Theresa May Right about the cat; Ken Clarke past his use-by date

Read the judge's judgement in the case concerned and it's clear that Theresa May was absolutely justified in what she said about the cat.  Of course the judge did not say the illegal immigrant could stay because he had a cat; but he did say that he could stay because he had a family relationship with a woman and that he was reinforced in that view by the fact that they had a cat.  The implication is quite clear: if they had not had a cat their claim to be in a family relationship would have been weakened in the eyes of the law.  Whether fatally weakened or not we cannot know, but it is undeniably theoretically possible that in the absence of a cat the judge might have come to a different view. So the message to illegal immigrants from that judgement is clear; if you want to avoid being deported, shack-up with a woman and buy a cat.

The case vividly illustrates just how crazy judicial interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has become, and how urgent is the need to put things right.  Regardless of whether repeal of the Human Rights Act and the introduction of a new Bill of Rights is the right way to do that, or whether saner interpretation of the Convention by judges can be achieved while retaining the Human Rights Act, Theresa May was absolutely right to use the cat case to try to get Ken Clarke off his backside.  Ken looks to me less and less like a serious politician and more and more like an old duffer past his use-by date.