Freed from the control of her faithful hound Alistair, the evil Crystal Tipps is now playing her deranged pranks in the real world. The world was a much nicer place when she had her own show on TV and was too busy tormenting her dog to bother with the rest of us. Now she wants to tell us what we can eat, how much, and when. I'm going to need a bigger garden if I have to grow my own bacon.
So does this mean we can all have a go at ordering people around? Certainly not. Such things are not for we plebs. Only the High Ones can give orders. We are to be further oppressed instead.
The Lib Dems, the smaller and even less intelligent half of our Siamese-twin government, have decided to criminalise raising your voice. So the next time Hubby comes rolling home plastered at 2 am, scold quietly or he'll call the rozzers.
Really? Nah. Women can still shout at men. These new rules are clearly set out to keep the menfolk under control.
The proposals could, however, raise concerns that the law is being widened to criminalise non-violent behaviour unfairly.
Oh really? It might be used to criminalise non-criminals while letting the real ones off scot-free? You mean, as with every other idiotic pronouncement that has dribbled like watery diarrhoea from the cesspool of government for around two decades now? Could it happen again, as it has every time before?
Earlier this year three police forces
began trialling Domestic Violence Prevention Orders, which allow the
courts to prevent suspected abusers returning home to their wives or
girlfriends for 28 days.
Did you spot the key word there? 'Suspected'. Not 'convicted', not even 'charged with'. Suspicion is enough to boot you out of your marital homes for a month. If you are accused then you must be guilty. The Spanish Inquisition would be delighted to see their core principles so thoroughly upheld.
Separately, ministers are considering a new law allowing women to find out if their boyfriend has a history of violence.
It would allow the police to tell women who ask whether their prospective partner is a danger to them or their children.
If some woman felt the need to ask the police if I was safe to be around, that would be the end of that relationship. The police would tell her I have no record of any kind but I would never speak to her again, nor even acknowledge her existence. Relationships are based on trust and if she wants to CRB-check me then she evidently does not trust me. It's the same reason I will never be a teacher, never give a talk to schools, never volunteer to help out in any activity involving children. Since all those things start with the premise that I cannot be trusted then all I can say is, find someone who doesn't mind being mistrusted.
I note that these ministers are not, apparently, considering allowing the boyfriend to check whether his new squeeze has a history of chopping up boyfriends and feeding them to the cat. He'll have to find out the hard way but his dismembered corpse can rest easy in the knowledge that she'll get a strongly worded telling-off from the judge. Oh, and a fine from the RSPCA.
It would never occur to me to CRB-check anyone I know. This is a horrible world these monsters are creating, in which trust is based not on human interaction and experience but solely on official advice. What about those who were once inadvertently involved in a pub brawl in their youth, or who were arrested for defending themselves, as keeps happening these days? They will wonder why their girlfriends keep disappearing.
There are some good parts, of course, there have to be some good parts there so that anyone pointing out the objectionable parts can be shouted down at once.
They plan to make forced marriage illegal. I thought it already was, but it seems not. So if you raise any objection to any part of this new law, you will be met with a face so smug you could cheerfully ram it through a granite block no matter how many tries it takes, and the words issuing forth will be "So you think forced marriages and wife-beatings are just fine, then?" Object to the silly parts and they defend it by pretending you also object to the sensible parts. Old tricks used by new dogs.
Governments don't have the intelligence to edit their work. All or nothing, take it or leave it. You want the sensible parts, you have to accept the insanely stupid parts too. Even though everyone knows by now that the sensible parts will not be enforced while the stupid parts will attract the most severe penalties because the sentencing guidelines cover the whole of that law. Not just the serious parts.
Soon, shout at your wife for using your razor to scrape the varnish off your antique table and then mixing it into your coffee, and you will face arrest and imprisonment. Send a strongly-worded text message to your child and you will be on the text offender's register for life. Upset Antie Gladys by pointing out that the jumper she knitted you for Christmas was rejected by the charity shop and you will be sentenced to wear it in public.
We don't need a new law every day. We don't need specific laws for specific instances of violence or kidnap or coercion. We already have general-purpose laws to cover those things.
What we need is a legal system that takes breaches of the real laws seriously. That's what Clegg's Crusaders should be looking into.
Not making up new ways to criminalise everyone except the criminals.
The safest place to be will soon be in prison. It'll be the only place in the country that has no criminals in it.