Could Hoppeian private defence agencies possibly do any worse than the British Home Office, at providing reasonable protection at a reasonable price? If the entire British Home Office was disbanded tomorrow, and its entire budget repatriated to the taxpayers it was stolen from, would British people be more at risk from violent criminals or safer? After reading the following article, I think the answer is a total no-brainer. See if you agree:
We have lost 446 foreign criminals, says Home Office
The Government has lost more than 400 foreign prisoners it now wants to deport after they were released from prison without being considered for removal.
The total includes a murderer and eight sex offenders.
It emerged yesterday that the missing 446 are among 649 out of the original 1,023 foreign convicts whom the Home Office has decided to throw out of the country if it can find them.
No doubt it will use this as an excuse for why everyone will need to have compulsory ID cards tattooed onto their arms and read by laser scanners in every public space, twenty times a day once Gulag Britain becomes a reality.
From memory, I can think of only one example of more blatant incompetence by the British government; but at least the Charge of the Light Brigade had a certain pointless magnificence to it.
Police and immigration officials are trying to track down the potential deportees. A total of 98 sexual or violent offenders are among the 446.
Are they sure it's only 98, or is it 57, or is it Quarg Squared minus Rumpelstiltskin? Who can tell!
So far, the Home Office has only managed to deport seven convicts out of the 1,023.
Good effort. But is it worth £14 billion?
The number of killers, rapists and child abusers within the 1,023 who were wrongly released has almost doubled since the first assessment given three weeks ago by Charles Clarke, the then home secretary. Then the Government said there were three murderers. Now there are four.
I'm sorry. Now I'm really confused.
The fact that the Home Office cannot find the murderer, reportedly an Albanian, and the other eight who are rapists or child molesters - who should all be on life-long licence or the Sex Offenders Register, and whose whereabouts should be known at all times - will embarrass the new Home Secretary, John Reid.
It's OK though. He's only been doing the job a week, so there's no-one to blame really. Apart from possibly Margaret Thatcher, about a hundred years ago, for creating, err...., a culture of hostility in this country towards Brutal Communist attack-dog thugs dressed up as caring sharing cabinet ministers.
So, too, will the assessment that 57 of the 179 prisoners among the 1,023 who are classed as "more" or "most serious" have committed further crimes since their release without proper consideration.
And so down the rabbit hole you'll go, Dorothy ... into a land of madness.
Of these, 19 involved violence or a "sexual element", which means at least 19 traumatised victims - a shocking statistic which would almost certainly have cost Mr Clarke his job had Tony Blair not sacked him already.
Don't worry, Charles. Gordon Brown has already promised you a nice fat job, once he's PM, with a nice fat pay packet, to go with your nice fat stomach. Oh, what a joy it is to be a nice fat politician.
In a breakdown of the offences the 1,023 were jailed for immediately before being wrongly released, which was published on April 25, there were 19 guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape or "sex offences (minors)" - what the Home Office has said were "most serious offences".
Well, that's all right then. I mean, nineteen out of 1,023 is only a measly 1.86%; hardly worth mentioning really.
On April 28, Mr Clarke told the Speaker of the House of Commons the "most serious" total was in fact 13. Yesterday, Mr Reid said it was 35.
And Uncle Tom Cobbley chipped in with 57. Or was that 93? I forget.
The previous estimate for more and most serious offences has now risen from 150 to 179.
Down from a previous high of 17 in the rankings, and rated as the top British contender at the forthcoming Wimbledon tournament.
The Home Secretary said he had now "widened the definition of serious offences to include all cases where there has been any conviction for offences involving violence or a sexual element" and this category now ran to 144, in addition to the 35.
A hundred and forty-four? That's even more than Uncle Tom Cobbley! Though it sounds a suspiciously round number to me. Someone in the Home Office has obviously been reading Lord of the Rings again, and borrowing the "Gross" of party invitations Bilbo Baggins used, to make it seem like they didn't make the number up.
Oh, those foolish people. They think we don't know!
Officials said the figures had changed to reflect the worst offence in the convict's file, not just the offence they were being punished for when they were released.
And on Tuesdays, the cake trolley in the Home Office has Black Forest gateaux, rather than lemon cheesecake. It's the only thing the civil servants wake up for.
The question of how many of the 1,023 are out of the country or locked up is far from clear.
In the "most serious" 35, three of the four murderers are "within our control". In other words, one is not. A total of 23 of the other 31 "most serious" are now "within our control or deported". One of the 35 has been deported. Six of the 144 have also been deported.
Ummm..."within our control". An interesting statement. When pressed, a spokesman at the Home Office defined "within our control", as meaning the offender under discussion had been contacted by their last known mobile phone number and had agreed to appear at Paddington Green police station, Tuesday week. Probably.
In total, according to the new figures, 203 prisoners are "either under our control or have been deported in removed".
It looks like they're following the John Prescott line on obfuscation. When pushed into a corner, start using a new form of language. You'd think all those Double Firsts from Oxbridge who populate the Whitehall civil service would at least try to use English.
Home Office sources indicated, however, that "under control" may mean detention or release under electronic tagging.
I love the use of the phrase "may mean", sort of like "they have escaped their tag and we don't know where they are", but without the embarrassment.
In Commons exchanges, Mr Reid said that many of the "serious and systemic" failures which led to the release of 1,023 foreign offenders had been in existence for decades.
Oh my God, John Reid really is trying to blame Margaret Thatcher! I think it may be time to remind this brutal communist thug that he and his friends have been in power now for longer than World War II. Considerably longer.
"I believe we are uncovering some very serious and systemic underlying problems in the whole of the relationship between prisons, probation, deportation and so on," he said.
His Tory shadow, David Davis, asked when the Prime Minister's undertaking to "automatically" deport every foreign national who had served a prison sentence would be met.
Knowing Tony Blair, the day after he's removed from office by the Labour Party.
Mr Reid said he intended to ensure that foreign nationals who served "significant" custodial sentences were automatically deported.
Or forced to spend a day living in the mind of John Reid, John Malkovich style. Can you imagine anything worse? Except perhaps being taken roughly from behind by John Prescott.
He added: "I cannot give you a date by which that will be achieved but I can assure you that that is my strategic objective."
What a load of old Cobbolds.
I remember a Croatian general once said a plan without a timetable on it is simply a piece of paper.
I think the time may be coming soon when we in the miniscule British anarcho-capitalist movement can bring on the vision of Gustave Molinari, and the removal of the state monopoly on personal protection. It is going to become far too dangerous to live in Britain, otherwise. Unless, of course, you're a cabinet minister with your own personal Metropolitan Police protection unit.
Perhaps as an alternative tack we could create a new Jeffersonian declaration of independence from the British government. If we do, we should adopt Robert LeFevre's addition:
"That to secure these rights, each man is qualified to select for himself that agency or those agencies which seem to him best suited to protect his life and his property, to maintain his freedom, and which lie within his ability to afford ... that whenever any agency evinces characteristics of tyranny, he is well within his rights and his powers to discharge that agency and find another more suitable to his inclinations and finances."Magnificent.