I know I said I wasn’t posting on this blog anymore, but this is good news (for once). The Libertarian Party UK steps up a gear…
Go read the release, the manifesto and all the other information about the party, so you can make the most informed decision you can.
I am having the strong urge to delete all of the posts on this blog and begin again. I have already exported all of the posts into an XML file and feel like the posts I have done for so many years amount to baggage. It feels like a mess in my mind. Too many posts do not have sufficient data links, messy tags, unhelpful language etc. It began as a way for me to vent my spleen about feminism mainly, but as with many of us who germinated in the MRA, our research expanded beyond the trappings of feminism, linking it technically to the larger ideologies and global organisations pushing them. Supranational agencies, globalist banking families, secret agreements and tyrannical ideals.
Feminism is still an issue, but there is a much bigger picture. I want to focus on that picture now, especially where my home, Britain is concerned. Like Queen (the band) says; these are the days of our lives.
I refuse to spend the days of my life, the hours, months, years, knowingly trapped in a system designed to be as invasive as it is invisible. I know that massive changes are going to happen to the societies of the world in my lifetime, and when the dust settles, I want Freedom to be triumphant, not Tyranny.
This blog will take a different tact. One of data gathering, analysis and logical arguments, designed to make these issues transparent to all but the most brainwashed prole.
Thanks for reading,
Many people believe that the Bank of England is a privately owned corporation. Many people believe that it’s owned by the Rothchilds.
Neither of these beliefs is true.
The truth is much worse.
The story of the Bank of England is the story of the British Empire. The British Empire was never a political empire. It was always a monetary financial empire, as much a parasite on the people of Great Britain as the rest of the world. The idea of the Victorian’s British Empire bringing civilisation to the darkest parts of the world is one that needs real reconsideration by many Britons.
The Bank of England was originally set up as a core part of the British Empire – making huge profits from loans to the British East India Company and other tendrils of the Great British parasite. The mainstays of the trading activities of these companies were drugs, warfare and the looting of raw materials from poverty stricken nations.
As the banker to the Government, the Bank also did quite nicely from lending to the Treasury, thank you very much. In those days, the profits of the Bank went into the hands of the shareholders.
In 1844, the Rothschild inspired desire to take complete control of Britain came true with the Bank Charter Act. This gave the Bank of England the monopoly on the production of Sterling, and control of Britain’s money supply. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, where to this day commercial banks are allowed to print their own money, they must have one Bank of England note in reserve for every note of their own that they issue.
1946 brought the “nationalisation” of the Bank. At the end of WWII, Britain was more or less bankrupt, so it was agreed that instead of paying cash for the shares of the Bank, shareholders would receive 3% Treasury stock instead. With the 1946 Bank of England Act, all the Bank shares were transferred into the possession of the Treasury solicitor, and there they are to this day. It remains a corporation, not a government department.
Isn’t Islam wonderful… for paedophiles.
To do otherwise would be to cast aspersions on Muhammad’s example — a "beautiful pattern of conduct," per Qur’an 33:21 — in marrying Aisha when she was six and consummating the marriage when she was nine. Meanwhile, the girl can petition the court for a divorce… when she reaches puberty!
(CNN) — A Saudi mother is expected to appeal a judge’s ruling after he once again refused to let her 8-year-old daughter divorce a 47-year-old man, a relative said.
Sheikh Habib Al-Habib made the ruling Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza. Late last year, he rejected a petition to annul the marriage.
The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when Al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. His dismissal of the mother’s petition sparked outrage and made headlines around the world.
The judge said the mother, who is separated from the girl’s father, was not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter, the mother’s lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said at the time.
The girl’s husband pledged not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili, who added that the girl’s father arranged the marriage to settle his debts with the man, who is considered "a close friend."
In March, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib’s verdict, and sent the case back to al-Habib for reconsideration.
Under the Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was still ongoing.
The relative, who said the girl’s mother will continue to pursue a divorce, told CNN the judge "stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty."
The appeals court in Riyadh will take up the case again and a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.
Child marriages have made news in Saudi Arabia in the past year.
In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge’s decision went against children’s "basic rights."
Marrying children makes them "lose their sense of security and safety," the group said. "Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."
But Muhammad did it, and therein lies the obstacle to reform.
Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run group, told CNN that his organization was fighting child marriages.
"Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed," al-Harithi said.
Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict.
There’s no mention from CNN of why child marriage is so persistent.
"We’ve been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke told CNN.
THE FILM THEY DONT WANT YOU TO SEE! Since 1973 British politicians have been giving away control of your life to Brussels in secret…until now. This video exposes the corruption in the EU.
