Today has provided two further pieces of evidence for my theory that in the Liberal's ideal world everyone will go to prison for fifteen minutes.
Down in Bedfordshire the Bill are holding a gun amnesty. So far, so clichéd. No doubt such amnesties persuade a few eighty-somethings to turn in their souvenirs - thereby helping to cut down on the number of murders committed using lugars. Except that this time there's a twist.
Say what ? 'Gun amnesty targets air weapons' - just phone the fascist prat and ask what would happen if there wasn't an amnesty. It's a blatant attempt by the Filth to intimidate people into handing over perfectly legal items. And how does this sleazebag justify this thuggery ? Ah yes: - "People don't know if firearms are real or imitation and are afraid when they are spotted." We'll leave aside that fact that off-the-shelf air weapons are neither real nor imitation firearms and ask if the same principle dictates policy generally ? After all, I'm sure I could dig up some people who fear blacks. Should their paranoia drive public policy ? In fact, to apply the above principle, should police officers also clamp down on Asians as the aforementioned nuts may mistake them for blacks ? Or do the Police only act on the rantings of bigots whose prejudices they agree with ?
Meanwhile, as the Kool Aid drinkers in blue are busily preparing the ground for Jihad against owners of water pistols, their fellow travellers claim the sentences for actually capping someone are way too harsh.
Truly, this report is a masterpiece of Liberal philosophising:
Members of the council decided in June that reduction of sentences for guilty pleas would be an "ideal first guideline".
The council will say rewarding a guilty plea with a discount saves time and money that would otherwise be spent on a contested trial.
Isn't that just splendid ? Here's an iron rule of politics: when Liberals object to excessive spending, you can bet the issue is either national defence or law enforcement. Free aromatherapy for the long-term unemployed will pay for itself, but mention protecting the public and the L3 turn into budget hawks.
The next line is even better:
A reduction also encourages the offender to admit what he or she has done, generally avoiding the need for victims and witnesses to give evidence.
Protecting the victim from the trauma of giving evidence being particularly important in the case of murder trials.
"Remorse is special personal mitigation requiring elasticity, as a discount of more than one third may be appropriate where absolute candour is demonstrated," the members said.
Yep, we'll just check 'em out with the remorsalyser, and if they score higher than 8.5, the years come off. But wait….. You say there's no such thing as a remorsalyser ? Looks like it'll come down to the opinion of a beardy-weirdy member of the self-same L3 elite that has always been against strong sentencing in the first place. Asking them if a murderer should get a break is like asking Michael Moore if he wants something to eat.
The guidelines have been drawn up by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, a new statutory body chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said in March that the establishment of the council was a "key reform to put the sense back into sentencing.
…thereby killing the myth that we are governed by soundbites.
However, it was not clear yesterday how he would react to the prospect that some murderers could serve less than the 15 years he regards as the minimum tariff.
Is it politics or is it Key Stage 2 Maths ? Let's see: minimum fifteen years, one-third discount equals…..not fifteen that's for sure. In other words, a Blunkett policy has been torn up almost before the ink is dry. Again.
So that's where we are today. Bedfordshire Constabulary desperately flipping through the 1722 Sundry Offences And Outrages Act trying to find some way to bust a local GP who enjoys plinking, while their ideological soul mates conspire to try and get psychos back on the streets ASAP. But remember, 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.