Short open letter to Teresa May

Dear Home Secretary

"Human rights" is a funny old expression isn't it? I mean it makes it sound like people are actually entitled to these things. And weirder still it makes it sound like all humans might be entitled to them - even the brown ones, and the lesbians and Olly Murs.

Now when I hear you want to deny people their human rights my blood is already starting to boil. But I want to hear you out, to understand your point. I don't really believe that human rights legislation nowadays means mass murderers are entitled to champagne cocktails. But maybe you picked up a copy of the Daily Mail on a train and some of the lies sank in by osmosis and you're too busy to check them.

However even you must be able to see what's wrong with this sentence from you as reported on Sky News:

"I'd personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have some problems with it, I see it, here in the Home Office, particularly, the sort of problems we have in being unable to deport people who perhaps are terrorist suspects."

Now those who've been convicted of "terror" (presumably this includes people who stand up in cable cars ... if not it should!) can be locked up. Those who are only suspected of terror however - surely you do realise that they could be innocent. In fact so far in the UK the vast majority of terror suspects have turned out to be innocent.

So you're advocating deporting the innocent? That seems just a little bit mean. Actually it seems criminal and evil - terrible in fact. And you've clearly stated that that is your position so I suspect YOU of plotting an act of terror. The act of deporting people for the sole crime of being pointed at by a neighbour or corrupt police official.

This makes you a terror suspect. And you believe in deporting terror suspects. So...

Get out.

Thanks very much.

May Gay May Gay!

So Home Secretary Theresa May has changed her view on gay adoption. Good. Check out though her "reasons". She claims this is because she thinks a child is better off with a family than in an institution. But that wouldn't explain why she was previously in favour of straight couples and single people adopting. I mean what were her previous choices: Clearly (1) Straight and single adoption (2) institution (3) gay adoption. So now her choices are (1) Straight or single adoption (2) gay adoption (3) institution. Still hasn't actually suggested that gay adoption may be AS VALID AS straight and single adoption. And what a weak reason to support gay adoption - because it's better than having children in an institution*? Where is the mention of how there's nothing wrong with being gay. More to the point where exactly is the apology for her previous votes and views?

*There's another issue here with Theresa May's choice of words because while many children in residential homes may be better off with appropriate families, there are also children who benefit from the culture and atmosphere of a residential home. So to suggest that children are never best off in an "institution" is misleading and actually an insult to kids who benefit from quality residential home care. What is best for each child is for that child's needs to be catered to carefully and fully.