Crazy judicial decisions 

Is it any wonder our migration policy is in the mess it is in and there is so much negativity towards migration itself when our judges are making the decisions they are making.  In recent times they have refused to allow the deportation of a 25 year old who sexually assaulted a 13 year old girl, stated that a female who came to England should be classed as a refugee as the HIV treatment she came to obtain for free from the NHS for was not available at home and only yesterday turned the whole system on its head by stating that it was unfair to expect deportees to appeal AFTER being deported. This means that they should be allowed to remain whilst they appeal ( The govt’s stance was ‘deport first appeal later). We are all aware of the time these processes take so foreign criminals convicted in and imprisoned by an English court of law are now allowed to stay here and appeal at tax payers expense ( this decision was regarding two West African drug dealers and the judges decision was based on the premise that giving evidence by video link would be almost impossible and an expense they could not bare. – Has he never heard of FaceTime for crying out loud. It’s free video linkage anywhere in the world).  

The message this sends not only to all our foreign criminals but also to the hard working struggling British public is all wrong.  

Come here. Take our hospitality and then abuse our hospitality. Break our laws and then with the assistance of our left leaning euro fond liberal elite judicial system use our money to fund your appeal against that same judicial system.  

Brexit was meant to free up our judges to allow them to place less consideration on the wishes of convicted foreign criminals and more on the wishes and rights of the indigenous British population. 

With decisions like this I am frankly beginning to wonder if the whole process was a waste of time 

Oh dear. Is brexit dead? 

Is it just me or has a meaningful Brexit deal just died?The Prime Minister has just announced that both Houses of Parliament will have a vote on ‘ The Final Deal’

Now that is a real game changer. 

They are not voting on article 50 or wether to invoke it. Nope. They are voting in wether to accept the final deal. Now that deal is 2 years plus away so what if they don’t like it? Do we wait another year what it greys watered down further. Do we come back with options A B and C.  

 Corbyn. That Buffon in a tweed jacket, has already stated that the PM is wrong to want to leave the single marke and that none of us voted for a hard Brexit so already there is massive dissent and it’s only minutes after the announcement. ( by the way he is wrong. I voted for a hard brexit and many people I know also did. In fact I think we should already be out but be obviously knows I don’t know what I am on about!!) so potentially that is most of the labour votes gone. 

What would it take to keep ‘Wee Krankie’ happy? Nothing short of having the EUs babies I am guessing so that’s another 50 votes that will against anything the negotiators bring back. 

How can you go in to discussions knowing that you have to appease people who are outside the meeting and on ‘your side’ of the argument but who disagree with everything you are trying to achieve. 

The EU negotiators will just force our hand and only give us unpalatable options knowing full well that at the very least the House of Lords, a group so pro the EU all their names should start Jean Claude, will vote down anything that does not involve free movement of peoples and a full membership of the single market. 

That being the case what can we change?  

I voted to leave the EU. ALL of the EU and personally all it represents. 

I would at this juncture like to issue a warning to the ‘idiots in ivory towers’. 

Go against the will of the people at your peril. 

Amber Rudd on radio 4 at lunch time would not even answer the ‘what if the government doesn’t win the vote’ question. 

Dutch Justice

I always throught our justice system was weak but after reading about Jashmid Piruz an Afghanistani man who in 2006 beheaded his tenant I think we are quite strict!!Having fully admitted the offence and found to be sane – though how beheading someone can be the actions if a sane man I do not know – he was sentenced to 12 years in jail and fined 6000 euros to the husband to help with flying the deceased’s ashes home to China?? 

He served 8 years. Yes folks EIGHT years of his sentence before release. 

The man cold bloodedly cut a woman’s throat and all but decapitated her cleaned up ‘the mess’ and went about his business and spent 8 years in jail. 

He then travelled to Sweden and then England. 

He committed offences in both countries and The Dutch did not think they should inform the UK authorities that a man still under Dutch authorities control FIR MURDER was visiting England

Low and behold he spits in the face of airport staff and later attacks two police officers with a hammer injuring one of them.  

He is sentenced to another 12 years at tax payers costs and when released ( fully after 8 I guess but probably on tag after 6) he will be free to remain because he is classed as an EU citizen courtesy of the Dutch authorities. 

