• Ian Huntley: A duty of care.

      3 comments

    The news that the man convicted of the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2003 is to sue the government (that is we taxpayers) will doubtless anger many readers. How dare this murderer seek compensation for his injuries and suffering. He brought it on himself many will say.

    Let us tackle the question of litigation by asking two questions:
    1. Does that state have a duty of care towards Ian Huntley?
    2. If so, should he receive compensation?

    The answer to the first question is in the opinion of the British Gazette is yes. This is because the duty of care owed by the state to a convicted prisoner lies at the heart of the criminal justice system. It can be said that the apportionment by the state of retribution against the wrongdoer is once of the core functions of civilisation. What this means in the case of Ian Huntley is that the state took it upon itself to discover the perpetrator of the murders, to prosecute, convict and punish him. It is for the state to punish Ian Huntley. Not the family of his victim, nor any other person.

    This is fundamental. Were the state to allow or acquiesce in a situation where Ian Huntley had to “run the gauntlet” of attacks to his person on the basis “that he made his own bed [of nails?] and now his to lie on it” this would be a case of the state standing by whilst other persons decided to exact their own vengeance upon the felon. It is therefore absolutely necessary that such as Ian Huntley are kept safe. This of course is an extremely expensive task. It means that such as he have to be closely guarded especially at times where he may come into contact with other prisoners.

    Of course, Ian Huntley is not the only felon convicted of horrific crimes who fears for their personal safety within British prisons. There are many others.

    Of course many British Gazette readers may well suggest that the penalty that Ian Huntley should have faced was hanging by the neck until the life in him had been extinguished. It could well be argued that hanging Ian Huntley within around two weeks of his conviction would have been a kinder punishment (for him) and would have enabled the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman “closure.”

    From time to time, generally in the wake of a horrific criminal act, there are calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Our treasonous politicians will put forward arguments such as the inability to rectify miscarriages of justice [the single most powerful – and to many including the Editor of the British Gazette over-riding reason for eschewing its re-introduction] but will fail to point out that they are UNABLE to re-introduce the death penalty because they have ceded this power to the European Union.

    This however requires clarification: the reason why the Europhile traitors cannot reintroduce capital punishment is because adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (long title: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and membership of the Council of Europe and ratification of the convention are criteria of being a member of the European Union.

    The European Convention on Human Rights drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe came into effect on the 3rd September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights.

    Many British Gazette readers would point out a seeming discrepancy here. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965 in the U.K. – twelve years after the convention coming into force. How then could capital punishment be against the convention? They may ask.

    Because of the European Court of Human Rights is the answer. The judges (none of whom are elected or are accountable to the public) of the court have taken it upon themselves to develop a body of “case law” and to expand the convention in scope. In 1954 it was within the convention to hang a man. Fifty years later in 2004 it wasn’t.

    If the British people want to see murderers like Ian Huntley hang, then the only way they will achieve it is by electing sufficient members of parliament prepared to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 and abrogate all subsequent treaties and also to introduce legislation to make the European Convention subservient to the law of England and the law of Scotland.

    • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does not bar capital punishment,, this as you point out was added later by unelected judges.

      Article 5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
      “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

      This clause does not prohibit capital punishment, it merely states that all punishment must be meted out humanely.

      But the original concept of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was not to protect criminals from just punishment, but the law abiding citizens from being persecuted, either by their own governments, or by the governments of other signatories.

      Article 30.
      ‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.’

      These ridiculous, and unelected judges of Europe have twisted the original concepts of liberty and freedom, set out in the Declaration, so that now criminals are protected from just punishment, on the grounds that it could be considered, cruel, inhuman or degrading.

      We should hang Huntley and all the other cold blooded killers we house at crippling expense.

      Kenneth Clarke is right, there are too many people in jail; many of them should be hanged or deported, and the repeat offenders physically punished.

      History has shown, that when the punishment for crime is not harsh enough to act as s a warning, not only to the offender to prevent him re-offending, but also as a deterrent to others, to others, it becomes an empty gesture, of no practical use.

      The law is an umbrella that protects us as we go about our lawful business. To suggest that someone can step outside the umbrella, and yet still remain protected by it while they commit a crime, is an absurdity.

      Oscar Wilde had it right, “The law is an ass!”

      And in my own opinion , most lawyers are ass . . . .

    • Well said Tony Butler!

    • Let the other inmates deal with him as they see fit, that’s how the Americans dealt with Jeffrey Dahmer, prison officials simply looked the other way and the matter was quickly and permanently resolved.

    Write a comment