The Home Secretary, the cat and Bolivian mice

Lord Soley

Oh dear! What a mess we can get into when reading a bit of a story in the press and then jumping to conclusions.

Apparently some wag suggested that the reason the Bolivian student couldn’t be sent back was because his cat wouldn’t know a Bolivian mouse from a llama!

Home Secretary – beware simplistic press stories!

12 comments for “The Home Secretary, the cat and Bolivian mice

  1. Gar Howell
    05/10/2011 at 7:06 pm

    Labour women are just narky, not twittish!

    Oh! Oh! Edwina!

  2. MilesJSD
    06/10/2011 at 3:23 am

    “Off With Their Heads !”
    “Scrap the Whole Human Needs, Hows, and Human-Rights Act”.

    Even Hitler had the political sense to first offer an appetising new-title “The Enablement Act”.

  3. Chris K
    06/10/2011 at 11:47 am

    I imagine her information came from a rather better source than the Daily Mail.

    And it turns out the Home Sec was correct all along. The cat and ‘mental anguish’ did play a key role in the case after all.

    Peers – beware writing-off ‘simplistic press stories’ just because they undermine your world view.

    I’m told it’s easier to remove egg before it dries.

  4. maude elwes
    06/10/2011 at 1:56 pm


    It appears our Home Secretary has been vindicated. And the Bolivian mice better start looking for new holes to hide in.

    Those foreign mice can be very slippery.

  5. Lord Soley
    Lord Soley
    07/10/2011 at 12:39 pm

    No sorry – Ken Clarke is basically right. The reason the man was not deported was a long term relationship with his partner – the cat was mentioned as one example of the commitment but there was other evidence of the relationship too. Our judges are not so stupid as to refuse deportation on the grounds of ownership of a pet.

    • maude elwes
      07/10/2011 at 2:41 pm

      @Lord Soley:

      Well, there remains conflicting news reports that she was ‘correct’ in her interpretation of the Judges decision, as he used the ‘Human Rights Act’ to allow this miscreant to stay in the UK on the grounds of his established ‘relationship.’ As this was seen as long term because they kept a cat.

      It is now suggested that Ken Clarke will lose his job over his disrespectful attitude toward the lady in question. How stupid is that? The guy is about the only one who is remotely trustworthy as he is less afraid than others of speaking his mind.

      However, this was spin. In that government wanted to raise the issue, once again, of the dreaded ‘Human Rights Act’ that comes from that terrible place called Europe and that we, the British, are being led down a path of horror by them, because, like Hitler, they should be wiped out.

      The Human Rights Act in no way forces decisions of this kind on British judges. They make it up as they go along to keep the public believing this crap.

      The true reason behind the decision is, the guy is in a gay relationship and the plead was likely to suggest Italy may be an uncomfortable place for him to live, as it is a Catholic country. But they didn’t want to be honest, so he covered it with a cat story.

      Ms. May picked it up as she wanted fodder for her ‘lets get rid of this Human Rights fiasco’ as, before long, it will deter our blitz on the vulnerable. Rich men are not happy with the articles 8 to 14 of the EU requirements because it helps to keep them from exploiting people as they want to do. So, the plan is to use the judiciary to create fervent disquiet and resentment over the obligations written within it.

      And because they see the British as uneducated idiots they feel they can pass this off at will and the un-travelled among us will cry murder.

      The Human Rights Act had nothing to do with that judges decision, his political machinations did. He, and those around him, knew the papers would love it, as they are owned by rich men who don’t want to allow the people a living wage and a decent standard of living. Because that digs into their massive profits.

      However, that said, Europe and those British lawyers who wrote up the Act in the first place, need to stop the clown show and sort the chaos out. That way these right wing hogs won’t be able to use it as a ploy. Will they? No.

      • maude elwes
        08/10/2011 at 10:14 am

        I meant Bolivia is a Catholic country, not Italy. I confused this with the Chindamo murderer of Lawrence, as Blagger got it right.

        Well it was late!

  6. Lord Blagger
    07/10/2011 at 1:07 pm

    Phillip Lawrence. Killed by an Italian. Deported? Nope. Right to a family life. Not in a relationship.

    In August 2007, an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that Chindamo could not be deported to his home country of Italy on completion of his prison sentence, as doing so would breach his human rights.[6] Although the Home Office argued that Chindamo presented a “present and serious threat” to society, the tribunal disagreed; they also argued that Chindamo had a right to a “family life” under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998.[7]

    He has a right to a family life, but he shouldn’t have it in the UK. Form a family in Italy, or he can work and pay for his family to visit.

    Or if I work overseas, will the state fund for my family to come and visit, as its a ‘human right’.

    This is the law written by politicians and signed off by Peers.

    You’ve created it.

    • Dave H
      07/10/2011 at 5:48 pm

      Unusually, I find myself in agreement with Lord Blagger here. Anyone who comes here and gets a prison sentence for something premeditated (noting that accidents can happen) should be sent home on release. If they’re worried about human rights and family life and all that, they shouldn’t have done the crime in the first place.

      Perhaps sentences should be “detained until deported, this to happen no earlier than…”. After all, in prison there’s no family life either, apart from visits.

      • MilesJSD
        07/10/2011 at 11:46 pm

        Has anyone else noticed that you get a much more daily-social ‘life’ in a psychiatric-hospital than you ever can in a ‘normal neighbourhood’ ?

        You get to know the names and expected-conduct of, and can converse and share a cuppa with, many more and a greater variety of people than you ever would in your normal-neighbourhood !

        • DanFilson
          09/10/2011 at 10:34 pm

          Speaking from experience? Not having myself been in a psychiatric-hospital, I cannot answer your question.

  7. MilesJSD
    07/10/2011 at 11:20 pm

    There is an overarching and underlying HOTLY strategic Thrival-Survival Issue being both denied & avoided and diluted & distorted, by both mass-blind-mindednesses and malfeasant-party-politics; which for the sake of simplicity I shall refer to as ECC
    “Earth’s Carrying Capacity”.
    In attempting to communicate this I feel constrained, by globally-hot and personal-downhill circumstance to “project”, in deliberate “You-message” form, thus:

    You really need to be paradigmly, and peaceful-revolutionarily, self-scrutinising; and then be others-scrutinising; focally for Longest-Possible-Term Sustain-worthiness and Purpose-Fitnesses.

    You need to quickly get serious about appreciating, evaluating, and constituting-sustainworthy:
    the many and especially the essential components of
    a ‘family-‘,
    an ‘environmental-‘,
    a ‘social-‘,
    a ‘working-‘, and
    an ‘individual-‘ life…

    (in progress continuably)

Comments are closed.