Friday, September 04, 2009

The Public's Right To Know

In my opinion, no matter how young these offenders might be, the very grave and perhaps sexually motivated nature of their crimes means that the law should consider them to be dangerous for the rest of their days. The law considers them to be very dangerous children - until one sees almost impossibly absolute evidence of their repentance and reformation, as adults the law should consider them to be very dangerous men.
Accordingly, their names and images should be released to the public, they should not be given new identities, adult images of them should be issued upon their release from custody and their neighbours should be entitled to be made aware of their histories.
By the same token, two days ago a serial sectarian offender named David Bates was imprisoned at Glasgow Sheriff Court; his fourth conviction for religiously aggaravated offences. The BBC reports that one of his priors was for a drunken and unprovoked assault on a priest. Somehow I don't think the message that his behaviour is sometimes unacceptable is quite getting through to Mr. Bates.
It seems quite clear that when drunk and in public, David Bates poses a danger to those he believes to be Roman Catholics; yet no image of him seems to have been published. This is disturbing. As citizens as well as Catholics, do we not possess the right to know what he looks like, so that we might avoid him should he appear to be in drink?
This is a live issue for me. I live quite near him. Although she has lived in the west of Scotland for many years, my wife's Irish accent still remains relatively undiluted. Oliver North remarked of Abu Nidal that he would meet him on equal terms anywhere in the world, but was not prepared to let his wife and family meet Nidal on Nidal's terms. I can understand this. While I would be willing to debate religion with David Bates on any terms he wishes, I really don't want my wife to meet David Bates, tanked up on Buckfast and in a Pope-fighting mood, on his terms.
Letting us know what he looks like might, just might, lessen the chance of that happening.

4 Comments:

Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

I dunno , Martin .

Are we not getting near the territory of locking people up for what they might do ,not what the have done ?

As for this Bates character , he should have been properly punished for attacking a man of the cloth .
How does 8 years hard labour sound ? Not very good to him I would imagine .

Putting him in the gaol for shouting at a shower of Irish Republican terror-apologists , who were wilfully desecrating a memorial service for our war dead , is moral inversion .
It doesn't matter whether you like him , his views or the evil deeds he has done before .

Is Justice not supposed to be blind and impartial ?

04 September, 2009 18:01  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

We now see the full consequences of the failure of the State to take the necessary conservative action to protect against the "free" market the economic basis of paternal authority in (initially working-class) families and communities in the form of high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs. Instead, that State sacked even those miners who had worked through the strike. Truly, these evil little boys are Thatcher's grandchildren.

04 September, 2009 19:45  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

That's a very interesting analysis , David . Where I come from we see it every day , only it was steel workers who had stood up to Scargill and his Commies who were thrown on the scrapheap .

While the free market unbridled was the immediate cause , socialism was , in my view , the major culprit on almost every level .

On an economic level , without the nationalisation of our local steel works , I'm pretty positive that Colville Bros. , or its successor , would still be going in some form .

On a social level , the promotion of cultural Marxism has destroyed the family unit and inverted justice to the extent that many , not all from the liberal elite , believe the guilty to be the victim and the victim to be guilty .

05 September, 2009 14:49  
Blogger Martin said...

Gentlemen,

Nationalise! Privatise! These are slogans. Most slogans are bullshit.

It is not 'who' or 'why' things are run that makes the difference, but 'how'. This is a concept which not even a Nobel laureate like Joe Stiglitz can grasp, as indicated by his remark on page 154 of 'Globalisation and its discontents' that,

"Governments, by and large, have little business running steel mills, and typically make a mess of it. (Although the most efficient steel mills in the world are those established and run by the Korean and Taiwanese governments, they are an exception)."

The British cultural revolution was nothing less than the forced and unmandated deconstruction of the national moral code in order to enable the aristocratic and accessed fornicate, or engage in whatever else might have been their vice du jour, in public and not feel constrained to keep it behind closed doors. All this 'British freedom' stuff is just BS. In British history, freedom is defined as the freedom of the rich to get richer while the poor suffer. Freedom is freedom for them to do what they want. We're here to pay and clean up after them.

05 September, 2009 15:31  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home