Our Supreme Court

We had one of the finest legal systems in the world embodied by Law Lords in the House of Lords who took to English Common Law like a Master Welder takes to wrought steel. They took to the law, handed to them by parliament, with honour, decency and grace. In their last days they never sought to expose their position and act as elected representatives of the people. And in New Labour addiction-like desire for constitutional destruction they were replaced by the fucking Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, a court so monumentally useless even to those sitting on it. They appear to not understand even the most basic of English; 'Supreme' is the highest of linearisation, there is no greater adjective. With that in mind they still keep referring to the fucking ECJ in fucking Europe as if they had the ultimate authority on English fucking Common Law when they use bloody Roman Law! They are fundamentally different systems. But of course this is also due to be changed, as more and more of those fucking directives are handed down, the English System is the one to be changed. But what is even more fundamental to this discussion, The ECJ has no power. It falsely asserts this claim. The EU is a treaty organization of sovereign states. The states transpose EU rules (not laws) into their own national law. Even more paradoxically guess who is taking the fight to the EU? The fucking Germans...

We have to rely on the Germans in order for our tax-money to not be wasted on the loony Greeks. Do you know why? Because we do not have a political class nor a judicial class who have balls big enough to do anything about the tiny issue of breaking the constitutional EU treaties. Now of course if we were to say, not fly their fucking flag then we get handed a £150m fine, which we will of course pay, happy little proles that we are. Instead of saying 'no mate you can shove that fancy little paper of yours, up your arse. Over here it means fuck all' upon which you punch the fucker in the head, kick him in the balls and when he is lying screaming on the floor wondering why he ever became a mandarin, give him some medical attention and then stick him on a one way Ryanair flight back to Brussels.

If the Germans, who are supposedly in love with the EU, can show such resolve in holding them back then why the flying fuck can't the UK? We are the ones who are supposed to be the "sceptical little island" who are demeaningly called "little Englanders" by the eurocrats. Well, do you now what you fucking wankers I would rather be a little Englander any day rather than stray in to your ignominious little fray of the world. But there is the problem, it would appear that people actually think being a little Englander is a bad thing. Few are the nations which can boast of a history great than a 1,000 years, who have been the integral part of the world's largest empire. Of course people today are not allowed to think like this, it is bad you see, it might offend someone.

I am quickly loosing my appetite with this fucking country, there is so much which needs to be put right but there is seemingly a fifth column around every corner which some way or another manages to turn opportunity into disaster. We have a PM who does not know whether he loves his party or his enemies and an opposition who deserves to be symbolically burned in the deepest pits of hell. There is no fighting spirit, people say 'well, lets wait for the right opportunity to take on the EU' - well when is the right opportunity? We are but vassals now in their crazed little hierarchy, not because they said so but because we have lost all sense of self-worth as a nation. I probably wont be around when the EU falls, for it will, but if I am I am going to ‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’

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.

The Supreme Court oppened but FFS at least make an effort

So the new Supreme Court opened today and replacing the ancient law lords who have served the country extremely well at Tesco price at that. However this is now gone thanks to our dear old friend Tony Blair. Amongst the many things, apparently, which the court would do was to bring it into the homes of the ordinary people. Fat chance.

Lord Phillips has hailed the new court as an opportunity to bring to the public the workings of the highest court in the land. However, journalists were told there was no room at the opening so the event was broadcast live by the Court's own team. The Court's own team wont have any bias at all of course. What is even more worrying is that the new Supreme Court had a whole theater built solely for the purpose of citizens and journalists. Who the fuck was sitting there?

FFS at least make an effort.

Supreme Court Article worth reading

...only problem is that anyone with any sense knew all that stuff already. As my mail to Dominic Grieve shows, the Conservatives think it will be too costly to break of the whole project now that it has begun. Apparently we can scrap vital equipment for troops, that is cost-effective, yet scrapping cornerstones of constitutional lunacy is not. Oh dear, we are up for a tough decade chappies.

And when Tony Blair sleepwalks into his retirement, preaching world peace and open markets, do not think for one second that we have forgotten him. He will have, as Kipling said, his "unforgiving minute" but he will not have the satisfaction of becoming a man, for never in life was he even close to holding that esteemed office.

More Supreme Court letters to HM Opposition

The following is the mail I sent to Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary, with regards to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created, amongst other things, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

"Dear Mr. Grieve,

I write to you with regards to the newly created Supreme Court. Will the Conservatives go along with this constitutional vandalism or will you seek to restore the law lords as created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? Further, as the party seems to harbour, quite rightly in my opinion, some objects to the ECHR upon who's advice, apparently, part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was based on - will this accelerate your position on the Human Rights Act which you seek to abolish?

Finally, what are the prospects of scrapping the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 completely?"

This is the reply I got from one Mr. Robert Prager - aide to Mr. Grieve.

"Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent email to Dominic Grieve regarding the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act. Your comments are duly noted and have been passed on to Mr Grieve for his consideration.

Conservatives appreciate your concerns regarding the newly established court. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has served this country well since the Nineteenth Century, and at negligible cost.

Now that the Supreme Court is in existence, it needs to function properly and within a sensible budget. Current plans, however, show it will cost £14 million per year to run, compared to £3 million for the previous arrangement. Most will consider that this project, conceived on the back of an envelope by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer represents financial profligacy that cannot be afforded in our current economic situation. However, we fear that the cost of undoing it would be even higher.

The Government has done this whilst at the same time refusing to make other changes that would improve the balance of the constitution. Parliament needs to be stronger, MPs more independent and the Government more accountable to the electorate. David Cameron has outlined Conservative proposals in detail, which can be found online at www.conservatives.com

With regards to the Human Rights Act, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its concerns over the way it has operated in practice. The Act has failed to protect our core liberties, and exacerbated the impact of excessive judicial legislation from both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and our own domestic courts. If elected, a Conservative government would replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights in order to better protect our freedoms whilst giving Parliament greater democratic control over the process of creating new rights. Conservatives are confident this will preserve our personal freedoms, whilst strengthening democratic accountability and social responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Mr Grieve."

Alas it was confirmed what most of us already knew; the Conservatives are patriots in word but not in name. They seem to believe that they are being financially pragmatic by not scrapping the Supreme Court. Yet to Mr. Grieve, somehow, you wont save money by using the Law Lords which are 460% cheaper than the current hodgepodge. Apparently saving £11 million each year is not a viable option, in turn meaning that they would pay of the whole building renovation in just 6 years (the Guildhall building had a price tag of £66 million for renovation costs and accessories). This is at a time when Mr. Cameron wants to cut the price of politics. Yeah right, pull the other leg.

Note also another piece of legislation which aims to bring us inline with the rest of Europe (yes I know that that Constituional Reform Act 2005 was conceived because of the ECHR) which will be put forth for further readings next year; the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

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.

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.