Tuesday, 25 August 2009

The UK Supreme Court, 12th of October the mistake begins

David Blunket has written this over at the Times where he examines the new Supreme Court UK. We have covered this issue extensively and will be at the opening of this grand mistake at its opening on the 12th of October, providing pictures and commentary. Consider this very important paragraph as posted by Mr. Blunket
"The problem is that we do not have, and with the new constitutional affairs legislation still will not have, clarity about how, within that separation, we ensure that the judges do their bit to stay independent of political interference but that parliament has the final say on the laws of the land. The sooner we get this sorted, the better. That means ensuring that judges have the power to intervene and to rule against ministers when they exceed the power granted to them by the elected parliament but, on the other hand, that they do not have the power to decide that parliament is wrong or that somehow it should change its mind."
It seems that "independent" in this context is more or less synonymous with unaccountable. It certainly does not mean that the new Court will not have an activist agenda, at odds with that of the elected Government of the day, and remote from the values and concerns of the majority of the British public.

Judicial activism is not a new phenomenon in the UK. The principle of the supremacy of EC over domestic law, and more recently the Human Rights Act, have allowed foreign (ECJ/ECHR) and UK courts effectively to overrule Acts of Parliament. The creation of the new Supreme Court will only accelerate this trend.

The new Court could not have come into being at a worse time. The power and prestige of Parliament are at a very low ebb. In the wake of the expenses scandal, it is difficult to see the Commons reasserting itself against the executive and the party whips, let alone mounting an effective challenge to a confident and self-aggrandizing new Supreme Court. I despair of Parliamentary democracy in this country.

What is the solution then? Well the Law Lords cost the tax payer £2,000,000 a year which is a highly respectable figure if you were to compare it to the working cost of say the American Supreme Court or the Palais the Justice in France. Basically that is to say that the annual cost of the highest court in the UK is a hell of a lot less than most countries, if any comparable to the size and geopolitical status of the UK. Well, the new Supreme Court UK will have an annual budget of £60,000,000 (sixty million pounds compared to two million for the Law Lords).

This is a supremely stupid way of fixing something that does not need mending. The Law Lords worked perfectly fine and were tremendously respected throughout the world particularly because they functioned in such a good way despite they being part of the legislative process (and I say 'despite' not in a derogatory manner since over the past century them being in the House of Lords seems to have had little effect on the legislation, if anything it provided the best legal advice the House could ever have wished for). As with everything with this government they seek to destroy pretty much everything that once used to define Great Britain, and they are doing a spectacularly good job of it at that. The only advise I can offer to the income government is basically repeal the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. You will have saved in the money building the Supreme Court UK, within two years - the building and everything surrounding it has to date added £66,000,000 to the tax payers bill.

And again before you leave this blog let me draw your sincere attention to the emblem posted at the beginning of this entry. Notice the distinct lack of the St. Edwards Crown instituted in 1954 to be part of all governmental emblems. It seems that this government has taken it upon itself to abolish Royal Prerogative as well. I will post my mails regarding this issue with the Ministry of Justice once everything has been finalised. Stay tuned.

Monday, 24 August 2009

You remove my porn, I remove your head

I shall be leaving for a few days but have been grumbling on the same question for some time now, one which I would like to share. How long can you really, as a government, ignore the wishes of the electorate without force?

Clearly Communism managed to do so for a good century almost, some like North Korea are still continuing the puppet show. But what about us, we who supposedly are democratic?

It comes as no surprise that New Labour have destroyed also the cabinet government whilst in the hands of Blair and Brown. Fair enough, you really have to give it to them; they have beyond doubt paid great attention to every detail. They have managed to destroy pretty much every thing, part, department, essence (I am not sure which word to use to collectively refer to the British way of governing) and soul of British government.

In fact they have done such a fine job than when they are not at the helm of the leviathan, Brown is currently on holiday and Tony is hopefully miles away from the UK, the country is doing just fine without them. 'Fine' is an understatement, we are doing quite well for ourselves. The FTSE's up, the weather's nicer and we've won the Ashes. Not too shabby one must commend.

But the problem is that once David enters Downing street not a thing will work. How do you de-politicise a civil service, a civil service of the same magnitude as the British one - bloated to the brim. Returning to Cabinet government from a sofa government (as coined by Tony Blair) is like returning to Athens from Sparta can it even be done or are we forever more destined to have those awful presidential type campaigns as epitomised by France and the United States. I dread at the mere prospect. The EU is such an obvious obstacle to any form of meaningful government that it is pointless to even mention or discuss its function, meriting it with its existence is to admit to its function - that of stripping away national parliaments; bit by bit.

