Banned on the run

[Gob]

On-the-run killers and other criminals should not be publicly identified because it is ‘unfair’ on them, Government officials say.

To the fury of MPs and victims, the Ministry of Justice is withholding the identity of 18 convicts who have absconded from open jail to protect their privacy. Officials say they have not even bothered to consider whether releasing the information is in the ‘public interest’ – despite the fact it could help to trace the fugitives. They claim that, under Freedom of Information laws, there is a blanket ban on releasing the criminals’ identities because it is their own ‘personal data’. Last night, senior Government sources said Justice Secretary Chris Grayling was furious with the decision, which was taken without his knowledge. He is now intending to over-rule his own department and publish a list of all on-the-run criminals within days.

MPs said the decision – revealed in response to an FOI request by the Mail – was ‘idiotic’ and put the public at added risk. It came as yet another two convicts absconded from open jail, taking the total to six in just four days. Ex-Tory justice minister Nick Herbert said: ‘It is simply not acceptable to say naming a criminal who has escaped from prison is a breach of their rights. Unless there is an operation reason, they should be identified. It runs completely contrary to common sense.’ In individual cases, police have successfully appealed for the public’s help in tracking down the on-the-run inmates. But the MoJ said that it was not prepared to release a comprehensive list, despite MPs pointing out that it could help to apprehend serious criminals.

[Econoline]

"to protect their privacy"????????????????????

Man, that is some seriously fucked-up system there.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, just neoliberalism at its best

[Econoline]

Well, I'm usually up for a good neoliberal-bashing* (it's pretty convenient for me, since the University of Chicago is just outside my back door) but I don't think you can pin a political or economic label on this particular insanity. The problem seems more...well, probably more psychiatric than anything else.



* (or a good neoconservative-bashing, for that matter)

[TPFKA@W]

That is seriously f'd up.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, I'm usually up for a good neoliberal-bashing* (it's pretty convenient for me, since the University of Chicago is just outside my back door) but I don't think you can pin a political or economic label on this particular insanity. The problem seems more...well, probably more psychiatric than anything else.

* (or a good neoconservative-bashing, for that matter)

Oh I don't think that the elevation of PC above common-sense is anything other than neoliberal.

[Lord Jim]

I agree with Meade...

This particular bit of nuttery springs clearly from the contemporary left end of the political spectrum...

That of course doesn't mean that everyone, (or even most people) on the left agrees with it, but that's where the philosophical genesis for it lies...

On the issue of "crime and punishment", it is the contemporary political left which focuses primarily on worrying over the rights and protections afforded to the criminals...

The right focuses primarily on the rights of the victims, the punishment of the criminals, and the protection of society from the criminals...

It's possible for the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of either, and in this case, it's swung too far to the left...

This is thug hugging run amok, and thug hugging is a neo-liberal thing...

[Econoline]

Ah. Got it.

It just never occurred to me that two otherwise intelligent conservatives could have no idea what "neoliberalism" is.

Definition of 'Neoliberalism'

An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.

(If you don't believe that definition, just google the term "neoliberalism" and have a look at the first dozen or so definitions.)

BTW...I may have said this before, but I find it amusing that the only people who ever use the term "politically correct" are those who consider whatever that catch-all phrase means to be completely incorrect.

Oh, and as an unabashed liberal (NOT neoliberal!) and the first poster here to respond to Gob's opening post (QUOTE: "Man, that is some seriously fucked-up system there.") I challenge you to find any liberal--or any neoliberal either, for that matter --who agrees with the "privacy" argument in that news story.

[BoSoxGal]

England's Most Wanted:

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah. Got it.

It just never occurred to me that two otherwise intelligent conservatives could have no idea what "neoliberalism" is.

Definition of 'Neoliberalism'

An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.

(If you don't believe that definition, just google the term "neoliberalism" and have a look at the first dozen or so definitions.)

BTW...I may have said this before, but I find it amusing that the only people who ever use the term "politically correct" are those who consider whatever that catch-all phrase means to be completely incorrect.

Oh, and as an unabashed liberal (NOT neoliberal!) and the first poster here to respond to Gob's opening post (QUOTE: "Man, that is some seriously fucked-up system there.") I challenge you to find any liberal--or any neoliberal either, for that matter --who agrees with the "privacy" argument in that news story.

I thought a neoliberal was someone who thought that "The Matrix" was too fascist?

