You Couldn't Msake It Up.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132171/The-terror-suspect-doesn-t-wear-electronic-tag-thinks-s-bomb-Tracker-breaches-imam-s-human-rights.html

/// The judge said there was medical evidence that DD had psychotic and unusual beliefs that the tag was there to punish him. In particular, he believed it contained a camera and a bomb, and voices and noises emanated from it. ///

/// A judge said the dangerous preacher of hate has mental health problems, and wearing the electronic monitoring device was making him ‘delusional’. ///

But not delusionaled enough to be able to seek and be granted free legal assistance, so as to take his case to court.

If he is so 'mental' he should be in a secure mental unit, not free to walk the streets or be in charge of his children.

[-Talbot-]

Sounds like the judge is as mad as the madman.

[anotheoldgit]

"You Couldn't Make It Up".

[Gromit]

// If he is so 'mental' he should be in a secure mental unit, not free to walk the streets or be in charge of his children. //

You obviously have missed the 'care in the community' that has been Government policy for over 30 years. Having a mental health problem is not in itself a criminal offense.

[SlackAlice]

Well, If he refuses to wear a 'tag' perhaps his refugee status should be voided and he can be returned to Somalia as 'persona non grata'.

Any secure mental unit he requires can be obtained in Somalia.

[Gromit]

A quarter of the UK population will suffer a mental health problem this year.
That is a hell of a lot of people to lock up

http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/

[-Talbot-]

A quater of the UK population are not suspected of radicalising vulnerable young Europeans.

Most are just a tad stressed.

[Old_Geezer]

Since tags are an alternative to incarceration presumably the judge ordered that he should immediately be locked up instead then ?

[Prudie]

No-one is suggesting all people with mental health problems should be locked up and it's insulting to imply so. Those whose problems may harm others however are. Are you saying Gromit that he should be forgiven and let go because he's a bit deranged?

[Noe-schitt]

It makes me wonder who is actually deranged. I obviously do not have any human rights to be protected from these fanatics

[jourdain2]

O_G has it right. Bet it didn't happen.

[DaisyNonna]

I fear for the judge

[Colmc54]

Sorry I try not to duplicate questions I just didn't spot your earlier one in time.

When England votes to leave the EU (the rest can vote in their devolved governments to become independent and suit themselves I hope if they don't like it) we will be in a position to have our own Charter of Human Rights. Strangely from Labour's last vote-grabbing re-incarnation of whatever the TUC allows them to stand for Tony Blair gives us a surprisingly wise hint-'No rights without responsibilities'.

Imagine the courts with a point based system of points in favour of the English/or UK if it still exists Charter of Human Rights now balanced against the English/or UK if it still exists Charter of Human Responsibilities.

I suspect the lawyers would still make a fortune but maybe a sense of balance between the two Charters might protect our people more from people who use the one as a get out of jail card and have no need thanks to TB's human rights lawyer wife to consider the other proposed charter.

Labour made a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the European Charter of Human Rights. They did a U-turn and we never had one, hence I don't accept it's legality, especially when you consider what TB's wife does for a living.