Human Rights

The hon. Gentleman might have an advantage over me, but I did not see that any senior officer was quoted as having said that in that case. I looked at what was reported very carefully; the phrase used was that mysterious form of words that often appears in newspaper articles—““a police source said””. I suspect that no senior officer involved in that case was labouring under any such illusion. What is important is the interpretation of human rights legislation by those who—to borrow a lovely phrase that I picked up from somewhere—are a few law books short of a law library. I am referring to people who do not understand what they are talking about but who feel free to give advice to others in very difficult situations as to how they should interpret the law. That has repeatedly happened over the past few years. I find some common ground with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in that I think that that problem is in part to do with a litigation-averse public sector that is now so scared of being taken to court not only under the Human Rights Act, but under health and safety legislation or any other such legislation, that it makes up the rules as it goes along for fear that somebody might bring a case, whether or not it has merit. It would be hugely beneficial if many more cases were put before the courts so that the courts could say, ““Don’t be so ridiculous; this is not defective in any way in human rights terms.””