Got me. The point though is not whether a "liberal" agrees with X or Y but whether the logical outcome of liberal thinking is this kind of SFUS. Which it is

[Econoline]

Oh, well... I can only bow to your obviously greater knowledge of "liberal thinking" compared to mine. Looks like I'm going to have to start listening to Rush Limbaugh again to get back up to speed on "what liberals think" and "what liberals believe".

[Lord Jim]

It just never occurred to me that two otherwise intelligent conservatives could have no idea what "neoliberalism" is.

Hmm...

I'm rather curious to know what the meaningful distinction between "neoliberalism" and well, "stupidity" would be...

Frankly I don't see much of a difference, in this context...

I'd like to make a point I believe I've made before...

Conservatives, for all the problems we might have in our ranks, (and they are many) don't seem to have a big problem acknowledging that we have some crazy people on our side...

On the other hand, it's been my experience that liberals, for the most part, always seem to have a much more difficult time conceding that there are crazy people on their side of the ledger...

I suspect that the reason for this is because most liberals, seeing themselves as being "On The Side Of The Angels", have a very difficult time imagining that anyone "on their side" could be anything less than virtuous...

Let alone crackers...

If one believes the folks on their side to have a monopoly on virtue, and views those on the other side as some version of The Wicked Witch Of The West, it's difficult to imagine an effective way forward..

[Lord Jim]

I'm going to have to start listening to Rush Limbaugh again to get back up to speed on "what liberals think" and "what liberals believe".

\

Oh come on...

Econo, do you really think there's a Rush Limbaugh "ditto head" type on this board?

That's beneath you...

[Sue U]

First I just have to ask, who exactly is "the Government" that the Conservatives (both big and little Cs) in the OP are so upset about? Haven't the Conservatives been running the Government for the last 4 years? Don't they set the policy for the ministries and other administrative departments?

You all know I'm not a "liberal," neo or otherwise, but I think it's safe to classify my perspective as far more in line with "liberal thinking" than the (presumably "conservative") alternative. And the prospect of the government keeping criminals' identities secret in the name of "privacy" is frankly horrifying to me. Because secret detention, secret trial, secret conviction, secret prisoners in secret prisons should be horrifying to anyone who rejects police-state totalitarianism. All criminal proceedings and records should be open to the public absent some compelling justification to the contrary.

Trying to pass off a Conservative government's fuck-up as the product of "liberal thinking" is the real stupidity here.

[Big RR]

I agree Sue; but I wonder here if the refusal is based on a policy not to publicly disclose what prison a prisoner is kept in, rather than a refusal to identify escapees. I would imagine that publicly disclosing a prisoner is being held in an "open prison" might invite former criminal colleagues and/or victims to show up and try and exact revenge (especially if the security is pretty lax); saying they escaped would identify them also as inmates there. I don't know UK law in this regard, but refraining from identifying inmates in these sort of prisons could make sense, and this could just be an unintended consequence of the law.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, well... I can only bow to your obviously greater knowledge of "liberal thinking" compared to mine. Looks like I'm going to have to start listening to Rush Limbaugh again to get back up to speed on "what liberals think" and "what liberals believe".

Political correctness is a product of liberal attitude and thought. Thought constructions such as "differently abled" do not come from the right. European regulation designed to protect illegal immigrants, the "right" to have society fund the lifestyles of indigenous trailer trash and so on - those are not from the right. They are logical outgrowths of liberal thinking.

I again agree with you that individual liberals, even a majority of 'em, don't necessarily think that criminals who escape custody should not be named to protect their "privacy". The issue (for me) was not "what liberals think" but "the logical outcome of what liberals have thought"

[Econoline]

It just never occurred to me that two otherwise intelligent conservatives could have no idea what "neoliberalism" is.

Hmm...

I'm rather curious to know what the meaningful distinction between "neoliberalism" and well, "stupidity" would be...

Frankly I don't see much of a difference, in this context...

Ummm....you didn't even bother to read the definition of "neoliberalism" that I posted, did you?

In case it was too long, here's a shorter version:

neoliberalism (ˌniːəʊˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm)— noun ... a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc.

(Hmm...Rather than belaboring the point, maybe I should just accept that you now think that "free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc." are "stupidity"?)

I'm going to have to start listening to Rush Limbaugh again to get back up to speed on "what liberals think" and "what liberals believe".

Oh come on...

