if those of us who bemoan the lack of proper journalism have a case under human rights laws, where our rights are concerned, in that we must have a right to expect factual and complete information from our media and those employed in it?
Allison Pearson (not I think a 'dumb blonde' - but I could be mistaken) has an article in today's Daily Telegraph entitled "The law is 'avin a laugh – but the joke is on Britain", one in which she ridicules the recent sentences (or lack of) imposed on immigrants -- and others - for crimes commited, due to their reliance, in their defence, on their human rights. Taken at face value, Allison Pearson's article hits the public concerns; makes quite good 'copy'; and probably helps to sell a few more copies of the paper for which she 'writes' - but as a piece of informative journalism it is pure crap.
In her article Allison Pearson informs us that the abuse of human rights make Cameron mad too; reminds him that he promised a new Bill of Rights, continuing:
"He assured me the Government was setting up a commission to look into a British Bill of Rights. What he omitted to tell me was that Nick Clegg would be in charge of it. I’m sorry, but allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to head a body to scrap the Human Rights Act is like appointing a vegan to the Texas Beef Council."
Therein lies one of Cameron's problems about the abuse of human rights, in that the LibDem tail will not allow the Conservative body to do squat diddly about changing the law on human rights - a fact that, to be fair, Pearson does acknowledge.
Where I have to take issue with her is on two counts. She states that the PM could do himself and the country a power of good by jettisoning a law that makes a mockery of the very justice it is intended to dispense, but fails to mention two points. First, judgements being handed down are intended to be compliant with obligations imposed by our membership of the European Union and also with the European Court of Human Rights, the latter to which we are beholden as a condition of said membership of the European Union. Second, were we to rewrite our Human Rights Act any appeals passed against sentencing under that Act would ultimately find their way to the European Court of Human Rights - which begs the question what is the point of attempting to amend the existing Act of Parliament?
Where I am wholeheartedly with Allison Pearson is where, quoting Cameron as stating that he is determined to get a grip on the twisting and misrepresentation of human rights, she writes:
"Three cheers for those noble words, Prime Minister, but what the hell are you going to DO about it?"
Exactly! So Mr. Cameron, what do you propose to do about something about which you can do nothing?