Home Office in Meltdown part 94

Another person, not actually convicted of anything has absconded from a control order.

It gets better (or worse, depending on how you look at it).

According to Iain Dale here, getting the government to admit to it was a bit like extracting hens teeth.

The BBC has this article.

From it we can get these quotes

The orders were brought in for cases where there was not enough evidence to bring suspects to trial.

I see. So innocent under the "Old School" rules of innocent until proven guilty.

"In the latest case, the suspect absconded shortly after being served with a control order."

Well, there are only 18 of these in place, according to Dr John Reid, so why is thee a problem. It is not like they are swamping the system.

"The control order was designed to address the risk posed by an individual who had recently been radicalised and wanted to travel abroad for terrorism-related purposes."

I see. no problem here then. How exactly do we know he wanted to commit acts of terrorism abroad, as opposed to being very upset at what happens overseas? What does radicalised mean exactly? having a chat with your local Socialist Workers Party newspaper salesman, or chatting to a member of some radical Islamic group?

"The individual is not believed to represent a direct threat to the public in the UK at this time."

So why is he the subject of our most draconian laws then?

Mr Reid said public safety was the "top priority" for the police and government.

You do jest don't you? After all we have had the foreign prisoners fiasco, followed by the criminal records fiasco.

He said police were trying to track down the suspect and "an anonymity order is in place".

After consulting the police, the government is currently not seeking to overturn the order, added Mr Reid.

No kidding? He is so dangerous that he is subject to our most draconian legislation, but you don't want to tell us who he is or show his photo so we can tell you where he is?

A Home Office spokesman said: "Control orders are essential where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.

Right, so you have no evidence but just know their wrong uns. Hmm.. lots of coppers have ended up with egg on their face with that sort of attitude.

"However, we have always made clear that control orders were introduced as a next best alternative for dealing with suspected terrorists."

What is the next best way of dealing with them exactly?

"We have sought stronger controls to deal with suspected terrorists who cannot be prosecuted, but have been prevented by Parliament and the courts."

Really? You have lost three people on control orders, out of 18, that is one fifth, or 20%. The latest of whom is no threat to us in the UK, and you wonder why Parliament refused stronger measures? I wonder why they just did not tell you to f*ck off, you incompetent useless bunch of w*nkers who would seek to find any excuse to bring in a police state.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "Far from getting a grip since John Reid took over, the Home Office has been marked by murderers walking out of open prisons and suspected terrorists escaping from control orders."

He said the control order legislation "has achieved the remarkable double of being both repressive and ineffective at the same time".

He called for the absconder to be named.

"Unless there are special circumstances, such as if it could prejudice another trial, this individual should now be named," said Mr Davis.

"If there is sufficient suspicion that this man is involved in terrorist activities to restrain his activities, there is sufficient suspicion to name him in the interests of protecting the public."

Well, all I can say is I agree. If they are so dangerous, why not do that? Because he is not.

Control orders are a sham. They are there to stoke up fear. They need to go.