Letter: Laws not fit for purpose

Letter: I often wonder how it is that with Parliament practically full of solicitors, barristers and Queens Councillors, not to mention the Law Lords in the House of Lords, that we end up with treaties and laws that, to use a modern term, are not fit for purpose.

One would have thought, that with so many legal luminaries in both houses, they might be capable of producing laws that are fit for purpose and that purpose only.

First we have a treaty with The United States, designed to prevent terrorism, which allows them to request any British citizen be delivered to them for trial.

So far as I am aware there are four bankers now in the States awaiting their imprisonment and an autistic chap making every effort to remain in this country, with the promise of 60 years in the slammer if he goes to the US.

Next we have a new law, designed to assist in the capture of terrorists, which allows your local council to enter your home, check out your e-mails, and anything else they happen to think of and charge you quite substantially for the privilege.

Possibly the one that caps it all is the fact that it is now illegal to photograph a policeman. Why? What are they doing that they don't want us to know about?

Which begs the question, have you seen a policeman in your street lately?

I¹m convinced that they are all locked away in various offices to prevent them being bothered by the public with trivial complaints about being mugged, robbed, raped or stabbed.

Personally, I would love to see an old fashioned Bobby walking the streets again. They were in a position to see what was happening in the streets and were able to prevent crime. As opposed to trying to find out just who had committed a crime long after it's all over.

Mick Cunningham

Much Wenlock