Like An Onion
There are many layers of st00pidity here:
Police have warned householders to be on their guard against three career criminals who are about to be released from prison.
But, astonishingly, they are refusing to name the villains - for fear of violating their human rights.
Officers in Suffolk are convinced the three, all drug addicts, will begin committing burglaries again after they are released in a few weeks.
Oh, where to start . . . let’s see, if they’re going to be a danger to the community, then why are they being released? There’s one. But you have to wonder what these brain-dead excuses for police think householders are supposed to do. They’ve been warned against nameless, faceless entities, after all, so why give a warning at all? And by now, aren’t the Brits used to criminals getting slapped on the wrist only to be released and commit crimes again?
Their concerns prompted them to warn householders in the men’s home area, telling them to be sure doors are locked and windows securely closed.
But they are refusing to give out crucial details which could help families protect themselves - including the men’s photographs, names and ages.
The decision has amazed and alarmed residents.
Adrian Peachey, chairman of Mildenhall parish council, said: “It is bizarre. We should have the right to know who they are.”
At least Mr. Peachey has more than four neurons left. Oh, but it gets worse:
Newmarket town councillor Bill Burch said: “Human rights can be taken to such extremes these days for no apparent reason. This decision is odd, to say the least.”
A Suffolk Police spokesman insisted the force was following legal guidelines. But after inquiries by the Daily Mail, the Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that the Human Rights Act “explicitly allows public authorities to interfere with an individual’s right to privacy in the interests of public safety”.
In response, the police then claimed that releasing the information would be “disproportionate” - prompting critics to accuse them of putting the criminals’ interests before those of the pubinlic.
So it wasn’t some idiotic liberal law this time — it was the decision of the police not to release the names of the criminals in order not to hurt their feelings.
The case is the latest where criminals’ “human rights” have been cited to steamroller public concerns about safety.
Last month Northumbria Police released the names or pictures of five wanted men - but refused to say what crimes they had committed.
In January Derbyshire Chief Constable David Coleman was accused of “madness” after refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers.
I’m trying really, really hard not to laugh.
Suffolk police initially said: “This is about the men’s human rights. We can’t give their details out because it would be like giving anybody’s details out. Why should we discriminate against them?”
I get it now. This is a typo. It’s not police they’re talking about — it’s defense attorneys.