This is what it really burns down to though: how long can an elected government ignore the electorate without the use of force?

I shall not publish a thesis to the effect or tune of this question. All I can say is thank god for bloggers. There is at least one blog committed to every single malaise in Britain today. If it is not a blog it is a think tank or charity. Safe to say there is no escape for anyone in the public light. What is even better, people are turning more and more to the internet to decide for themselves if what they heard on the BBC or read in the Telegraph was what actually happened. They could stop us of course, they could create some form of the Great Chinese firewall and name it Hadrian's Firewall Mark II. But unlike the Chinese that probably would lead to riots in Britain: You remove my porn, I remove your head.

Sunday, 23 August 2009

The Gray Report - be wary of its contents

People should support our troops. Hammer away at the government they are incompetent nitwits as far as most of us are concerned. Do not pour scorn on our troops for following the orders they have been given and honouring their pledge of allegiance to the Queen and the country.

However, military procurement has become a rather massive farce at this stage. We are engaging in possibly every single EU-integrationist project we can get our hands on; Eurofighter; A400, FRES (dead and dead but hey Jesus raised Lazarus and the EU thinks it is god so do go celebrating before the fat lady sings) and many other minors ones - these are just the ones that cost us billions. What is more we are letting the arms companies, the British ones included, run the government not the other way around. If the T45 is delayed by BAE Systems then they pay a fine. That is what is done in the rest of marked based world so why not in defence? No it will not harm national security that seemingly endless reply to everything which the government cannot defend nor explain.

Lets analyse shall we?

The Eurofighter - it is a shit aircraft designed for Coldwar dogfits, the British have handled it so incompetently that where the Mauser B-27 wing cannons should be, well they are filled with concrete. Why? We could not afford the damn guns because we were buying so bloody many planes which we had no use of. Well, that of course depends on how you define 'use'. Great for EU integration, to the detriment of the RAF.

A400M - It is 5 billion Euros over budget and 4 years behind schedule. Splendid, in the mean time we could have bought the American Boeing C-17 of which we have four and they work splendidly. OR we could have done what we used to do, before everyone started to outsource our entire industry, build them ourselves. Do you think the V bombers were a casual design mistake so often perpetrated by British engineers, little do they know they have been revolutionary yet again. Aeronautically they were awesome and most importantly we built them ourselves.

FRES - The Future Rapid Effects System... Ha, what a joke truly even for the MoD.

But more importantly to the Gray report. Bernard Gray is criticising the way the MoD is procuring equipment, it is about bloody time someone did. You can read all about it in the Times. Seems pointless to reiterate the entire article. However the solution which Mr. Gray presents for this malaise currently devouring this once proud institution, this is what is of greater importance.

Mr Gray proposes that we privatise military procurement. As anyone would know I am staunchly against any kind of privatisation of the military, the government has on plan to privatise military training as well so where do we draw the line. After what Thatcher did and New Labour after her, I ask who would not be? But even more so what have the results been?

To put one of the privitisations further under the microscope consider the DERA, which employed over 9,000 people mainly scientists, engineers and technicians. This agency consisted of the amalgamated (in 1995):
  1. Royal Aircraft Establishment
  2. Admirality Research Establishment
  3. Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment
  4. Royal Signals and Radar Establishment
  5. Defence and Test Evaluation Organisation
  6. Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  7. Centre for Defence Analysis
New Labour sold of 3/5 of DERA in 2001. There was a lot of dodgy business surrounding that sale notably including John Chrisholm who worked as a civil servant for the MoD. Before going into him this is what happened briefly and this I have copied from The Register.

The MoD has received £576m for 81 per cent of a business with annual revenues of £1.1bn (on which it makes approximately £120m profits). Much of that business relates to operating UK test facilities and firing ranges which are effectively a monopoly which the MoD must use. Indeed, the MoD, as part of selling off Qinetiq, is tied into using these facilities until 2028 under a sweetheart deal called the Long Term Partnering Agreement, worth up to £5.6bn to Qinetiq just for keeping the facilities open. The MoD has to pay more on top when it wants to actually use them. And it's actually even worse than it sounds, because Qinetiq can crank up the price.

Where does John Chrisholm fit into all of this then? Well he was in charge of amalgamating those departments listed above into DERA. He is now the Executive Chairman of Qinetiq. Wow, that really worked out well for him. Pat on the back.

How did that happen?

