MY RECENT TRIP TO LIVERPOOL did not perhaps have the result desired. My status as an ex-patriot naturally led me to back Offshore Account, “a certain winner”, I was informed by the eccentric cockney who sold me the ticket. All was going well, with the horse leading the race until two fences out, when the commentator’s voice starts to get falsetto, and when the nag decided to stop running, costing me a pretty penny.
OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, seem to be on everyone’s lips at the moment, with governments all over the “free” world seemingly determined to put a stop to what they term criminal activity. Yet I have never understood what could possibly be criminal about wanting to keep one’s own money and not give it to members of the government, who will only squander it on frivolous motorway building schemes, farcical “green” projects, unending and pointless education bills or holiday hideaways in the sun for bank managers and their mistresses and/or rent boys.
ON THE SUBJECT OF CRIMINALS, the burning issue while I was in Liverpool, at least until the police “swooped” (an endearing image I always think) on a “nest” of terrorists in the North West, was whether criminals should be given the right to vote in elections. For a thousand years it has been understood as perfectly logical that “outlaws”, by their very nature, should not participate in electing lawmakers. Yet our bright European leaders, in 2005, decided that prisoners – convicted criminals – had a “human right” to vote, thus ordering the British government to implement European law.
IT IS TEMPTING TO STATE that in Europe criminals and politicians are much of a muchness, and that if we let criminals vote they will elect criminals, just as sure as one gets monkeys when one pays peanuts, and, rather confusingly, as sure as eggs are eggs. But – alas! – this is not true; also prohibited from voting in our own green and pleasant land are members of the House of Lords. And thus arises the question: should we give these despicable criminals the vote?
OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, seem to be on everyone’s lips at the moment, with governments all over the “free” world seemingly determined to put a stop to what they term criminal activity. Yet I have never understood what could possibly be criminal about wanting to keep one’s own money and not give it to members of the government, who will only squander it on frivolous motorway building schemes, farcical “green” projects, unending and pointless education bills or holiday hideaways in the sun for bank managers and their mistresses and/or rent boys.
ON THE SUBJECT OF CRIMINALS, the burning issue while I was in Liverpool, at least until the police “swooped” (an endearing image I always think) on a “nest” of terrorists in the North West, was whether criminals should be given the right to vote in elections. For a thousand years it has been understood as perfectly logical that “outlaws”, by their very nature, should not participate in electing lawmakers. Yet our bright European leaders, in 2005, decided that prisoners – convicted criminals – had a “human right” to vote, thus ordering the British government to implement European law.
IT IS TEMPTING TO STATE that in Europe criminals and politicians are much of a muchness, and that if we let criminals vote they will elect criminals, just as sure as one gets monkeys when one pays peanuts, and, rather confusingly, as sure as eggs are eggs. But – alas! – this is not true; also prohibited from voting in our own green and pleasant land are members of the House of Lords. And thus arises the question: should we give these despicable criminals the vote?
No comments:
Post a Comment