Econo, do you really think there's a Rush Limbaugh "ditto head" type on this board?

That's beneath you...

You're right,. that was a pretty low blow, and I apologize.

But I did have a point, however awkwardly made: Every single member of the right-wing talk-radio contingent seems to spend an inordinate amount of his airtime telling his listeners "the truth about liberals"--and all of their followers take this as gospel and regurgitate it regularly, on call-in shows, on discussion boards, on Facebook, and in person. None of them seem to know any actual liberals, and none of them are capable of believing an actual liberal when he tells them what an actual liberal does or doesn't believe. I really don't appreciate the implication that I believe stupid things which I really don't believe.

(I've experienced this firsthand because my own baby brother, an otherwise intelligent software engineer, took a job in Atlanta a number of years ago and now lives in the right-wing tea party "IRSgate! Bengazigate! Obamacaregate! Bundygate! Etceteragate!" bubble. In the interest of family harmony I try to avoid arguing with--or even reading--his Facebook posts except when he writes about his kids or some other nonpolitical subject. Of course sometimes, when he says or reposts something too outrageous, I just can't help myself...but I do try to keep it to a minimum. )

[Gob]

First I just have to ask, who exactly is "the Government" that the Conservatives (both big and little Cs) in the OP are so upset about? Haven't the Conservatives been running the Government for the last 4 years? Don't they set the policy for the ministries and other administrative departments?

Government sources said Justice Secretary Chris Grayling was furious with the decision, which was taken without his knowledge. He is now intending to over-rule his own department

[Lord Jim]

As Strop just pointed out, this wasn't a policy decision made by a Conservative politico; it was a decision made by some unamed dead-from-the-neck-up government bureaucrat...(And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts whoever did come up with this policy ain't no conservative)

Econo:

"the truth about liberals"--and all of their followers take this as gospel and regurgitate it regularly, on call-in shows,

Well that may be, (I rarely listen to talk radio nowadays, so I can't vouch for it) but in posts here over the years, I have made a deliberate and conscious effort not to do this.

I'm very aware of the fact that it's rare for every member of any group to all think the exact same way about something. (Though I suspect there probably aren't a whole lot of liberals who oppose tax increases, there very well may be some.) If you read my posts you will notice that when referring to a political group I almost always use qualifying language; I'll say "many liberals" or "some" occasionally "most"...same thing with "Democrats" (frequently I'll refer to "Democrats on The Hill"...)

The belief that every member of a group all think the exact same thing is symptomatic of ignorance and simple-mindedness. (And of course neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on this sort of ignorance and simple-mindedness; we have a liberal Democrat right here on this board who exhibits this all the time.)

In fact in this discussion I thought I had qualified my point pretty well when I said this:

That of course doesn't mean that everyone, (or even most people) on the left agrees with it

And when I said this:

On the other hand, it's been my experience that liberals, for the most part, always seem to have a much more difficult time conceding that there are crazy people on their side of the ledger...

That is based on my experience with liberals I know personally, (believe it or not I have quite a few liberal friends ) and also what I have observed in the media (and also on this board; in fact you seem to be having a problem with it right now )

I'm also not crazy about the term "neo-liberal" and I'm happy not to use it. I actually prefer the term "contemporary liberal" (to distinguish present day liberals from "classical liberals" like John Locke, whose philosophies actually form the basis for contemporary conservatism)

I also believe that the vast majority of people, left , right and center, when made aware of this would oppose it, and recognize it for the lunacy that it is.

However, all of that having been said, I also am confident that anyone who would support this idiocy would come from the liberal end of the spectrum. As I said before, this policy obviously springs from concern for the welfare of the criminals (albeit taken to an obsessive extreme) and the focus on the rights of the criminals is associated with contemporary liberal philosophy. I'm sure you must know that, so I'm puzzled as to why it is that you can't recognize the fact that this moronic policy had to have come from folks obsessed with the rights of criminals, and a person like that is virtually certain to be a liberal. This seems crystal clear to me; I don't understand why you don't see it.

[Lord Jim]

Another observation I would make:

It seems to me from this example, and many other things that I've read on this board, that to a certain extent the loopy part of the left in the UK is even loopier than the loopy part of the left in this country...

I have a very difficult time imagining a decision like this being made even in the most liberal communities in the US. (Of course I have a difficult time imagining anyone anywhere this nutty being in a position to enact their nuttiness into policy, so maybe I'm not the best judge...)