that “the law” (the whole apparatus) is something of a joke and certainly a disgrace.

I refer you to the following, which appreared on 5th December in “The Independent”:

In 2009, 2,660 criminals received non-custodial sentences for indictable offences – serious enough to be tried at Crown Court – despite being cautioned or convicted between 51 and 75 times, almost double the 1,605 total in 2007. The number of offenders who avoided immediate custody, despite having between 16 and 25 previous convictions or cautions, rose from 25,000 in 2007 to 28,000 last year.

In total, 3,500 people escaped prison sentences in 2009 despite having more than 50 previous convictions or cautions – compared with 2,182 in 2007. In 2009, 20,913 offenders – who had been convicted or cautioned between 26 and 50 times – received non-custodial sentences – compared to 16,367 in 2007. The law defines a persistent offender as someone convicted or cautions for three or more separate offences.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of judges’ decisions and how they are reached, or the dislike of Mr Clarke for custodial sentences,  the idea that anyone with FIFTY previous convictions or cautions can escape prison is surreally-nonsensical. You know as well as I do the terrible cost of crime in both financial and human terms. A person with FIFTY convictions has caused IMMENSE cost and hurt, but is left FREE to continue doing the SAME? I am sorry, but it is plain WRONG. It is all very well disliking prison (who doesn’t – it is very expensive) but if it is the ONLY THING THAT WORKS, THEN WE have NO CHOICE.

Personally, I regard “community sentences” for most of these persistent offenders as a joke. Clearly, THEY DO NOT WORK. These people with multiple convictions are just having a laugh at us. Worst of all, this all brings the law into disrepute. My impression is that my misgivings about the current direction of policy are widely held, and it would be nice to think that the feelings and opinions of the plebs count for something, and not just at election time either.

Please do not feel obliged to reply as I know this argument could go on for ever. I would just be grateful if you would add my comments to the general weight of feedback that the Minster receives.

Yours Sincerely                                                 C SNUGGS

See also:

High Street chains have launched 600,000 private legal actions against alleged shoplifters in ten years, it has emerged.

Big names such as Boots, Tesco, Debenhams, Asda, TK Maxx, Wilkinson, B&Q and Superdrug are demanding a £150 penalty each time in civil actions against alleged thieves.

They adopted the policy after the last Labour government decided police no longer had to pursue criminal prosecutions against many shoplifters.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 6, 2010 in Britain, Law & Order


Cutting off hands

These are the people trying to get an atomic bomb.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 24, 2010 in Core Thought, Law & Order


Tags: ,

More Sectarian Lunacy

Anyone doubting the lunacy of some of these Muslim sects only needs to read this. No doubt half the Imams unhinged by their “beliefs” are living on public money.

How tolerant are we supposed to be? Till we have Afghanistan mark II on British streets?


Tags: , ,