Skip to main content

Immigration and Crime

The hypocrisy of the British media on immigration.

Today’s Mail has another incarnation of the perennial “we can’t evict foreign criminals because of political correctness” nonsense. A Ghanaian woman is using what the Mail probably inaccurately describes as the Family Life defence (aka the pussy cat defence).

But if she committed the crime in this country, shouldn’t she be prosecuted and punished here; regardless of the place of her birth? If not then what law has she broken? Only the law of the land matters here, doesn’t it (including laws we sign up to)? So therefore why are we considering deportation? Wouldn’t it be even harsher to incarcerate her as a stranger to this country, if that’s what she is, thereby appealing to the Daily Mail ‘hang them and flog them’ crowd?

If she is deported we have no control over her fate with no guarantee she will get punished at all. Isn’t this what happened when the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was released. Even though the grounds were different (and decent – it was an act of compassion not contrition, despite what some right wing blowhards might think), he was released and deported. The point being that the papers carried many reports of Libya celebrating his return, as if to give the British the middle finger – that he should have remained in prison to suffer our good justice!

Isn't’ that hypocrisy?

What about the numerous cases of British people, usually women it seems, who become embroiled in drug smuggling charges. How many times does the right wing press call for them to be deported from the third world hellholes in which they wind up (further evidence of course of the squalid lives of Johnny Foreigner) back to Blighty? How many Mail readers would call for such people, even when guilty, to be deported back to Britain? Shouldn’t the people in those countries call for the same thing we do here? Of course we don’t want that; it serves these people right if they are guilty of breaking foreign laws, smuggling drugs for instance, and as such deserve to rot in foreign jails.

One rule for them: when ‘they’ come over here and break our law, we don’t want anything to do with them but stick them on the first plane back. But when it’s Brits breaking the law abroad we can wash our hands of them; our justice is inferior?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

U.N. and Them

What are my thoughts on this?

It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?

Yes.

Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.

Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?

Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?

Is it both?

We have a government, in a first wor…

Anybody Out There?

Just so I can be sure this is being read at all and decide whether it's worth continuing, please shout out in the comments. Even if you think I'm talking barmy bollocks, it'd be helpful to know if there are people reading this and not weird bots from phishing sites or Russian hackers or some weird sentient algorithm.

Apologies if you are none of those things, but I'm considering what to do with this blog.

Thanks