Since we are going to robustly lobby Truss over the next few months, I think it is key we have a clear position that we are lobbying for. For the purposes of the Truss Bus and media sound bites we can simplify it down to short messages of high impact.
However it is important that on the back end of that we are clear on precisely what it is we want and expect. “No Sadists On Our Streets” is a commendable sentiment and slogan but there must be something of substance behind that. I think we need to seriously consider what it is we are asking for and as specifically as possible.
For example, while everyone normal will agree that they got off far too lightly in the courts, what would then constitute a reasonable and plausible penalty in your eyes?
People would also agree that the courts were also way too lenient on Andrew Picard, a different kind of scumbag to the brothers but a scumbag all the same. Google his name if your aren’t familiar with his deeds. Yet again – what would constitute a reasonable and plausible penalty in your eyes?
I think we should at least try to aim at some sort of consensus so that we can then be crystal clear on what our expectations and demands are.
The first thing we should aim for is the expectation of a custodial sentence for cases like the two I have mentioned. This would be a good start before we even get down to the length of the sentence. This has to be one of those things that if someone is caught doing then they know they are going to prison for it. There should be no alternative to it in these instances.
The next part may be more of a challenge – what length of sentences are we realistically aiming for? You have to think logically and not emotionally otherwise you’ll be asking for things that you just know won’t be given the green light. You cannot expect or hope that those like the Frankish scum and Picard “should get life”. It is never going to happen and it would never happen because it would leave absolutely no margin for other crimes – like mass murder.
By all means set the bar as high as you can, but not so high that its doomed from the start. What’s the use in lobbying Truss or anyone else for something you just know would never be accepted? I sometimes hear the word ‘murder’ used in the context of that poor dog, but calling it that will have no practical negotiating or lobbying value since the concept of murder is one that has only ever applied to people. I cannot think of anywhere in the world that at any point in time applied the term murder to anything save for another person.
Calling it what it is is plenty – sadism, cruelty, killing those terms are entirely legitimate and on point. It would also be very much on point to keep hammering home the links between animal and child cruelty. But you are like a vehicle whose wheels are spinning in the mud when you take a legal term that has only ever applied to people and try to stretch it to cover other species.
You are better sticking with the cold facts as they are damning enough and deserving enough of tougher action. There is just no political merit or legal value to using the term ‘murder’ in relation to anything but another homo sapiens. This will never change so using the term is of no value.
If you want to build a movement that is essentially populist then you need positions that are popular. If we applied the term murder to dogs and cats this would not be a popular move. I think it would make us look stupid to be honest.
In a case like the Frankish drama, I’d say we set out by first securing that commitment for mandatory custodial sentences and then on the back of that we aim for a figure of about 4 years. Ideally I would like them to be obligated to serve the full four, but even if that is not immediately possible then at least such people would serve about two. That’s a huge improvement on the present farce of just letting them go with a stupid ankle tag. Ridiculous. Shameful. Embarrassing. In actual fact we should totally abandon home curfews, tags and suspended sentences altogether as some other countries have. Useless and a total waste of money.
(You can perhaps see why we have no faith in the tagging order…)
Another thing that MUST be changed is the totally eye-popping situation where some of these people are only given a 5 year pet ownership ban. I know that AF and DF got a life ban, but there are many instances where it is 5 years. It should be an automatic life ban and with no exceptions.
However, even the life ban is presently a bit toothless – it relies almost entirely on the public tipping off the authorities. Somewhat tricky when the authorities allow them to duck and hide and change names. I think if someone is subject to a life ban then they should be subject to random monthly spot checks and that the cost should be met (in whole or part) by them.
I would also strongly suggest that landlords and hoteliers have the legal right to know if they are about to let rooms to convicted sadists who are still serving a sentence. We should actually be able to muster the support of the hotel industry and landlords associations in that regard.
Finally, I strongly believe in the right of a community to be told if such people have moved into their area. I think it is the moral and right thing to do- At least give people easy access with an up-to-date national database. The old defence that to do so would invite “revenge attacks” just isn’t good enough. The rights of the decent majority ace the rights of the degenerate minority. People should have an absolute right to know. It’s not their fault that the person has done whatever they have done. It’s the perpetrators fault if he is ostracised by every community he (or she goes) to.
Those are the key points we should lead with in my opinion:
1) The expectation of a custodial sentence for cases like the two I have mentioned.
2) We aim for a figure of about 4 years.
3) Abandon home curfews, tags and suspended sentences.
4) If someone is subject to a life ban then they should be subject to random monthly spot checks and that the cost should be met (in whole or part) by them.
5) Landlords and hoteliers have the legal right to know if they are about to let rooms to convicted sadists who are still serving a sentence.
6) The right of a community to be told if such people have moved into their area.
Those six seem entirely reasonable and surely popular among the people (I would think).