Sir John was originally brought into the MoD back in 1991, following a successful business career in the 1980s. He became head of the Defence Research Agency, which later expanded to become DERA - the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

MoD research spending fell all through the 1990s, and as ever the government lacked the resolution to handle the inevitable job losses and downsizing itself. Instead, much of DERA was prepared for a move into the private sector. Chisholm and his inner circle of executives were allowed to handle the process more or less unsupervised, according to subsequent investigations by the National Audit Office. Unsupervised in this context means that they prepared for it to be solved of to the American Carlyle Group. All in all though John Chrisholm is a person without a country who in the end will get what he deserves for raiding HM Government.

This leads us back to Gray who proposes that we privatise possibly the most lucrative part of the MoD, the Defence and Equipment Support Group. They handle a heep load of cash, how much is undisclosed but their entire work force amounts to 25,000 people. They are doing a shoddy job to say the least but to privatise their entire function in procuring equipment for the armed forces - that is beyond contempt for it would put the function in the hands of people like John Chrisholm. People with no honour who would sell their soul and their country to the highest bidder. Just because everything has become globalised does not mean we are to retire our entire state for the purpose and prospect of profits.

What this means is that the most expensive equipment will be bought but here comes the crack; just because it is expensive does not mean that it is good. The past decades military projects have shown us that if anything.

Remarkably Interesting topics on ConservativeHome

One about the EU.

One about Scottish independence

Matters little really, I am as hostile to the Tories as I am New Labour.

Love Spitfire

Saturday, 22 August 2009

Alcohol and Drinking WTF?

In 1960 France had 200,000 cafes selling wine, beer and spirits alongside coffee, tea and soft drinks, today there are fewer than 41,000.

BBC and Ramadan

Aah it is that time of the year again when the BBC decides to ass kiss everything Islamic, not making the debate about Islam and its values not even the tiniest bit non-partisan. No, what the BBC does is to ignore all the nasty clauses of what it means to be a Muslims like these bits from the Koran:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Now do not make this into a tit-for-tat argument; the Bible vs. the Koran - the Bible has some pretty horrific stuff in it as well the difference is that the BBC sees no wrong in slandering it and its followers even though, supposedly, Christianity is the state religion of the UK. There is an active debate on the Bible and God, the BBC will be quick to point this out to you. However the same debate is non-existent for Islam. The BBC in its 'cultural relativism', gives Islam as equal a value as any other religion in Britain if not greater; and, for the BBC, the Koran is beyond criticism from 'infidels'. On Ramadan, the BBC expresses the views of Muslims only; the negative impact which Muslim observance has on predominantly non-Muslim British society is censored by the BBC that is to say the government. Few will forget the recent bollocks which has emerged from Whitehall, new guidelines telling the police to go easy on borderline criminal cases involving muslims.

Happily though New Labourism is being obliterated, by the day, in the UK and that is always something to celebrate. But just so you do not take out the victory prematurely, it must be reinforced that we are still ruled by a claque of retards who fosters this kind of behaviour in the BBC and in the country.

They happily ask her what Ramadan means to her, she is muslim, so that is only to be expected. But what about me? What about the other 58 billion people in the UK who are not muslims what does Ramadan mean to us? Will we not be asked for our opinion? Do not count on it, that would upset the balance you see.

I support state sponsored television to an extent; it is bloody awesome to have a channel without bloody commercials running every second. Who can deny that Planet Earth was magnificent, it really was breathtaking. However in order for the BBC to be state sponsored in the future they should be ordered to stay of the topics of religion and politics. Provide news but no programs or documentaries - in that way they will insult no one. Seeing as they are incapable of treating these subjects without bias and respect their reporting of them should be discontinued or they loose their funding, simple as.

This is a link to a blogger who wrote a very sad but ironic post. Just thought you might find it as tragic as I did. Death of people, regardless of colour, is always tragic but even more so when the only ones who survived did so because they were doing their honest part whilst the others died while doing the completely opposite. Whether true or not (most likely not) it does mimic London quite accurately.

Thursday, 20 August 2009

In a time of Honour

You cannot help sometimes to feel that you belong in another time, a time that seemingly shared your own values and motifs, paradigms and horizons. A time when ostensibly dreams were possible and smaller miracles could triumph as a direct consequence of the century whence it took place.

Time change of course. During the reign of Queen Victoria Britain was speeding towards the height of its Empire. With the grand victories by Lord Nelson in Trafalgar, 1805 followed by the victory at Waterloo in 1815 thanks to Wellington - little seemed to stand in her way, Britain that is. Considering Victoria she was happily married, very happily so for two decades. Proof of her and Albert's good fortune can be found in and close to Hyde Park, London. There we find not only the Royal Albert Hall but also the Albert Memorial - a tribute to her husband. Sadly Albert only lived till the age of 42 and ever sadder for Victoria she had to spend the remaining part of her life, all those 39 years, without the husband whom she loved so dearly.

