The Supreme Court has ruled it is illegal to force offenders to be on the register for life without any opportunity for a review.Now, that is a conclusion which it is possible to reach as a matter of policy, if that is what you think should happen. But the justification which has been used here is logically absurd. It seems that the sex offenders' register is a:
In a final defeat for the Home Office, sex offenders now have the right to ask to be removed from the register.
scheme which interferes with an individual's right to respect for his private and family lifeA right to "privacy"? Privacy?? Remind me why these two went on the Register in the first place:
Teenager "F'', [...] was convicted of two offences of rape and other serious offences at the age of 11.and:
Angus Thompson, 52, from Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced in November 1996 to five years' imprisonment on two counts of indecent assault on a female and other offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.What greater invasion of someone's privacy is there, than to rape or indecently assault them? When you have taken even that private space from them against their will, how dare you stand up in public and bleat that the State is not allowing you sufficient privacy?
New Labour - legislating to protect hypocrisy.
Correct. And what is more perverse is that someone who has had their conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal remains on the register forever.
ReplyDeleteThe whole starting point for all this stuff is totally upside down, inside out.
(I've posted this comment already, but it's not appeared, so apologies if it appears twice)
ReplyDeleteQuite BE. And then you can add the madness of innocent people having their DNA kept on the DNA database.