I Bloody Knew It!

Hello,
You will recall that for the last week or so I was convinced that there was a conspiracy at large in the land to turn me into fascist. Well just as I was starting to recover my equilibrium I popped over to David Duff's gaff and read this.

Naturally I was gobsmacked then I thought to myself -it's a prank! To reassure myself I took to the internet and discovered that it is indeed true or has been reported in The Scotsman and The Daily Mail.

Now I have caught The Daily Mail out being economical with the truth before but the facts of the case are pretty much the same in The Scotsman, The Times and on the BBC News website. It is of course possible that they've all got the wrong end of the stick but it's pretty unlikely. As unlikely as I'd have found this decision until I read about it.

If you've not clicked any of the links above you won't have the faintest what I'm on about. I am referring to the prisoner and ex-prisoner who have been granted the right to have a child by artificial insemination. Apparently mummy will be too old by the time daddy finishes his sentence in 2009. Mummy already has three children so what she is being deprived of is unclear other than the dubious right of having a fourth with a man serving a life sentence for murder.

As far as I understand the job of judges it is to interpret the law and give a verdict. That being the case should we not be looking at the law that's allowed this to happen? How exactly do the parents intend to support this child? What if the pressure of an extra mouth to feed tempts them off the straight and narrow? What did the poor child do to deserve them as parents? Is it wise to assist a man with a history of serious violence have children in the first place? If mummy was so desperate for a fourth child then why did she take up with a man who will not be released until after her childbearing years have ended?

This whining and refusal to accept the consequences of their actions by the prospective parents has been ongoing since 2003 since the Home Office in a rare episode of common sense refused them permission to conceive by artificial means. Being outraged that anyone was attempting to impose the old actions = consequences rules upon them, they obtained sufficient legal aid to allow them to take this all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. The court in it's wisdom ruled that the couple's human rights to respect for private and family life and the right to marry and found a family had been violated.

In truth their 'rights' had not been violated merely postponed. No-one forced either of them to break the law, no-one is preventing them from living as a family on Daddy's release, no-one is preventing Daddy from having a child with a younger woman on his release if he wishes to have a child of his own.

The BBC website informs us that The Home Office only grants the 'right' to artificial insemination to prisoners in exceptional circumstances. Out of the usual fifty or so requests received in a year around seven are granted. On what grounds? I have tried and tried and I cannot think of a single circumstance in which I believe it should be allowed. I do realise that prison is the most frightful inconvenience and a terrible interruption of one's life but isn't that partly the point?

Finally I propose that the national anthem is replaced with 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' by The Rolling Stones in the vain hope that it's wise, if simplistic message is absorbed. I don't know who told these muppets they had rights but I intend to find out and pelt them with scrap metal until they repent.

Cheerio