PHILLIP Prince is critical of me for only using one example of the failings of the Human Rights Act, and alleges therefore that I make an unfair representation (Human Rights Act defended, Letters, June 18). There are numerous other examples I could have given but letters are restricted to the number of words written.
The example I quoted was, in my view, the worst of the many mistakes made as a result of the existence of the Human Rights Act that has allowed dangerous criminals to remain free. An act which is supposed to protect our right to a family life resulted in Mr Beshenivsky and his five children being denied a family life through the loss of a wife and mother.
On June 20 yet another example appeared in the media. A known terrorist, born in Somalia, was ordered to wear a tag; he claimed he believed it contained a camera and a bomb and that it was worsening his mental illness and dangerous thoughts. He was allowed to remove the tag and is again free on our streets. It appears Mr Prince believes the Human Rights Act is of little importance, he claims that decisions made can be changed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; that appears to be a good argument to scrap the Human Rights Act.
ALEC WALL
Tenbury Wells