Surely at the very least he should be returned to Holland to serve his sentence at their cost. After all they decided he could be one of their citizens. 

I am not and never have been an advocate of capital punishment or an eye for and eye punishment but surely to goodness 8 years should have been a warm up stint for this evil brutal man.   

He is and always will be a danger to society and for societies sake needs to die in jail. 

The problem with prisoners.  

So Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke have got a solution to our prison population problem Cut it in half!   


That would work. The remaining prisoners get loads of space and you would not have to employ any more prison officers because the ones you have could deal with the remaining offenders. 

One slight little ittsy bittsy teeny weenie problem though.  

What do we do with the other half if we let them out. 

You know.  

Tell them off for being miscreants and make them promise to be good or Santa won’t bring them a benefits cheque. 

Then of course they will promise to be good forever and no more crime will be committed. 


Hang on a minute

No it won’t. 

We have had years of liberal weak prison and justice treatment and it is those very actions that have led to prisoners feeling like they have all the rights. It has also led to prisons becoming a place where folk go for a break. 3 months inside. I could do it standing on my head.   
It should be. 

“Yes staff”

“Your rights stopped at the door son”

“Yes staff ”
Until prison STARTS as a place of correction ( punishment) it will never be a deterrent.   
This problem by the way would not have been anywhere near as bad if this government and the coalition before it had not seen fit to decimate the prison service together with the police and army!  

Why are the latter 2 also important? Well when it REALLY kicks off who are they going to call. The ghost busters won’t be any good. 

I suppose all the left leaning liberal do gooders could rush in and cuddle them. I would pay to see that. 

One last little point 

Apparently, like the police, prison officers will need a degree before they can be recruited. That is going to be z whole shot load of use as the 15 stone brain dead gorilla is deciding which part of your anatomy he is going to snap off next.  

The qualifications that seem obvious to me for a good prison officer are as follows:

Tough. Honest. Tough. Fair. Tough. Helpful. Tough. Smart. Tough. Fearless. Tough. 

The people that make these mad dangerous decisions have no understanding of the reality of the criminal class. They are not all poor unfortunate down trodden and dispossessed.  

Many are down right nasty awkward violent psychopathic sub humans who get off on pain and who are now taught that, ‘They have rights ‘

It’s all the other missing teachings though that are the problem. 

To all my prison officer friends. 

Keep safe and the common man/woman appreciates your dedication 

Soldiers and politicians don’t mix.  

This is an open letter to every politician in this country of ours.  

To whom it may concern

Dear Sir or Madam

You send our young men and women all around the world to fight on our behalf. They are normal ordinary people asked to do an extraordinary job. They are taught how to fight, how to kill, and how to survive against all the odds. They are there to protect us from the horrors of this world and to come face to face with those that wish this country harm. 

They are taught the rules of engagement for war and how to ‘police’ the most dangerous of trouble spots.  

For many years this was Northern Ireland. I know because for a couple of years I was a member of her Majesty’s armed forces and carried a gun and live rounds in that very province. I was not as front line as many of the Army personnel but on two occasions at least I was a second or two at most from shooting someone. Literally a second or two from trying to end someone’s life. I was lucky. I did not have to make that decision and pull the trigger but many of my colleagues did and had to open fire.  

Sadly people died and sometimes even more sadly the wrong people died, but, remember this. We were at war. The ‘enemy’ were trying to kill us. Sure. They didn’t have a uniform but they were the enemy none the less. Somehow a uniform would have made it so much simpler but jeans and a t shirt didn’t spell IRA or PIRA or UVF. 

Today I read that a 75 year old distinguish service ex soldier has been charged with attempted murder for a death over 40 years ago. A death that has been investigated on three occasions already and on each occasion this soldier has been toms he has no case to answer. 

On the forth attempt they think there is a case and he has been charged. 

There are no witnesses no evidence and no firearms yet he has been charged. He has co operated with the enquiry at every juncture yet, I repeat, he has been charged. 

On the other side of the fence suspected Irish terrorists who have evaded capture and refused to be interviewed have received government letters, that is letters from YOU, of pardon even though there IS evidence of cold calculated murder. Even in instances where the letters were sent in error the government has honoured them.  

Why then have you sat back and allowed our retired soldiers to be thrown to the wolves? Especially as YOU have shown rightous indignation at the IHAT investigation where bogus complaints were drummed up by unethical lawyers for financial gain.  

Why have you allowed this investigation of honourable soldiers but nor pursued known and suspected terrorists.   

If you or any of your colleagues have even a shred of dignity loyalty or moral righteousness then raise this issue NOW.  


Richard Sainsbury

Taker of the Queens Shilling 

Why the article 50 decision is so important

I have been thinking about this whole article 50 thing and the eleven members of our judiciaries finest sitting for four days to decide if the PM needs parliaments permission to invoke it.  Now part of the remainers argument is that the brexiteers wanted our judges to make our laws so how can they object and I can sort of see that BUT there are certain questions that need asking.  

Q1. Does this question even need asking?

Parliament discussed this matter at great length and decided to put the question to the public. I firmly believe that they were convinced the public could be pushed towards remain and as such they got the public feeling spectacularly wrong.

The public said leave so the question was answered. The public were not asked how, why or when so the only option was to leave or stay. Since we have said leave surely the government has a duty both morally and legally to comply with the will of the people. 
Q 2. Why have the remainers taken this action ? 

What the remainers want is to remain but they are aware of the answer above and realise the consequences of defying the public. By bringing this action they can try for the moral high ground claiming that they respect the wishes of the people to leave but want to ensure the signing of article 50 is lawful and correct. Thereby claiming it is only a matter of principle. Should the decision go the way of the government and the royal prerogative is deemed acceptable then they can smile through gritted teeth and tell everyone how important the decision has been and how they have helped this country peel away from Europe and remain. democratic at the same time.  

If they succeed and the original decision is upheld then again they smile though the teeth are less clenched obviously and claim that the rule of law has spoken and after all that is what the brexiteers wanted.  
Q3. What do the remainers hope to gain?

Considering 1 and 2 above they could not realistically hope to overturn the referendum result or get a second referendum on the same question so a second way to remain had to be found. If the result is in their favour then the government will be forced put through legislation to allow them to trigger article 50. This will eventually get through of course BUT every naysayer will have their pound of flesh. The SNP the Greens the Lib Dems and what is left of the Labour Party will all have demands and to get any sort of deadline the government will have to accede to these requests. 

Free movement of peoples, payment to ensure access to the single market, an agreement to accept some EU laws in return for access to Strasbourg. All will be demanded and given. The remainers will stand up and say. ‘Look. We got what we wanted but helped you leave. How good are we?’ whilst in reality we will still be in the EU in all but name. 

I hope I am wrong. I really really do but …….

The MET got it wrong with CSE.   Or did they? 

Whilst CSE is a most reprehensible of an offence and whilst it affects the most vulnerable in society I do wonder at the actions of some of those put in place to report on the processes of those tasked with its investigation. The MET have just been heavily criticised in relation to dealing with child sexual exploitation but does anybody really realise just how many officers it takes to find a missing child?  

It is one of the most labour intensive resource heavy operations the police carry out and they are expected to do this every time a child is missing. Can no one else see why, when that child is a permanent missing person who climbs out of the rear window five minutes after being returned to its place of safety, officers are often slow to provide resources to a situation.  Not every missing child is missing for the same reason and officers MUST prioritise.   They cannot do otherwise.  

Even if the investigating officer feels the child may be at risk, if they come back fit and healthy and cannot wait to leave again and refuse to speak to the police, senior officers must look at the best use of their resources. 

Whilst people are being beaten up on trains and groups of schoolchildren are attacking police officers.  People are trying to jump off bridges and terrorists are threatening the very fibres of society things more immediate are always pressing. 

I fully accept that the police have a responsibility and a duty to investigate each and every offence but if demand outweighs resource then something must always give. 

Unfortunately wherever resources are put something else will suffer. Someone will then write a report bemoaning the lack of police action in that area. 

All I ask is that people understand that the rank and file, fighting over something as basic as who can use a police car whilst juggling an impossible workload and being pressured from both supervision and victim, really are trying their very best.   

Mr Mings Rants about stuff