During the reign of Victoria a sense of honour permeated not only the isles of Britain but also Europe. Honour was something precious, something which you could loose your life over, something which could not be taken away from a man lest at the pain of death. Honourable causes were championed not only in battle but also in Parliament. This was the time of Wilburfore, Sir Robert Peel and many others who saw it as their duty to make Britain a better place. This was a time of honour. What could be more honourable than creating work for the poor, helping the sick and freeing the shackled? By those days standards; little.

How times have changed. Today our Prime minister is clinging on to his job like a sickly infected tumour. A disease, a cancer, that regardless of what fancy new drugs and proceedures we throw at it, just wont go away. Honour is a hollow concept for Mr. Brown a non-issue, a subject so tiresome that were he to put his spin doctors on it he would appear the next day as Richard the Lionheart - in his own mind. The times have passed when people cared for what kind of legacy their death would bring, of how they would be remembered once their soul has left these dark shores and passed into a glorious place in heaven, reserved, seemingly, only for those who lived a good life. A life of meaning, duty and justice.

Parliament is infested, few would disagree on this issue. The majority of MPs have broken the trust we bestowed upon them. There is a small minorty who nonetheless must not be counted in the greater mass who deserve nothing less than life imprisonment in the Tower of London. Murder is a heinous crime but slaying of trust and democracy is worse. Mr. Brown appears to think that he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who made the hard choices in the hard times. Little does he know that his memory will only be a little less disastrous than his predeecesor Tony Blair. Mr. Brown will be remembered as the the Prime Minister who brought down Parliament, shamed its entire function as a legislative body, shackled the Britain to the monstrous leviathan that is the EU who only now is beginning to show its true face. He will be remembered as the unelected debauchee who resisted the nation's wish for change, their cries and their screams, who instigated a war on freedom and justice. A man who thought it appropriate to undo the constitutional Magnus Opus that is the British Parliament along with its traditions, quirks, ceremonies and not the least the last defence against the onslaught of the state.

Tony Blair... books have been written about his legacy, Cherrie Blair seems to think her husband will rank alongside Churchill and Disraeli. Not one book, several, but simply put Tony Blair will be remembered as the Prime minesterial traitor. When in the sadly, very distant future, when we again have the moral power to rule ourselves with a sliver of descency, then the ghosts of Blair and Brown will return to haunt the schools and they will learn how these two men, single handedly brought down Britain.

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

Pure Genius

Thanks to Calling England

I for one do not give a shit about religious sensibilities.

It ain't Halal or Kosher?

Oh no we must please the religionistas or they will kill us all, flee, flee for your lives!!!

While our government indulges in religious appeasement, seemingly completely nescient to History (see the episode about Neville Chamberlain), I would just like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that currently, in this moment, 5,000,000 die every year of starvation. And they have the audacity to bang on about their religious sensitives?

No, eat what is given to you and shut the fuck up.

It has begun

I am always ever so quick to point out my thesis about the future political life in Britain, I am allowed to do this because I am center-right person who is unaffiliated and unbiased /sarcasm.

For the thesis:
Less than 10 months from now the Tories will seize power but in 4-5 years time when the next general election is to come people will have realized that they were as shit as Labour were. In fact they are New Labour just a different cover. People will then vote neither Tories nor Labour - the New Labour ghost from the past 12 years will haunt the Labour party for at least two decades. What will happen next is anyone's guess.
It has begun though be so sure of it. Rows over the NHS, Cameron has decided to push up the price on drinks, when 50 pubs are closing a week. It is a way to raise money surely, but not the right way. What is more they seem to care little that they have an ongoing campagin called 'Save the Great British Pub' - quite how the above story fits into this picture one can but wonder.

In essence the people of Britain, the normal people, 'get it' whenever politicians seem to be doing something good, the backlash is always felt by the people who it was unintended for. Never mind the Quangos and the EU who cost us billions, never mind the extraordinary waste within military procurement, never mind our subservience to the United States-we are still poodles- and never mind that MPs get a six figure salary. No, savings are to be at the expense of the people.

An interesting analogy to make is that of Saudi Arabia. Whenever the Sheik is to appear to be more conservative than he already is, that is to say to become even more fundamentalist (do not confuse 'terrorist' and 'fundamentalist' they are completely different things) the women are the first to 'get it'. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot even drive a car, whenever reform comes to Saudi Arabia it is at their expense and to their detriment. They are not even allowed to go outside alone.

We are not so very different from Saudi Arabia, we have some form of "democracy" but who could honestly claim that Parliament cares what we think? How many laws have been passed over the past 20 years at our expense to make us more dependent on the state. How many CCTV cameras are there today in the UK? The number '42' suddenly takes on a whole new dimension in the UK. You see we are not so different; whenever they attempt reform the women get it, whenever we attempt reform we get it.

Addendum: I am not sure what socialist purpose this horse shit could serve but it is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, who knows? (apparently pubs are not closing at all, it is a lie)

Who is funding the Taliban? We are

Everyone should link to this. Preferably read the damn thing as well.
"It works something like this. There's a construction project funded by the British aid budget - say building a school in some godforsaken patch of dirt, mainly so that a minister can point to it when he wants to claim - falsely, most of the time - that girls are being educated. But the government doesn't build the school, a private firm gets the contract to build it. And a very generous contract, too, which I suppose is fair enough given how dangerous it is to get anything done in that part of the world. In order to get the school built, the contractor then has to bribe local "community leaders" - that goes without saying. But it also has to negotiate with the local Taliban leadership - who insist on a cut of the aid money as their price for not blowing the place (or the workers) to smithereens. So British taxpayer's money goes to the Taliban, who spend it, among other things, on the IEDs which blow up British soldiers instead. 20% is the typical figure, although it's estimated that in some cases the Taliban are raking in as much as 40% of the international aid money."

Monday, 17 August 2009


Grr Hannan says, grr!

Hannanism is an actual concept, well, according to Liberal Conspiracy.

Remember what Lord Nelson's message read before raging into the Battle of Trafalgar:

"England Expects Every Man to Do his Duty" - at least one is, the rest of the claque which comports itself as the staunch 'defenders' of the NHS seem to be the arch hypocrites in their dilemma in that they insist on seeing no evil, hearing no evil and definitely not speaking any evil.

When did they loose their balls, I am truly dumbstruck by British "leaders" ?

The complexities of Justice: In reply to EU Nosemonkey and his claque

I have been putting of this reply for a while because it is a fairly complex issue to discuss for myself since my academic expertise lies not in jurisprudence but another field of academia. Challenging someone who ostensibly has a degree in law and has worked as a parliamentary researcher in both Westminster and Brussels will at best be difficult at worst disastrous, hopefully the reader understands my apprehension about writing this post. It is like the Danish Army in 1940, taking a stand against the Wehrmacht. Hopefully I will not suffer the same fate as the Danes (they surrendered after 30 minutes). Let it be understood that we harbour no ills against Mr. Nosemonkey - he is a Eurocrat I am not. We respectfully disagree.

Here we go...

This is the reply (in italics) EU Nosemonkey gave to my post titled 'Remember The Awe', where my response in normal font.

The only fundamental of the British constitutional system is that no parliament can bind another. Magna Carta predates parliament - but that does not make it exempt from the rule.

This claim in must take issue with. Magna Carta was signed (not really, King John was illiterate and could not write hence only his seal was on the Magna Cart no his signature) in 1215.

King John agreed to Magna Carta which stated the right of the barons to consult with and advise the king in his Great Council

Earliest use of the term Parliament, referring to the Great Council

Magna Carta created parliament, it was not referred to by name until 1236 agreed, but that does mean the concept of parliament itself was not created in 1215. Parliament is after all a legislative body and since that previously was accorded to the king, but now was done in conjunction with the barons, the concept was born out of Magna Carta and cannot have predated it since it created it.

On the habeas corpus side of things - you have heard of feudalism, right? Which carried on for several centuries after Magna Carta was signed, and which was basically indentured slavery. Habeas corpus has also been suspended by parliament several times during periods of war (that whole "no one parliament can bind another" thing again) - and is also one of the "fundametal rights" of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would - if the Lisbon Treaty is passed - for the first time *force* the British state to hold habeas corpus (among other things) sacrosanct.

Well that makes absolutely no sense at with regards to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even so before coming to terms with that claim, The Conservatives are proposing to scrap the Human Rights Act 2000 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights which surely then must contradict the need for a European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Never mind the rights actually, the Lisbon Treaty creates so many undemocratic features anyway, but that is for another time. But just by the by here are some parts of the Corpus Juris (I am sure you have heard of it), you will notice that having a European Charter of Fundamental Rights helps little when the creator of it is the one we need protection from.


1) "Powers of investigation of the European Public Prosecutor (EPP) "will include g) To make requests for a person's remand in custody. . .for a period of up to 6 months, renewable for 3 months, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed one of the offences defined above, or good reasons for believing it necessary to stop him committing such an offence. . ." (Page 90, Article 20). Habeas Corpus sacrosanct, are you really sure about that?

This means that the EPP can incarcerate someone for months without charge merely because he thinks they might have committed an offence or might commit an offence. It appears that there is no limit to the number of 3-month extensions. This practise was outlawed in Britain more than 300 years ago as part of the Habeus Corpus Act (1689) which is now incorporated into Britain's Bail Acts.

2) "In the case of partial or total acquittal appeal is also open to the EPP as a prosecuting party" (Page 120 article 27.2 )

The meaning of this is plain - the accused can be tried twice for the same offence thus creating the state of "double jeopardy" which has been banned in Britain for centuries.

3) "Section 6 of the EC Human Rights constitutes an excellent model for the rights which should be granted to the accused;. . .however case law has not yet decided whether being held in custody makes a person an 'accused ' person. . ." (Page 126).

In this Kafkaesque mode of thinking, anybody can be locked up without becoming an accused person and, since the person has not been accused, he or she will have none of the protections afforded by the human rights legislation or the protections already provided by our Common Law.

Thanks to David Rowlands for the above.

By the by, your "know this" section in your sidebar is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of British *and* European law. (Something I assume you've picked up from the Devil's Kitchen? DK and I have argued about this in pubs on occasion - he's still wrong.)

No not at all it is entirely, 100%, of my own accord. I am not a frequent visitor of the Devil's Kitchen having only learned about the site a couple of weeks ago (prior to the post in question being written).

First of all, the "Napoleonic" system that you claim to be so incompatible with the "British" is the same as that used in, erm... Scotland. We've had two different legal systems operating side-by-side for centuries with no problems.

Henceforth why we call it "English Common Law." Having desperately search my blog page several times I cannot find anywhere, precisely, that I claim that they are incompatible. I take offence at the way the Napoleonic system operates and oppose it being introduced in England, what they do in Scotland and France is of little concern to me as long as they do not bring it here. Again I will reemphasize; I never claimed that they were incompatible (at least not anywhere I can find, please point it out to me) I take issue with the way the system presents itself and operates.

Secondly, the "guilty until proven innocent" claim for the European system is a misunderstanding of an anachronism. Because *every single EU member state* is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The latter currently has opt-outs - the first two don't. Common to all three is a commitment to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare - that does not mean that it is non-lethal. What you claim is in direct contradiction to the way law is practised in France regardless of which treaties they have signed, remember most nation states only pay lip service to treaties they have signed. I am sure you would agree the rescent wars in Iraq and the current on in Afghanistan proves that if anything. Where British and Americans have been caught redhanded violating every single human rights treaties they signed since 1945. Ergo, just because they have signed something does not mean that they actually practise what they preach.

In the French system, the presumption of guilt licenses the judge to suppose that, regardless of whether the defendant is indeed in the wrong, something strange has been afoot worthy of further examination. What follows, then, is an exhaustive inquiry into the facts of the case, which continues until the judge feels that he has achieved an accurate understanding of what took place and can therefore subsume the case under the appropriate law. Indeed, the investigative powers of the judge are so extensive that he may freely suspend the rights of citizens (e.g., by wiretapping or opening their mail) in pursuit of crucial bits of evidence.

You say you don't have "enough judicial or constitutional knowledge to know by what authority our parliament has signed away our liberties" - well I do, and can tell you in detail, if you really want (short version: despite common assumptions, in Britain the people are not, nor ever have been sovereign - and parliament has no compulsion under the British constitution to act in the best interest of the people; it is this single fact about the way the British constitution works that confirmed me to be in favour of some form of European Union as a way of protecting us from the abuses of an over-strong government, much as we've experienced in the last 12 years).

The way you describe Britain it sounds as if we have been living under autocracy since the day of Walpole. Parliament may have no compulsion to act in the best interest of the people (sadly I am not going to take your word for and will double check this for it sounds dubious - at least the way in which you present it) that does not mean it has not done so until as recently as a couple of decades ago.

The irony of what you claim is well described by the oft held view in Brussels; that there was little that did as much for European integration than the attacks on WTC in 2001. That is to say terrorism is a means to their end, a tool which they use for scaremongering to force through drastic measures. I agree the British state under New Labour has done little to protect "An Englishman's home is his castle" but it is nowhere near as bad as the situation we will have if the EU gets full control of our lives.

