The SNP's Sick Social Experiment

What is it with Nicola Sturgeon and vulnerable people? First she transferred elderly people out of hospitals and into care homes without testing them for Covid, thereby infecting numerous care home residents with the virus, some fatally. Now it transpires that, under her watch, male offenders have been transferred into women's prisons. Some are still in women's prisons although not the double rapist who has caused the First Minister to admit that transwomen are not women in certain circumstances ...

Just over a week ago Calton was sure that the demise of Sturgeon would be at the hands of angry older women. Now it looks like it has all but been achieved by a man in a blonde wig.

One could give Sturgeon the benefit of the doubt over the care home Covid disaster, however it has now become clear that men in women's prisons was deliberate, planned policy. The Scottish Trans Alliance, one of the Scottish Government's pet charities which is bankrolled by the Scottish taxpayer, deliberately targeted prisons as a means of persuading other public bodies to follow its radical trans agenda. Their reasoning was that, if putting transwomen into women's prisons could be shown to work, the rest of their trans-inclusive policies could be rolled out into society. The SNP government fell for this argument hook, line and sinker, with the result that female offenders became guinea pigs in a sick social experiment which Calton does not doubt was approved by Nicola Sturgeon. (A policy was introduced by the SNP Government under Alex Salmond in 2014 of accommodating transgender prisoners according to their chosen gender. Nicola Sturgeon has continued it.)

The death of elderly residents in care homes was carelessness. The traumatising of vulnerable female prisoners is deliberate and the blame lies with the First Minister of the government which introduced the policy of housing men in women's jails and the First Minister who has continued her predecessor's policy. In Calton's opinion, Nicola Sturgeon should not only resign but be charged with dereliction of duty - the duty to care for the most vulnerable in society.

Protecting our children comes first

Underneath the forbidding exterior, Calton is a bit of a softie when it comes to youngsters and is following the progress of Fingal and Iona's new chick with great interest. On a much sadder note, he grieves every time he sees the photo of April Jones' smiling face and is glad that her killer will never be released. He is also totally incensed that the man responsible for sexually assaulting a 4-year old boy in Asda's toilets has only been given two and a half years - half the sentence passed down to the sewage tanker ram raiders! Have we got our priorities completely and utterly back to front? What sort of disincentive to interfere with children is 30 months? Particularly with the insane policy of automatic early release? More to the point, how long will that little boy continue to be affected by what happened to him? Rehabilitation of offenders is all very well but protection of our children needs to come first. Parents will hardly be reassured to know that Christopher Morrison will only be under supervision for 42 months after his release. Anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child should be locked up until the risk of them reoffending is zero. If that means they leave prison in a box, so be it. That's still more humane than their crime.

It's willpower we lack, not legislation

Do we really need new legislation to deal with people who advocate beheadings and other such things? Surely we already have the wherewithal to act, given all the recent 'hate' crimes created by our parliaments. The problem is not lack of power - it is lack of willpower to tackle those who are promoting violence, especially, it seems, if they are Muslim. There is also an unwillingness amongst the political elite to accept that not all immigrants to this country want to become good little British citizens. Some of them despise us as morally decadent and see us as responsible for waging war on Muslims in other countries (with some justification). They don't want to become like us - they want to make us like them, by force if necessary. They use our freedom of speech for their own ends while seeing us as weak for allowing it. They have no respect for British traditions and customs - all that matters is that their violent version of Islam is implemented in this country. We have now seen the tragic consequences of our laissez-faire approach. Calton does not want to see free speech controlled but those who abuse it to promote acts of violence should feel the full force of the law of this country. Then we might all be able to feel more secure, including the moderate Muslims who have been targeted in the backlash from Drummer Rigby's murder.

Throw away the key

Is Calton the only one who is thoroughly sickened by convicted criminals complaining that their sentences are too long? The latest one is Colin Ross, sentenced to a minimum of 20 years for beating an American woman senseless on the Great Glen Way. She later died of her injuries, inflicted with a metal pipe and a boulder. Ross has been assessed as being a high risk to the public if at liberty and, if Calton had his way, would never see the outside of a prison again. So why is his sentence being reviewed? The answer seems to be because a couple of other criminals, convicted of particularly nasty crimes, have had their sentences reduced. Is our legal system going completely insane? Does public protection not matter any more? Are our appeal court judges totally out of touch with public opinion? It's high time Kenny MacAskill got in there and sorted this out.

Since when did 10 become 7?

Calton wants to know why a convicted violent rapist, whose victim was left looking like she had been in a car crash and who got a 10-year sentence in 2005, is back in the community where he committed the crime. Such cases make a complete mockery of our justice system. It's understandable that neighbours of Robert Greens are not happy, particularly since it now seems that there is a real possibility of Greens reoffending. Police have applied for a Sexual Offences Protection Order so that they can monitor Greens and protect the public. They wouldn't need to do this if he was still behind bars. Isn't it about time we stopped being soft on serious criminals and, instead, made them serve out the whole of their sentence?

(And don't get Calton started on the report that Greens is opposing the Protection Order on the grounds that it contravenes his human rights. Unless you want a full-scale rant.)

Corroboration - archaic or an essential safeguard?

The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about the Scottish Government's proposal to abolish the requirement for corroboration of evidence in trials. So is Calton. While removal of the requirement would help to prosecute cases of crimes such as sexual abuse of children, it also opens the door to wrongful prosecutions based on the evidence of one person alone and appropriate safeguards need to be put in place before such a fundamental change is implemented. In particular, removal of the need for corroboration could radically change the way policing is carried out in Scotland as there would no longer be a requirement for two officers to provide evidence for a prosecution. That may well be a positive step in terms of cost-savings for our police force however it seems to be a backward step in terms of justice in Calton's opinion.