The sick spectacle that is John Hirst

The only word to describe it is ‘sick’.

The Daily Politics gave airtime to the BBC’s latest curiosity, John Hirst. The so called Jailhouse Lawyer, who was nothing more than a prison plaintiff, listened to Andrew Neil describe the manner in which Hirst took an axe, put the kettle on, killed a defenceless woman with the axe, then made himself a cup of tea. Hirst then grinned broadly, laughed and thanked Neil for the graphic account.

He laughed.

The family of Hirst’s victim, Bronia Burton, should not be subjected to the sick spectacle of the mentally unstable, aggressive killer of their relative being paraded across television and radio to bask in the limelight of a stomach churning celebratory tour. Hirst’s behaviour demonstrated what a grotesque and unpleasant person he is. Nothing has changed since this profile of him published in the Guardian in 2006.

Despite 25 years in prison (after being sentenced to 15) for submitting a plea of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, there is no indication that John Hirst has been in any way been rehabilitated. He denies committing violent offences in prison that saw his sentence steadily increase, claiming he only served 10 additional years because he challenged their authority and demanded his ‘rights’.  The sick irony of Hirst demanding the entitlements that progressive idiots have taken upon themselves to redefine as rights – after Hirst denied Bronia Burton to a genuine human right, the right to life – should not be lost on anyone. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Hirst considers himself intelligent and learned after completing a degree while in prison and challenging the ban on prison inmates having the vote. But he was pathetically incapable of answering why prisoners such as him should be entitled to participate in the democratic process. He simply repeated over and over that prisoners should vote because it is their human right, before throwing personal insults at Andrew Neil for having the temerity to ask perfectly reasonable questions. If anything, the thoroughly revolting Hirst actually demonstrated there are people who plainly unfit to be allowed to vote and should be barred from participating in the electoral process.

The European Court of Human Rights agreed with Hirst back in 2005. But then, it would given it is largely comprised of socialist progressive placemen whose legal experience does not include training as counsel, practicing in courts and subsequently becoming judges. Many of the members of the ECHR bench are nothing more than academics who studied or taught law and have perpetuated the liberal agenda of upholding ‘rights’ for offenders while thumbing their noses at the law abiding in society who are trampled on by the bureaucracy that infests our lives. Such people should have no place handing down rulings to anyone.

The ECHR should not have legitimacy, but it has because the political classes who make up the Council of Europe signed up to be bound by its rulings in a fit of bien pensant idiocy. The ECHR should not have the competence to effectively create law. But it does because the political class did not challenge the ECHR awarding itself the ability to do so. Not for the first time the chickens are coming home to roost, but yet again the political class is sticking its head in the sand to avoid having to admit they got something wrong.

Against such a backdrop it is no surprise Hirst’s unworthy challenge successed and that he has subsequently been given a platform for his obnoxious grandstanding. After all this is declining Britain in the 21st Century, where common sense and decency are sneered at and the honest and law abiding are under continuous attack. However, at some point the people will hit back. Hard.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “The sick spectacle that is John Hirst”


  1. 1 TheBoilingFrog 03/11/2010 at 4:08 pm

    A superb post and spot on. A very elegant way of describing Mr Hirst without reducing it to just four letters.

  2. 2 Barry 03/11/2010 at 4:56 pm

    “Hirst considers himself intelligent and learned after completing a degree while in prison and challenging the ban on prison inmates having the vote. But he was pathetically incapable of answering why prisoners such as him should be entitled to participate in the democratic process. ”

    The ECHR gave the British Government five years to justify denying prisoners the vote. All they had to do was pass legislation in Parliament that included losing the right to vote as part of the punishment regime. They chose not to. Question the motives of Government and Parliament rather than be distracted by the repellent character of John Hirst.

    It is not for Hirst to explain why prisoners should have the vote but for the Government to explain why they have not justified denying prisoners the vote. Either they think prisoners deserve to vote or they deserve to be denied it but they have not got around to making either argument, instead leaving it to a decision by default.

    If they agreed with Hirst in 2006 they could have rectified it then. If they disagreed with Hirst in 2006 they could have rectified it then. They were given an opportunity to legitimately deny prisoners the vote and did not take it. Our representatives are either spineless chumps or spineless and lazy chumps.

  3. 3 Marc 04/11/2010 at 4:27 pm

    Yes, but Andrew Neil was using the argument ad-hominem, which is a poor line of questioning. Who delivers the arguments should be largely irrelevant, and Neil disregarded that particular tenet of high quality interviewing.

    As for Human Rights, despite how bitter on the palate it is, I would question whether we wish to deprive people of rights that are not absolutely essential under the punishment and rehabilitation requirements of their incarceration. For instance, if part of prison life is educating them about politics and voting, that doesn’t help them avoid their imprisonment, so why should we deny them it.

    Indeed, he deprived other people of their human rights, but our society isn’t meant to be ‘eye-for-eye’ retaliatory in nature. If we only go by the aggrievements of the affected, then we would just kill them and have it done with. I doubt we should want the government to have the power to deprive people of human rights any more than is necessary.

    At any rate, my initial point is the most relevant one, by attacking the man personally he was degrading the interview to a slanging match. Perhaps that is a populist move, but I’d rather he attacked the central argument than the person, despite how distasteful a man he is.

  4. 4 Autonomous Mind 04/11/2010 at 4:47 pm

    I disagree Marc. Neil was asking Hirst to explain and justify why someone who had committed such a grave offence should have a say in the democratic process. That was the central argument and Hirst failed to counter it. Neil was wholly justified in approaching the topic in that way. The only thing that was degrading was seeing Hirst mocking Neil for his hair – and the thing that was vile was Hirst laughing at the description of his actions while intentionally taking the life of Bronia Burton.

    Voting is not a human right. We have seen rights contagion spreading as activist judges and campaigners seek to out-do each other in being perceived as virtuous by defining a wide range of civic entitlements as rights. It fuels their sense of power and stamping their mark on the world. But it ignores the fact they are actually diluting genuine rights issues. Voting is an entitlement to participate in a process, nothing more. Defining it as a fundamental human right was unthinking idiocy that underlines the stupidity of those who have power and use it poorly.

    Contrary to your point, I believe prison is a form of retaliation. In return for seriously offending against society, society excludes the perpetrator from itself by removing their liberty. It both punishes the perpetrator and protects society from further harm. Exclusion from society warrants exclusion from its norms, such as voting. In years gone by Hirst’s plea of manslaughter would have been rejected for the mischief it was and having demonstrated malice aforethought by arming himself to make his assault, would have been found guilty of murder and hung – eye for eye retaliation.

  5. 5 John Hirst 25/11/2010 at 10:28 pm

    Neil was asking totally irrelevant questions to the issue.

  6. 6 Autonomous Mind 26/11/2010 at 5:22 pm

    Go away you sick cretin. You sat there and grinned as your slaying of Mrs Burton was described. You’re a disgusting piece of dirt and in my opinion you do not deserve to have a place in civilised society. If you want to take life do us all a favour and take your own.

  7. 7 John Hirst 30/11/2010 at 6:26 pm

    Autonomous Mind surely you are not claiming that you are part of civilised society?

  8. 8 Autonomous Mind 30/11/2010 at 8:39 pm

    So you’re learning impaired as well as an axe wielding, sociopathic, homocidal maniac? You’re not welcome here and you have nothing to say that is of interest to me. Go away.


  1. 1 ROOTS OF EVIL | Centurean2′s Weblog Trackback on 03/03/2011 at 12:56 pm
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive