100,000 voices

Yours truly does apologise for his unseemly long absences from this blog. University is taking its toll particularly since this blogger is attending a real university and doing a real course (which his arrogance never falters to mention). Exams are due after Christmas holidays so this post in itself is an outlier. But nonetheless things need to be said and since our pointless MSM continues to be just that, we have to say it ourselves, we the people.

100,000 voices will be required to get motions debated in parliament. A lot of people do not like this, one of my favourite bloggers Mr. North at EU Referendum does not like it either. Yet one of my favourite politicians Mr. Hannan likes it so it would appear we are having a good old bout of difference of opinion. I like it not because I am naive enough to think that it will actually improve democracy in this country but because it is a very useful tool for politicians to shot themselves in the foot with. And since our ruling class is monumentally stupid as it is, you can be quite sure that given the opportunity to shot themselves in their feet; they will.

Politicians nowadays despise the electorate, our current ruling class is a testament to this fact. No one voted for the coalition yet the coalition now votes for us. That is not democracy and certainly not representative democracy where they are supposed to represent us, instead they represent themselves since under the aegis of 'coalition' they threw out their election manifestos, wrote a new one and forced it onto the people under the guise of 'compromise'. We were stupid enough, as always, to swallow that, line, hook and sinker.

Thankfully the public will always outshine private politicians. We have the benefit of 60 million minds and they only have 646 of our kind, not even our best kind, a rather mediocre staple they come from. With few scholars, officers and entrepreneurs. They are by and large sheep and followers, not leaders. Hence it is not a surprise at all that they now think this gimmick of a measure is going to help shore up their popularity (read 'the LibDems popularity').

What will happen is this: we will suggest loads of things we want debated and changed by our "sovereign" parliament. We will submit the HRA for expulsion from the legislature, we will demand that immigration is significantly reduced, we will demand a referendum on the EU, we will enforce very convincingly our commitment to the Armed Forces, we will demand the termination of the Human Rights Commission and we will most likely demand that a number of services such rail traffic and postal services are returned to the public sector. And many others.

They will of course ignore every single one of our requests, when we come, cap in hand, and beg that our masters listen to us.

But what they do not seem to have factored into this ploy is that there will be a lot of these 'citizen's initiatives' - because we, as a whole, despise our politicians and what they have done to this country. When the hoi polloi start to realise that their vox populi is being ignored en masse, even they will realise that their politicians are not serving their best interests.

Hence it will follow; motion after motion will be rejected because it is truly what the people want, people's disillusionment with the ruling class will only grow and grow, the ruling class will become more and more aware of their disillusionment until they one day feel compelled to act on one of the requests.

Alas, this act is a pointless play to the galleries for is should not be needed, politicians should by definition hold the executive to account. They should by definition have balls and a firm spine. But what this act will do is to force the public balls and spine onto our politicians, and there is not a single thing they can do about it.

Unfortunately we are a nation which is going nowhere.

Hung Parliament and Proportional Representation Maths

I am going to do some maths now with regards to the voting system know as Proportional Representation. Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive (e.g., in legislative assemblies).

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Beware what you set your heart upon. For it shall surely be yours." I am just not sure the Lib Dems are aware of this nor anyone else for that matter.

Consider the election results in the European Election. Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate. Which means first of all that no one gave a shit since it was such a profoundly pointless election anyway, more like elected dictatorship.

Conservative, votes received: 4,198,394
UKIP, votes received: 2,498,226
Labour, votes received: 2,381,760
Liberal Democrat, votes received: 2,080,613
Green, votes received: 1,223,303
BNP, votes received: 943,598
SNP, votes received: 321,007
Plaid Cymru, votes received: 126,702

Anyhow, 15,136,932 people turned out and that will form our main body from which the proportional system is based. If PR were used in a national election then a higher turnout would be expected somewhere around 30 million perhaps. But I want to demonstrate what would happen if the above number of voters in the EU Parliament election, were used for Westminster elections.

There are 646 seats in the British Parliament in Westminster.

The maths is trivial: Take the number of votes received per party, divide this by the total number of votes cast and take this number times the number of seats available i.e. 646. Then this is what would happen:

Conservative, seats received: 179
UKIP, seats received: 107
Labour, seats received: 102
Liberal Democrat, seats received: 89
Green, seats received: 52
BNP, seats received: 40
SNP, seats received: 14
Plaid Cymru, seats received: 5

Only the most naive and arrogant political pundit or mandarin would suggest that these results could never happen. This is politics, nothing is certain, who thought that arch-mongrel Nick Clegg would actually have a real shot at Nr 10 a few weeks ago? And this is the fundamental message of this exercise, if you adopt PR you will truly adopt elected dictatorship and the UK will most likely follow in the steps of every other major European nation: revolution, death, war and finally a shit coalition government to sort the mess out. The BNP would get 40 MPs for heavens sake! What is more, the LibDems love the EU yet the do not seem to realise that adopting PR might actually results in the UK leaving the EU. You might wonder then why I am so against the PR if it aids the UK leaving the EU, simple: I want to leave on the strength of argument not simple human shortcomings reflected in the PR system. I want to convince people, make them see and believe that the EU is a very very dangerous concept which does control our lives to a very high degree. If you convince by argument, reason and debate you win, if you do it with a hodgepodge coalition government who gave the people a say on the EU because of political advantage - that is not fair play. I do not care what the current political class or what the current 'Political Science' Degree tells its students; always country before party, those are my principles. Always.

The UK was taken into the EU on a lie, lets take her out on the truth.

Just because the establishment is drenched in dirty politics does not mean that we have to be; raising the bar is no particularly hard seeing as it is set so low already. Perhaps I am just a sucker for historical poetic justice but somehow I think it is wrong to change the constitutional settings for short term political gain. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

However, we do get the final say on PR. The cattle are yet again queuing up to get whacked. Funny how they always fall for the same lame old story: the farmer just pretends that they’re going on a little trip to pastures new where everything is nice and sunny and lovely and the grass is greener etc. Today we have the politicos herding the bovines into the same old queue with the same old yarn and telling them that the politics is greener on far yonder hill, in the next valley, over the hill, just beyond the rainbow, round the bend.

Changing the system is the easy way to out, taking responsibility for their actions is not, clearly why no one is offering that platform.

By the by, you do not have to be a Ladbrokes Mathematician, with a PhD in statistics to work this out; I did it with Excel at 2AM in the morning.

The Defence Sector must be royally fed-up with the UK

I have noted before that it seems rather pointless being a defence company in the UK, when the government in said country is doing everything in their power to stop you from being just that a; a company. Over the past few months a lot of contracts have gone out in excess of £15 billion pounds worth of equipment. There is of course the issue of where this money is going to come from but what is more interesting or disheartening, to put it another way, is to whom the contracts have been awarded. They were all given to American companies.

I hear you screaming and shouting about the free market principle and certainly I embrace it with my fullest compliments. But this country is royally fucked right now, and I know that might sound crude but we really really are. I do not need to convince you of this, the mere fact that you made it to this blog in the first place means that you are fairly informed person in the first place. To repeat: Labour has introduced 111 tax rises since 1997, taken a trillion pounds in additional taxation, and still left us with a Greek-level deficit: 12.6 per cent of GDP and rising. Of every four pounds Gordon Brown spends, one is borrowed. Our national debt is rising by nearly £6,000 a second. We can’t afford another five weeks of this, let alone another five years.

The manufacturing industry is a means to an end for the next government as is science and technology. £3.5 billion a year currently spent on publicly funded research generates an additional annual output of £45 billion in UK companies. Labour's response is to cut the number of university places. Good and bad I suppose (I think there are far too many students and far too many shit universities which should be deleted but I can see Boris' argument as well). But if we relate this to defence technology there is a really weird picture. In times of dire need, as these, a person of honour and stature and genuine regard for this country would say, 'right, chaps, fuck the rules' and they would go and do just that. £15 billion in defence contracts is a lot of money and it would do hell of a lot more in this country than over in America.

Politicians no longer care about the long game, as in what is good for the country, they care too much about themselves and popularity much in line with celebrity culture. Look at where Government spending goes (Just ignore the fact that £1 in 4 is borrowed) short term social projects that are popular and likely to give that lovely ego and popularity boost. I’m not against that, far from it, but a massive percentage is pure waste and could be much better spent elsewhere or spent more efficiently while still doing the same job. Next to that there is still a trickle of money to do actual good for the country things such as infrastructure investment and research spending in various things. Instead of taking tough decisions and sticking too them for instance getting on with building nuclear power stations or legislating that newly built houses must be much more environmentally friendly using less energy. They instead shy away sometimes saying that It is not the role of government when in fact it’s bloody hypocritical to say so when they are trying to socially engineer the population.

Ignore the arguments for a minute about buying of the shelf - I am not entirely convinced by all of them, though there is certainly merit in a few. If you buy stuff from this country you can expect long term invest in infrastructure, jobs, test ranges, factories, tooling, supply chains, supply companies, land development, several thousand dependent jobs and trades etcetera. Nothing, not a single one of the previous will happen since the development is taking place in another country and they will at the very most have a workshop here and that is that. When Rolls Royce a few years back were choosing a country to place their new labs in they settled on Germany, because the UK had such, and has such, unfavourable business environment.

Why would you come here as a defence company, or any company, you might as well head to any other country but the UK for the simple reason that you will make so much more money elsewhere. I say all of this for the simple reason that we are not winning right now. Those of us who are part of the right-wing spectrum of society who believe in a free market (yes I know that contradicts this post, but please read my reasons for putting aside the free market principle just this once), a small state and a strong foreign policy. The left have this country clenched within an iron fist, so ignominious has reasoned debate become that it is pointless to even attempt to start one. The Armed forces have become entrenched in a bloody political war which will lead to them sustaining even more casualties on the battle field because some fucking minister decided that he was lobbied enough to award a contract to the highest bidder, setting aside his duty to Queen and country. Contracts are being rushed in, quicker than ever before (more than £15 billion in little less than five months) to harm the Tories when the Strategic Defence Review does come around. I am no massive fan of the Tories, but this is so wrong but obviously it is not below Labour -nothing seems to be- but they are literally willing to offer lives to save their political skin. This is no different from blood money albeit blood contracts. I think it is so fucking disgusting that I am honestly struggling to write this post, for it is making me physically angry and putting together a string of words with a hint of intelligence is proving quite the chore. New Labour really are a dangerous party and there is no wonder that only 7% of the armed forces would vote for them if there were an election today (compared to 52% for the Tories). And perhaps the Tories wont be better but I think, at the very least, they have enough ethics and ideals to realise that you do not put a human life before short-term political gain (I would like to say 'long-term' but that would contradict the entire history of warfare so I wont).

(The comment section over at Think Defence is raging right about now). Finally to add insult to injury now the fucking super-mong Mr. Moonbat has entered the defence debate (why, god why?) - you know the guy who has been the mouthpiece for the AGW industry since the dawn of AGW, who has been subsequently been ripped to pieces by everyone with an ounce of common sense. Since he failed in adding journalistic value to that sector he has now decided to tarnish the defence vestige as well, fuck...

Our finest hour

...was in 1689 but by God was it a fine hour indeed:

English Bill of Rights 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

One day...

Some day someone like me, but someone with real power, will have had enough this shit.

Also I note that the South Americans have started to torch British flags. Well, chaps, you are way behind; we torched our own flag in our own country well before you started. Why? No one gives a shit anymore just as no one will care when you burn our flag down yonder. People will simply ask 'so what else is new?'

Employment Law...

TIMELINE

-2010

• National minimum wage increase
• Introduction of national minimum wage for apprentices will cover the whole of UK and provide £95 a week.
• Equality Bill

Will consolidate law into one statute and change law around disability, age discrimination, tribunals and gender pay reporting

• Right to request time off to train

Allows employees at larger firms time off to train along lines of flexible working

-2011

• Agency Workers Directive

All temporary workers will get equal rights to permanent staff after 12 weeks

• Dual Discrimination

The law will change to allow employees to make claims on two combined grounds, including age or religion

• National Insurance increase

Employer contributions will increase by a further 0.5%, on top of the 0.5% previously announced.

• Paternity Leave and pay

A shared system of leave will be introduced where if a mother goes back to work, the father can take up to six months off

• European Works Council Directive

All companies with more than 1,000 employees will have to set up a 'works council' - a shop-floor organisation for workers

-2012

• Pensions

Employers will have to set up and enrol staff in a qualifying pension scheme and pay a minimum 3% contribution

-2013

• Gender pay reporting

Firms with more than 250 employees will have to record and publish details of pay gap

Total Cost: £25bn

Interestingly enough these laws are part of what is known as the 'social chapter' of EU legislation. The one area which the Tories have actually "promised" to do anything at all about (scroll down to the bottom). I am quite sure that whatever happens they will do absolutely nothing to claw back power from Brussels in this area.

Addendum:

Please read below and you will find your swathes of knowledge increase like the bellies of the fat cats.

Thatchers government negotiated an opt-out from the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, since European employment directives damaged the flexibility of the UK labour market.

After their election victory in May 1997, Labour signed up to the Chapter with a transitional phase before the main laws of worker’s rights are full introduced into Britain.

One change to British law is the Working Hours Directive (first introduced by the EU in 1993). This guarantees workers the right to paid holidays; unpaid maternity and paternity leave; rest-breaks between shifts and a maximum working week of 48 hours.

• But this is the juicy stuff:
• Protection of rights of workers who move within the EU
• Fair pay for employment
• Improvement of conditions of employment (including working hours)
• Social Security provision for low income groups and unemployed
• Freedom of association and right to collective bargaining
• Vocational training
• Equal treatment for men and women
• Health and safety at work
• Employment opportunities for young people, the disabled and people over the age of compulsory retirement.

Now you know.

Law

The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is a completely different matter. I do not understand the current state of things, I really do not. I am straining my mind hard to try to encompass the necessity of what today passes for civilised society in terms of law. The theory of the law goes that the state administers a law that should avenge those it has been unable to protect; it is a system of quid pro quo. If you commit a crime, the state will exercise a vengeance on you, on behalf of the victim. You are the perpetrator and by that vice you have a victim by definition. But here comes the pickle, we all become perpetrators sooner or later due to the sheer volume of things which the state deems unlawful - and by the same token, what we deem unlawful by virtue of our representative democracy. But it appears that more things have become illegal at an accelerated pace over the last few years - naturally, I will not insult your intelligence by explaining why this is, I am sure we all know.

The state rules with a love for order combined with sheer ignorance of mankind. The modus operandi of the western human being appears to be the following:

Get an education, Get a job, Get a wife, Get a house, Get a few kids, work for the about 40 years, Get your pension, trot around doing nothing for 10-15 years, Die.

It seems harsh when put plainly in those words, but that, sadly, is the aspiration of many but they do not know it. Eventually though, most will end up there due to it being the equilibrium solution of the western lifestyle. This is said with no attachments of benefits or drawback, it is an observation, that is all. Now, the above 'life', if you will, is defined by the laws in which scene of operation it exposes itself. Think of it as a funnel.

It used to be that in Britain you met the state, as it were, only twice in your life at the turn of the century; at birth and and at death. That was the way life was then; you chose it defined rather by what class you were in rather than what laws were administered, of course each social class had its own unwritten laws attached to it. The hypothetical judicial funnel back in 1900 was tiny by todays comparison; the slope of the funnel walls was tiny. In fact they were almost flat and most things spilled out rather than pass through the funnel, at which end you would find your life path laid out before you in a similar fashion to that described above.

Today however, the slope of those funnel walls are very different. They have a very large gradient, are viciously guarded so that nothing, god forbid, should spill out and give scent to a notion of nonconformity on the horizon. Today by comparison nonconformity, lawful or not, is bad by definition for one has then spilled out of the funnel. If the funnel spills that means that it is badly designed which means that, it in turn, needs to be improved. It is improved by increasing the gradient, which means, if you did not follow the symmetry and symbolism; more laws. The state today does not administer a law for the benefit of its citizens, good or bad, it simply administers it for the purpose of displaying an authority which sits high up on a pedestal looking down at the unfortunate cretins who happen to be on a lower echelon than the law itself.

New Labour has created more than 3,000 new offences since it came to power in 1997, that is almost one per day. Of all the laws made in the UK somewhere between 75-85% come from the EU. This means that not only is Parliament making laws to stifle the very semblance of meaningful life so too is the EU - our real government.

Are we really that dangerous? Have we evolved from relatively benign creatures, in the social sense, to murderous, 24/7-revolutionary, guerilla fighters? If that were so then perhaps then there would be a justifiable argument to extend state legislature to such a degree. But... we are not reincarnations of Stalin, Che or Nicolae Ceauşescu we are just normal people who want to be left alone.

We all know the official reasons for creating all these laws but an ulterior motive might be to halt the possible inception of a new Lenin - or a person who is independent minded enough to stand up to the dogma and actually bring and end to the destruction from within, which seems to be the only creative exercise going on in this country today. But do they not see, what they are doing is defeating the object of their ulterior; not only are they not preventing the inception of people of that particular pedigree, they are actively accelerating its come-about because they are making each and every one of us so apoplectic with rage, whenever we are reminded by their mere existance.

Up yours Delors, CU EU (finally some good news)

The excellent Gerald Warner has more on this here.

"The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)"

He finishes of with these excellent lines

"Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords."

I have argued here and here and here and here and here and here, the same points about the Supreme Court bollocks. It is one of the Raison d'être for this blog. I think eventually the bollocks will be removed mainly because Parliament is slowly but surely being filled with proper Albions - the kind Churchill would have been proud to call his friends (or so at least I think). If ‘democracy’ means anything, it means not having to agree with apologists of the naked pursuit of power.

On a completely different note (and more a reminder to myself in the future), here is a very interesting post on human rights over a ConservativeHome. I strongly advise you to read it.

Annoying facts for dying New Labour and reviving Blue Labour

New Labour have shut down 122 Magistrate Courts and 22 County Court Houses since 1997. Just thought you might wanna know. If you are a Tory supporter I thought you might want to know as well; know that your party wont do anything about it.

Quote of the Day

The attorney general sacked her housekeeper last night amid claims the woman had overstayed on a visa and was no longer legally entitled to work in the UK. This odd for a couple of reasons. Employers face a civil fine of up to £10,000 per illegal worker and up to two years' jail for the most serious breaches. We should point out that these are "normal" people alas not part of the elite - they can do what they like. More astounding however, these rules were brought in 2006 by the Home Office and you would have thought that their employers ought to know them. But hey one rule for them and one for us. Whatever she does she wont resign be quite sure on this prediction.

"The attorney general is Nu-labour, female and black makes her pretty untouchable don't you think?" - Guardian comment

Again this blog will talk about all those toxic subjects like immigration, social cohesion, Islamism, Europe and Britishness. Why? No one else will.

UK Supreme Court Part II

As promised I would publish the correspondence between myself and the Ministry of Justice with regards to the issue of the logo of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - the greatest judicial farce in the modern British history.

Yasser Mehmood

Please contact Rob Boyland, Communications Manager, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Tel: 020 7960 1887, robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
------------

Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

I write to you with regards to the new Supreme Court. It has dawned upon me that the emblem that you yourself so proudly display on your homepage and the one which was approved by the HM the Queen is not the actual emblem which is actually displayed in the court itself.

Here is the link to your own http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/supreme-court-official-emblem.htm announcement of the new emblem (may I draw your attention to the St. Edwards crown).

Here is a link to an album provided by the BBC of the new Supreme Court http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8151625.stm - please make your way to the first picture in the album. There seems to be a distinct lack of the St. Edwards crown in the emblem as displayed in the new Supreme Court. Instead there is an emblem which does not have the approval of the HM the Queen, so it must be assumed since there are no references to the monarchy. If one were to continue to trawl through the album as displayed by the BBC then there is more evidence of emblems which do not have the crown.

If my question has not given itself away by now I shall add it for clarity; why is not the emblem displayed which was approved by HM the Queen? Has the government taken it upon itself to ignore Royal Prerogative?

Yours Sincerely
------------------------
Robert Boyland

Thank you for your enquiry.

We have several versions of our emblem which it is agreed that we can use. We are allowed to use different versions artistically as it will be used on a large variety of items and occasions. This is fairly common practice with emblems and logos. Where appropriate the formal logo with the Crown has been used, for instance on the homepage and prominently at the front of the building.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Kind regards,

Rob

--------------------------
Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

Thank you for your reply. I can see how you would think that this is common practise, yet for the businesses that I have worked for, I cannot recall anyone having used that practise. Agreed, this is a government arm yet were the other emblems approved by the Queen as well (you said that you had agreed to use the other emblems, but who agreed to this)? On a further note, all the other government branches e.g. the Foreign Office only use the Royal Coat of Arms as their main identifier along with their name.

Not yet understanding what kind of relationship you are intending for the Supreme Court with the public, surely using more than one identifier will confuse people not in the least people like myself; who find it astonishing that the government has the audacity to abolish the Law Lords but then insult the monarchy even further by not following common practise i.e. to use the St. Edwards Crown on governmental departments.

Moreover who decides when it is appropriate to use the primary logo with the crown? When would occasion arise when it would not be appropriate to accentuate that Britain is a constitutional monarchy and that the Crown has Royal Prerogative?

As you can see Mr. Boyland I am confused.

Kind Regards
---------------------------
Robert Boyland

I hope the following clarifies things for you. The logo containing the Crown will be used in all formal correspondence and as I have said is a main identifying feature at the entrance to the building. The emblem combines the four heraldic elements of the three legal jurisdictions of the UK - England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At its formal level, the emblem is surmounted by the Crown, as the Monarch is the source of the Court's authority.

Our aim is always to apply the emblem thoughtfully and appropriately to reflect the activities of the Supreme Court. The versions of the logo are designed to be versatile enough to be interpreted in different ways - that reflect the authority of the institution it symbolises, but also the open and accessible nature of the building with its visitor spaces and public art. This is why the semi-formal logo is used in the foyer within which you highlight in your link. This semi-formal version will also be used on visitor leaflets.

The logo with the Crown will be used in all formal applications where the authority of the Supreme Court and its relationship to the Crown is to be emphasised, such as judgments, reports, Justice's stationery, formal invitations, etc and to reiterate is a main identifying feature at the front of the building. The Royal Coat of Arms will also go above the main entrance.

The way the logo is applied is a clear and sensible way of distinguishing between formal and more informal communications and in no way undermines the relationship of the Court to the Crown.

Yours sincerely,

Rob

Rob Boyland
Communications Manager
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square,
London SW1P 3BD
Tel: 020 7960 1887
Email:robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
-------------------------

What did we learn from all of this then? Well, besides from the obvious one that the Ministry of Justice has yet to decide which font they are to go with, not much.

Their logic does not work at all instead "Rob" goes onto explain to me what the logo actually looks like assuming that my powers of perception are towered over by his, the communications manager of the MoJ. You understand dear reader we are not to make our own judgements about the Supreme Court, nor are we to criticise it. Our silent and obedient consent is all that they require and need.

When or Why, on earth would the Supreme Court be used in an informal way? Surely the term 'Supreme' comes with at least a modicum of superiority and the required respect for such authority. Whatever it may be it is not a social science project run by some erstwhile council, who can quite rightly pander to its differences. Thus, regardless of my sincere opposition to its establishment, it should not be made into a farce by this ridiculous little man "Rob", who undoubtedly had a part to play in its establishment (how do you think he got his job), and his claque just because they think they will be 'miss-understood' by the school children who come to visit. Am I making mountains out of molehills? No, a symbol is given power by people and the people of the UK are very affectionate towards the monarchy. We turn our patriotism towards the Queen no the political establishment (like America). If we take away the people the symbol losses its meaning but if we take away the part of the symbol which reaffirms our affection it losses its meaning as well. It is so profoundly stupid that I cannot, for my life, see why they decided to go with this non-option.

"Oii ladies fancy a couple of pints down at the Supreme Court, should be a good blast eyyy?!"

It is the highest judicial authority in the UK and yet it needs two logos one formal and one informal. You can see that at this point I gave up my endeavour with "Rob" as it was leading nowhere. Apparently for the Supreme Court to be open and accessible it needs two logos.

I imagine that if it applies to the Supreme Court why not also to Parliament? We would then have four logos; two for the House of Commons and two for the House of Lords. The armed forces are not to be spared either; they are to adopt one logo for visitors day so as to not insult sensibilities of the civilian population; no Union-Jacks - that would make us racist, no swords (in case of the army) - people might get the idea that we actually kill people and definately no Lion (in case of the army) - people might think we support the poaching of this endangered species.

This is New Labour doing what it does best; destruction of character. Just so we do not forget why they did this in the first place lets recall. The reform of the Law Lords 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. Yet it has worked perfectly well since 1876 when the Law Lords came into existence under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

But I am sure we could not spend £60 million on something better (that is to say that the Supreme Court will cost £58 million more to run, annually, than the Law Lords).

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.

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.

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

1236
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.

CORPUS JURIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

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.

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.

Constitutional Vandalism

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

Summum ius summa inuria

The more Latin learned people amongst ye vast crowds out there who are looking to satisfy your perpetual need for knowledge might know what the title of this post means. It is quite accurately translated as 'the more law, the less justice' - a Latin proverb of unknown origin.

If you look at the post that was published just before this one you will notice that the notion of the "The United Kingdom" will be pretty much, 100%, undermined once the Lisbon Treaty has been passed then we will not just have 80% of our laws written in Brussels but more like 97% to chose an arbitrary figure close to a 100%.

With this is mind one must but ask; how many laws do they pass, without assigning a time span to that question before knowing the answer we can most likely get a more accurate picture of the insanity that is currently infiltrating the political classes in Whitehall and in Brussels.

First though, to give you a rough idea how a law is made:

1) An election manifesto promise
2) A government department after an election has been won
3) The influence of pressure groups
4) The influence of experts within their field
5) In response to an EU directive

These in turn can either be (as considered by Parliament):

1) Government Bills
2) Private Members’ Bill
3) Private Bills
4) Hybrid Bills
5) Statutory Instruments

All of these are rather self explanatory to anyone with an ounce of knowledge of British politics, ergo lets move on.

Statutory Instruments make up the bulk of all UK legislation, with an average of around 3,500 passed every year for much of the last two decades. In 2008, 3,389 Statutory Instruments were passed, while the UK Statute Law Database lists 2,414 results for the same year.

I know I said ergo, but screw it, I am going to explain briefly what an statutory instrument actually is:

"By-law, order, ordinance, or regulation issued by a government or its agencies for the enactment or enforcement of a specific statute. Statutory instruments detail the measures that must be taken by the entities to whom they are addressed. Also called statutory rule."

All in all, governments make shit loads of rules to the point where it is now becoming a bit ridiculous. Why governments keep on pledging to "cut red tape" (In the 17th and 18th century, the English typically bound legal documents and official papers with red tape. To this day most barristers' briefs are tied in a pink coloured ribbon known as red tape. Traditionally, official Vatican documents were also bound in red cloth tape.) though as you might have heard governments, particularly this one preceded over by New Labour, are awfully bad a keeping their promises - most likely why this government is the most unpopular since statistics begun.

So, what about EU law then? Now here is an interesting one: The lefties reckon that about 10-20% of British law originates in Brussels - they would wouldn't they? Daniel Hannan reckons it is about 84% Hmm, now here is a really tough one; Leftist Eurocrats vs. a Member of the European Parliament who albeit hates the EU is a very clever man which cannot be said of, well come to think of it, any current minister of HMS government. For some numbers then, we all like to number crunch so here we go, actually just go to this blog post over at Open Europe which the entire blogosphere has copycatted including Nosemonkey's EUtopia and and Liberal Conspiracy - very bad sportsmanship chaps, very bad. But to get a number on it, from admittedly, a biased source (I hate the EU as much as anyone but I must admit that UKIP are a bit biased at times, this said though they if anyone have correctly identified the real danger that is the EU so there research is probably more correct than any other) we have it as 8 laws a day.

There you go folks, go figure, I hear there is a talk of a "deregulation minister" from the Tories - pah, that wont happen as with most things the MAIN THREE promise. Words into to action seems to be an unwholly impossible task for the governments of today (spanning from roughly 1950 - before that they actually managed to do a fair bit).

And we have the whole Sharia "law" issue.. (notice my euphemistic emphasis on the quotation marks, meaning that I think the whole concept of religious law is a complete and utter joke).