In the meantime I suggest you pick up a copy of Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution" - over a century out of date but still a good starting point. You should be able to pick it up second-hand on Amazon for about £3. It'll be an invaluable investment, considering the focus of your blog - though you should probably think about getting Anthony King's more recent "The British Constitution" (OUP, 2007) to get yourself more up to date.

Thank you for those suggestions, I shall indeed get both.

Now Mr. Nosemonkey to your "friend", Tim:

Can I ask the right honourable gentleman Spitifre whether he has no way of voting for the EU nor for Regional Government?

If you do, how come you are signing away freedom to those institutions? Also, being from a land estranged of these isles, I am pretty certain that there are no countries in the EU where you are guilty until proven innocent, no matter how loud you say it here, it is not true.

Did not Mr. Nosemonkey who, I daresay, knows more about this issue than either of us demonstrate that Scotland goes by the Napoleonic system and you will find with a quick google search that so does France.

Tim I am going to assume you a fellow of lesser mental capabilities. Anyone who knows anything at all about the EU knows that the real power lies with the unelected Commission and the Council of Ministers. It was set up that way because, after the massive popularity of Nazism and Fascism, the post-war European elites decided that it was necessary to build institutions that restrain the will of the people rather than express it. In the long run, that's merely a more leisurely and scenic route back to where they came in. There is no "democratic deficit" since this is how it was designed.

So you see our little "democratic" exercise that comes around every 5 years is little but show for the EU parliament has little power. The commission is the only body which has the power to propose laws and if parliament disagrees and throws it out they can still bypass parliament should they so like, of course did would cause some uproar but it is not as if the EU cares about the democracy their treatment of Ireland and Denmark shows that if anything.

Sunday, 16 August 2009

British Politics...

Do not be shocked, she represents British Politics today.

I am on the brink of posting an exceedingly long post about English Common Law and EU law and their interrelation and the fact that they are swingers, both of them - but the EU is the nasty one, the one that brings AIDS.

Anyhow not wishing to say too much about this whole ridiculous business surrounding the NHS, clearly displaying what level our MSM is at. The one thing I hope this will be is deliver a blow for the Tories as well. I know I often claim and prove that Labour are the arch enemy of Britain but to be fair the Tories have been as complacent in their duty as HM Opposition, I have been unfair in my biased criticism and I seek to resurrect this mistake.

If this whole business does have my desired effect then hopefully by the time our meaningless General Election takes place, people will be so wondrously disillusioned with the main three that they will look elsewhere. Hopefully we will see a breath of fresh air in Parliament, the once proud institution who epitomized Britannia with her Trident standing tall, with a firm hard look upon the world, not afraid to make the tough choices. Depressingly we now have a drunk adolescent prositute posturing as our Parliament.

Saturday, 15 August 2009

Mr Hannan for UKIP?

Judging by the mood of the blogosphere and indeed the journalists most people are thinking (and saying so) "fuck off Dave at least Hannan has an idea different from New Labours's, what do you have?" Quite.

What does Dave have? Well he wants to preserve the status quo of the NHS, chuck 106 billion pounds out the window (not really though but a lot of it is pure waste) and you get the NHS. What is rather more intriguing is that a lot of people be they UKIP trolls or not, seem quite intent on voting UKIP in the upcoming general election.

Well here "is" UKIP that is to say here it what used to be the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, RIP.

  • UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
  • We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
  • We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans.
  • We will radically reform the working of the NHS with an Insurance Fund, whilst upholding the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals. (<---- Look!, Look! Dave it is policy that is what it looks like I shit you not!)
  • We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say.
  • We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes.
  • We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling.
  • We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance.
  • We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
  • We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.
  • We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists.
  • Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters.
Wonder if Dave knows...

(Here is what will happen in the end tough; if four or five years time when the next GE is held, people will have had time to conclude that the Tories were as shit as New Labour. A lot of fringe parties will get seats, a lot, they will form a coalition government and from whence the UK will be governed - that is to say the remaing 3-4% which is left to govern). Fun Times ahead.

Friday, 14 August 2009

Constitutional Vandalism Part 2

Remember the The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the one dubbed "Constitutional Vandalism", by well everyone, except New Labour of course.

This is what it did (Wikipedia of course).

  • Abolition of the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.
  • Setting up of a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court.
  • Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee.
Why was this done?

"The reform was motivated by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial."

I will let the humble reader be the judge (notice the pun, aren't I funny?) as to why this system was to be changed when it delivered justice adequately for a good 800 years.

More and more pictures are starting to arrive from the MSM showing images of the courtrooms of the new Supreme court. Interestingly though they seem to have told the Queen to go and stuff herself with the creation of this new abomination at the price of 56 million pounds. Seems odd to scrap a system that is the envy of the rest of the world in favour of integration and conformity. The odd thing is that I think New Labour thinks (odd sentence) that when they are thrown out of office next year there wont be any consequences of their destruction of the UK.

Anyhow here is the emblem approved by the queen for the new Supreme Court (notice the St. Edwards Crown).This is what is actually found in the building...

Notice the distinct absence of anything even reminiscent of the monarchy (for the less attentive readers, what is missing from the emblem is the St. Edwards crown - the symbol of Crown Immunity, Liberty and Authority). For more pictures go here.

So much for Crown Prerogative.

What I find truly fascinating about this whole business is not the constant disestablishment of Britain under New Labours conductance but the naivety of its ministers. In years to come when we start to unravel the New Labour bombshell years they will have to face the nation in a court of law - be it the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. It has barely been a month since Jacqui Smith resigned from Gordon's cabinet and she is already being prosecuted. How long before Gordon is charged?

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Miliband et al. you will not get away with what you have done. You cannot stop justice being done, let alone a nation which is quite frankly pissed off at the lot of you for behaving so maliciously towards your own people who you are supposed to serve and protect.

As the current Home Secretary Alan Johnson said "I am not loosing sleep over rising immigration numbers." Trust me dear Mr. Johnson when you are truly out and gone of office, and the nation starts to recover from your disastrous time at its helm, you will loose sleep.

Addendum: Turns out this whole issue was rather more serious than I initially thought. I have mailed the relevant ministers of the government and in the shadow cabinet to see what they will do about it, or what is more likely to tell them that they actually have a Supreme Court now - I wonder if they even knew. Will post relevant replies from ministers when received.

The farce continues

Update: I can pleasantly tell you that I mailed the Ministry of Justice, The Conservative representatives and the New Labour representatives about my above concerns - three weeks ago. No one has replied to date, my guess is no one will.

Thursday, 13 August 2009

Until the end

Having a very fatalistic spell today; reading too many books about bad things, too many articles about bad things and generally there seems to be no hope. I know that in the end we will sort ourselves out for it is the only option. But one cannot help but feeling let down with a glance at the state of the nation. We commonly like to eclipse the demagogues-turned-around at Whitehall, Brussels and ultimately "Imperial" America for crushing the UK with their ever so stampeding heels of power. But really though, who gave them that power? We did and even if the current government and the incoming government think it a 'whim' of the people for daring crave a repatriation of those powers, they will listen.

If democracy is eventually untangled in the future and we are indeed to be ruled by autocracy and bureaucracy, will the people stand for it? Recall the American Revolt against King George III, he did the wrong thing, the same thing which is being duplicated by Whitehall and Brussels today - prey they continue for the end is nigh for their kind; the kind which mocks democracy, shuns the people and above all have a ill conceived notion about their moral authority.

Central government is a fine idea if it has the backing of the people. But if it does not than search elsewhere for ways to mend the vices of the country and alleviate the virtues, do not relabel your ideas and think you wont be found out.

No, I am of Britain and I will stand alone if necessary, with my people, no matter how you attack me. I know what probably bothers you most is that I am really a nobody, an inconsequential flawed individual like so many others, but I will not be denied my voice as a citizen or see others denied theirs.

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

A return of....

Well upon the shores of Neverland it was thus that I return to you know to deliver yet again the stifling criticism that this government seems hellbound to impose upon itself again and again and again... you get the drift.

Hollies are over and we have many interesting zenits coming up the most important in my opinion the second completely undemocratic and quite frankly insulting vote on exactly the same treaty; Lisbon.

Whilst this impending democratic projection (read "farce") cannot be halted we should take great pride in two facts as to regards to the reverberations in the UK;

1. The Conservative Party conference (the big big one) takes places after the vote. Seeing as the Irish are being drowned in "yes" propaganda seemingly without balance not to say an invicible "no" camp after Ganley's withdrawal - I think we all know what the outcome will be.

2. If Cameron does not give the British people a referendum or decides to take a route which ostencibly is not very very eurosceptic he will loose votes, and he will loose a lot of votes - if word gets out that he is siding with the continentals, out goes the majority. If he does not give a referendum the coming year will mark the entrance of UKIP into mainstream British politics.

As they say across the pond; the ball is in your court Mr. Cameron.

Addendum: The picture is of an actual poster employed by Fini Gael last time around, I think you can sense the desperation within Irish eurocrats.