I sent an FOI request to Number 10 asking specifically which occasions he was considering when referring to 'phoney concerns for human rights'.
It turns out that the day after my request, he was asked a similar question in a House of Commons debate and replied:
"The specific point that I was making was about the concern that is often expressed, and was expressed to me over the past couple of days, as to whether under the Human Rights Act "Wanted" pictures. as it were, could he published. I wanted specifically' to send a message to police forces and local authorities that they should go ahead and do that."
There are two obvious flaws with this statement:
Firstly who is Cameron to decide the lawfulness or otherwise of the actions of police or local authorities? He is an advertising man, at least Blair had a legal background!
Secondly this statement does not answer the use of the word 'phoney' - phoney suggests insincerity or dis-ingenuousness in the concerns about human rights - whereas his statement in 'sending a message' could only effect *genuine* concerns.
Then what can you expect from an adversing man? Their claims rarely stand up to scrutiny!
But anyway - thank you Mr Cameron, we know exactly what is phoney now.
(FoI Request: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/phoney_concerns_for_human_rights#outgoing-145482)
No comments:
Post a Comment