In recent years there has been a steady stream of horrific crime stories from Great Britain. This one appears to shed light on the public policies that contribute to what looks like a permanent crime wave:
A convicted rapist sexually assaulted and murdered a teenage girl after a council was told he could not be evicted because it would breach his human rights.
Michael Clark, 40, was on the Sex Offenders Register and subject to official checks. But he was able to move into a city of his choosing where neighbours did not know his past.
The council considered him too dangerous to live there, but had to house him after being warned of legal action for breaching his human rights as a homeless person.
This is a remarkable glimpse into the welfare state in action. Clark, upon his discharge from prison, had the “right” to choose where he wanted to live, and British taxpayers had no choice but to house him at their expense. Further, Clark had the “right” to have his status as a repeat sex offender concealed from his new neighbors.
A Polish couple, newly immigrated to Great Britain, moved in two doors down from Clark. They had a nine year old son and a fourteen year old daughter. On the first day of school, they proudly walked their son to his new school. That was the opportunity Clark had been waiting for:
Clark, a jobless solvent abuser, struck as the couple walked their son to his first day at school two months after arriving in the country.
He is thought to have let himself into the house where he sexually assaulted Zuzanna before stabbing her in the stomach, fracturing her skull by stamping on her head and slitting her throat.
Afterwards he drew his benefits from a Post Office and went to Blackpool.
What a wonderful phrase–“he drew his benefits!” One of the remarkable aspects of this crime is that Clark was at large at all, let alone living incognito in a city of his choice at taxpayer expense. The crimes of which he had been convicted included raping a woman in her home, sexually assaulting another woman (a prostitute), assaulting a “woman friend” and assaulting two police officers, one of whose testicle he bit off.
The Leeds city council didn’t like being forced into being Clark’s new home–he was deemed “too dangerous … to return to Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire”–but they say a homeless charity threatened to sue them if they refused. Various government agencies are quoted more or less passing the buck, and the homeless shelter denies any responsibility. Here is their theory:
The decisions on where to place Clark and who to house next to him were taken by Leeds city council.
Questions need to be asked as to why this young girl and her family were housed next to a known sex offender.
So apparently it’s up to the city to pay for Clark’s home, and then try to prevent families with children from living nearby–of course, without telling them why, since that would violate Clark’s rights.
Is is possible for a society with such suicidal instincts to survive?
To comment on this post, go here.