Follow up

Ok, firmly ensconced in the office, a productive morning so far, I thought I would return to the bat shit insane bollocks spouted this morning from team Philips.

Where do you even begin with such off the wall ramblings? What saving grace or redeeming feature does her argument have? Let's remember that her basic premise is this. And folks, if you are asthmatic I strongly advise that you have your inhaler at the ready, because the level of bull shit is of such magnificence that the phrase "breath taking" doesn't even come close to doing it justice. Ok, here goes.....

Human rights legislation has lead to the collapse of control of our borders and thus means that draconian laws have to be brought into keep law and order.

Wow! That's quite something isn't it? A law that gives us the right to privacy is somehow the reason for us having so many CCTV cameras? Can you get your head around that, because I can't!

Even more magnificent is the way that human rights and the freedom of labour within Europe are magically intertwined. Either Philips knowledge of European law is ignorant to the point of utter stupidity or else she is deliberately misleading her readers. Either way this is a crock of shit that makes Littlejohn look well argued and intelligent.

And then get this for a sentence, read it in all it's glorious shiteness. Philips rambles on about the erosion of this country's values, what about the erosion of the language? How is this for a complete butchering of English?

"But that is the inevitable outcome of human rights law - which has ridden roughshod over those principles - because many of those now campaigning against the erosion of liberty also claim that 'universal' human rights principles trump Britain's own."

What? Eh? Before we even begin on the grammar (although I know I'm one to talk!) look at the last few words. Britain's own. Britain's own what??? Does she mean Britain's own human rights? Which is absurd. Or the human rights of British people? I assume that is what she means. Yet she calmly misses the point that our human rights are guaranteed by the human rights act!
The whole thing is such a mangled load of rubbish that I simply can't believe this ever got passed the sub editor.

And the she continues claiming that human rights legislation gets rid of the common law principle that we are free to act unless the law says other wise. What? Where? How? All the HRA does is set out principles that other legislation has to align with. It is a support to common law, not working against it. And judges have always had the power to decide things where legislation seems to contradict other legislation, that's their fucking job, the be impartial interpreters of the law. Parliament still has the ultimate power, it could just repeal the HRA if it so chose. I don't think it should but it should have the right to do so if it chose.

Again this should never have got past any editor worth their salt, but then this is the Mail we are talking about.

And then we come to piece de résistance of shite, this sentence,

"But over the past few years, Westminster has had the stuffing knocked out of it by a series of measures, including human rights law, whose purpose was to destroy this country's constitutional settlement and powers of democratic self-government."

Look at what she just said, fucking look at it!!!! Just a bold sweeping statement with no back up or support at all. Fucking breath taking.

And I'll leave it there, before I actually suffocate. Some one get me a fucking inhaler.