Wednesday, 24 March 2010

If We're Looking To Make Savings...

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said wearing a burkha was the religious equivalent of 'going round with a paper bag over your head'.

During a parliamentary debate last month he urged the House of Commons to 'seriously consider' banning the garment.
And that sparked a complaint. From whom?

From a quango, of course (which also manages the double whammy of being a fakecharity), as Al-Jahom points out:
Now it has emerged police received a complaint about the Kettering MP a few days after his comments from the Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council (NREC).

Officers rang Mr Hollobone to say a complaint had been made but the Crown Prosecution dropped the case a few days later as there were no grounds for prosecution.
Parliamentary privilege covers anything said in the Commons, so it's difficult to see why the police didn't simply tell the NREC that in the first place...

But if Ketting, Northants and Northampton borough councils are feeling the pinch in the recession, how about they stop funneling money to this organisation?

Ross and Mark have more. See how easily a fakecharity can be exposed for what it is?

8 comments:

Antisthenes said...

There is so much rights legislation it will soon be impossible to leave one's house in case one infringes someones rights. Either that or the the UK will disappear under the sea from the weight of it all.

Jesus H Christ when is it all going to end.

woman on a raft said...

"Anjona Roy, of the race equality council, said: 'Even though the CPS said there were not enough grounds to proceed, cautionary words were issued. In our view that is a positive outcome.'"

That's an outright lie. There are no 'words of caution' because the only words which either the police or CPS should have said was:

"Sorry to bother you Sir, but we've received a letter and we are just passing it on. We have informed the sender that words on the floor of the House are covered by Parliamentary privilege and suggested the complainant refers to a constitutional lawyer."

There's a new Code for Crown Prosecutors out but it doesn't appear to have Rule Zero in place: "Is this case any of our business whatsoever?"

Sorry it's all despair this morning, but anyone who hasn't already slashed their wrists might want to after looking down the introductory screen to the Code for Crown Prosecutors (22 Feb 2010).

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ta for linkage. It now puzzles me why Ross said they weren't a (fake)charity.

PS, it's spelled "KettERing".

PPS, good to see an MP nicking a UKIP policy, we've got plenty more where that came from.

indigomyth said...

//And that sparked a complaint. From whom?//

Though it ought to be noted that the state banning anyone from wearing an item of clothing (or not wearing it) is inherently illiberal.

Angry Exile said...

As indigomyth says Hollobone's suggestion is illiberal. If a woman is free to wear a miniskirt she must be equally free to wear a burqa. Banning it would make Britain the flip side of places that make it mandatory. Still, Hollobone's perfectly entitled to raise the idea, and that ought to go for outside the Commons as well as inside.

Angry Exile said...

Oh, and WOAR, I like Rule Zero.

Ross said...

"It now puzzles me why Ross said they weren't a (fake)charity."

I couldn't find a reference to them at the Charity Commission website so I was uncertain.

JuliaM said...

"Sorry it's all despair this morning..."

It seems to be the same as every other morning, lately!


"As indigomyth says Hollobone's suggestion is illiberal."

Agreed. I'm personally against a ban, but he should have the right to call for one if he wishes, in or out of the HoC.

"I couldn't find a reference to them at the Charity Commission website so I was uncertain."

They'd undergone a namechange; I had to do a bit of digging to make sure it was the right one myself.