Ellee Seymour

Why doesn’t the government want to answer the following questions, would they be available under the Freedom of Information Act?

• The suicide rate amongst Armed Forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
•  Visas into the UK given to preachers of hate.
•  The number of school leavers without any GCSE qualifications.
•  The level of Green Belt destruction under Labour.
• Taxpayers’ cash to the unions from the new state ‘modernisation’ fund.
•  Sex attacks by NHS doctors and dentists.
   The increase in the number of train stations deemed unsafe due to crime.
•  The estimated influx of migrants from Bulgaria and Romania in the UK from next year .
• Child abuse by Roman Catholic priests.
• Murders committed by prisoners on parole.

These are just a few of almost 1,000 questions waiting for answers which, Theresa May highlights here. The Shadow Leader of the House of Commons quite rightly reminds the government:

“It is clear from this new dossier that Labour Ministers have systematically sought to avoid public scrutiny by evading awkward Parliamentary Questions. Labour may not like it, but the fundamental purpose of Parliament is to scrutinise and hold the government of the day to account.

“Not only are Labour’s actions deeply corrosive to our political system and the impartiality of the Civil Service, but I fear it will fuel further cynicism with politics and politicians.”

I would also like to know how many murderers are still on the loose after absconding from prisons and what action the police is taking to track them down, this has been of great concern in Suffolk.

The government’s refusal to be accountable on these serious issues demonstrates a conceited arrogance. I’m hoping some journalists will quickly get writing a wad of FoI requests to come up with the answers.

Hat Tip Guido. 

Psychoanalyst Nancy Kubrin, who I met in Cambridge this week, has written to Suffolk police urging them to consider “the uncanny relationship between serial killing and Islamic suicide terrorism.”

This is what she wrote:

“I have in draft with an Israeli colleague, Dr Anat Berko, who is a leading criminologist, a scientific theoretical essay raising the question if suicide terrorism can be considered a form of serial killing by proxy with the handler being the pimp and as a crime without victims since there is an exchange - you give me dead infidels. I give you honor and I give your families money despite the fact that the real victims are completely overlooked. In Israeli counter terrorism jargon, the handler is often called the pimp.

“This leads me to the profiling that you are undoubtedly engaged in.
In the U.S. this past July there was an incident of a Pakistani Muslim who was picked up and booked for lewd conduct. He was out on bail when he went on a jihadi killing spree a la the postal worker. He took hostage and then shot one woman to death and injured several others in the Jewish Federation Building in Seattle, Washington.

“Few understand that if an Arab Muslim is exposed and humiliated publicly they will need to seek revenge. It did not surprise me that in the case of Seattle, he sought revenge under the fantasy of jihad. I also think cleansing honor in this particular way may pertain to other Asian cultures as well. This is only a suggestion though I hope it helps.”

This is not to suggest that someone from a Muslim background is the killer, just that Nancy believes there are strong similarities between the reasons why serial killers and terrorists commit such atrocities.

Nancy’s thoughts are endorsed by consultant forensic psychologist Dr Ian Stephen, and criminologist Roger Graef, who both suggest the killer’s warped religious beliefs could be a contributory factor, as well as his experiences with women.

Dr Stephen, who has worked on previous serial killer cases and advised the makers of the TV drama Cracker, suggests the killer may have had a mother who let him down, or been let down by a woman he idolised, or he could have imagined he was on “some kind of Christian mission clearing the world of prostitutes”.

Roger Graef believes that the killer is somebody who was damaged by a woman, who is ashamed of his own impulses, a religious zealot, who feels that “they’re corrupting the whole of mankind”.

Nancy’s theorising is very controversial stuff and perhaps treads new ground for our psychoanalysts, but it seems very relevant when you consider it in the wider context.