More money for big pharma, more risks for your children. Vaccines make them money, adverse effects make them money.
Babies could be routinely vaccinated against hepatitis B under controversial plans being discussed by Government experts.
Cases of the disease, a blood infection which is often transmitted sexually, are said to be spiralling in Britain.
An influential committee on vaccination is considering adding it to a combination jab given to babies at eight weeks.
This would create a six-in-one vaccine which would also immunise against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib disease – a form of pneumonia.
But campaigners are concerned about the ‘over-vaccination’ of children and fear any complications caused by adding hepatitis B to the jab would be difficult to spot.
By the age of four, a child will have received 32 vaccines, some in multishot jabs including the MMR against measles, mumps and rubella.
The driving force behind the change is concern that infected immigrants are contributing to a rising tide of hepatitis B.
Why don’t they screen immigrants at the border then, or is that against their yuman rites.
The British Medical Association and the charity Hepatitis Foundation UK have previously called for all babies to be immunised against hepatitis B.
The move would also bring the UK in line with World Health Organisation policy.
Nothing like being pulled closer into the United Nations to make you feel safe…
The number of women declared bankrupt has risen nearly fourfold in just six years.
They now make up almost four out of ten cases, with women under the age of 35 most likely to suffer financial collapse
This means that six years ago women made up 30 per cent of bankrupts, but by last year that had risen to 38 per cent.
Moving towards ‘equality’ eh.
Women are now going bankrupt at the rate of 60 a day. The rapid rise of female financial failure is likely to be linked both to overspending when credit was easy and the vulnerability of growing numbers of women who do not have the backing of marriage and family.
By marriage I think they mean husbands. By family I think they mean fathers.
‘More women are racking up unmanageable debts as they now feel more under pressure to maintain lavish lifestyles,’ a spokesman for price comparison website MoneyExpert.com said.
Under pressure from who?
‘They want to spend it like the Beckhams but don’t have the income to sustain their debts.
Quite simply, they are choosing to live beyond their means which funnily enough wouldn’t really be possible in a capitalist society (one dominated by capital, not credit/debt). You cannot spend what you don’t have. This crisis is twofold, not only do they want to live such lifestyles, they also do not want to live within their means because the restrictions they must live under will make them realise how poor they really are, which if we all did, would drive down living costs, improving the quality of life.
‘Increasingly they have to borrow more to get on the property ladder – and if they live alone there’s no one else to share the burden.’
He suggested that too many women had used too many credit cards and ‘lived ahead of their income’.
Accountancy firm Wilkins Kennedy said it had dealt with a rise in numbers of female bankrupts and believed bankruptcy among women would match levels among men later this year.
Speculation by Labour ministers that women are especially vulnerable to being laid off in the recession were dismissed last month by the Office for National Statistics.
It said women are losing jobs at half the rate of men, and are protected because more women than men work in the public sector.
Firstly, why the hell are Liebour ‘ministers’ speculating something that doesn’t exist? Secondly, the public sector is f**king teeming with women, like xenomorphs in ‘Aliens’. It is totally disproportionate, but that’s another subject. In relation to this however, in this socialist shithole, as the wealth creating private sector continues to contract, the wealth destroying public sector is continuing to expand, so the divide will continue to grow, and with more money coming out than going in (like the women in this article) you can see where the government is dragging this nation into.
It really is as simple as it looks. As my dad says, ‘don’t spend what you don’t have’. Under capitalism, you literally CAN’T spend what you don’t have so this issue with debt swallowing everybody up (including those who save) is highly improbable, as opposed to the current central banking dominated debt system in which it is not only inevitable, it is designed to collapse.
(2 – 5) + (2 – 5) +… will always result in accumulating debt. Those in debt are slaves to those who issue the credit. What makes it worse is that people choose to go into debt. They choose to become slaves to try and live another life, which ironically, they end up paying for with their life (body + time = life).
The difference here (and in the U.S.) is that the corporatist state is using this as an excuse to loot those with capital, redistributing it to those in debt, which of course goes directly to the creditor, which are usually owned by the same oligarchy that has orchestrated this (imposed the central banks) in the first place.
Wakey wakey people.
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses, but rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it" — Architect, Matrix Reloaded
Click images for larger size.
March 28, 2009 — approx: 1830 to 1900 hours
April 4, 2009 — approx 1750 hours
The Obama administration’s announcement that it is to consider radical planetary “geo-engineering”, such as “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays”, exactly mirrors recent publications penned by the elite Council On Foreign Relations.
Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming.
The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”
Such ideas exactly mirror those put forth by the CFR in previous years.
In briefing notes (PDF) published in May 2008 from the CFR’s Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering, the elite internationalist group lays out the exact same radical ideas now being touted by the Obama administration.
The following excerpts are taken from the document:
Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:
1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.
Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).
Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.
Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols.
The CFR’s geo-engineering research program is directed by David G. Victor a Professor at Stanford Law School and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also involved are M. Granger Morgan, head of Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering, Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.
In an article entitled The Geoengineering Option: A Last Resort Against Global Warming? published in this month’s Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s monthly magazine, the directors once again lay out their ideas for planetary terraforming, calling for a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions.
Obama’s push toward a so called “cap and trade” carbon taxation program is also a direct descendant of Victor et al’s CFR policy formation.
A CFR geo-engineering meeting summary document from 1999 (PDF pages 12,13,14) also categorically states that the ultimate goal under “A technology strategy for global warming” is the implementation of a global Carbon Tax.
The memo also pedantically explains how the perceived fear of global warming can be used to sell to Americans what is essentially a tax on air:
“While taxing tea pales in comparison to taxing air as a perceived government affront, the clear benefits of a taxation policy to combat global warming might convince even the descendents of our tax-resistant Founding Fathers.”
The tentative announcement by the Obama administration of the existence of geoengineering research programs is a first step toward introducing the idea to the wider public.
However, as we highlighted in our master article yesterday, geo-engineering is undoubtedly already being conducted by government-affiliated universities, government agencies, and on a mass scale through chemtrail spraying.
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to terraform the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
Further Research: Here is an extremely valuable file folder containing 8 PDFs, all published by the CFR, and all concerning their Geo-Engineering Program.
Jacqui Smith astonishingly claimed yesterday that she was the victim of a smear campaign over her expenses because she is a woman with no independent wealth.
The embattled Home Secretary defended her claims for household items, including an 88p bath plug, as ‘fair and reasonable’ in a series of interviews to try to put the expenses controversy behind her.
By designating her sister’s house as her main home, Miss Smith has been free to claim more than £140,000 from the taxpayer-funded Additional Costs Allowance to run her family home.
In what will be interpreted as an attack on wealthy Tory MPs, she said: ‘This is a system put in place so people can be MPs who do not start off with two places to live but need two places to live in order to do the job properly.
‘If we want people to be MPs who do not start off with two places to live there has to be a process. What I claim is what I think are fair and reasonable expenses for the fact that I have to live in two places.’
Pressed on why she did not register as her main home the constituency property where her husband and children live, she said: ‘Effectively we separated my main home from my family home. . . When I became an MP, my husband and I had to make a decision knowing I would spend more time in London.’
But she added: ‘I know people think, "Well, your family live in Redditch so why isn’t that your main home?" I know that people find that - particularly for a woman - they find that difficult.’
She gets to her position because she is a woman (if definitely isn’t because she’s competent), starts raping the taxpayer like a common purpose/ champagne socialist always does, and when people start demanding she is held to account for her actions, she claims they are only doing that because she is a woman.
In other words, she feels she should be able to do what she wants because she is a woman. That is feminism for you.
It tolls for thee, yeoman of the land of Magna Carta.
Whilst you slumbered last night, and in the many months before, the sinister shape of Directive 2006/24/EC crept into your lives and stole your freedom and your privacy.
Would it have made any difference if this burglar had worn a striped jumper and carried a bag marked ‘swag’ – probably not, for you slept soundly, happily believing that if you voted for a new government – when someone else got round to organising an election, when someone else handed out leaflets, when someone else hired a loud speaker and toured your streets – if you put your cross on a different name, you could go on with your cosy life, untroubled.
You were quite happy to believe that it really wasn’t your concern.
You ‘tutted’ over that ‘racist mob’ the BNP. You ‘clucked’ at the alarmist stories in the Daily Mail. You ‘grumbled’ when you found your litter bin installed with a tracker device. Then you went on and re-mortgaged your house, marvelled at your good fortune, ran up your credit card, bought a new car, bought those ridiculous shoes that you couldn’t walk in, and settled down to watch reality TV. You may even have turned on the computer and read some of the blogs, ‘clucked’ again at the comments, and departed, never bothering to leave your point of view.
Never standing up to be counted. It wasn’t really your concern.
Someone else would sort it out for you. Someone else would make a fool of themselves, demanding smaller government, demanding to be left alone to organise their own life, supporting the Libertarian Party, being seen as a ‘conspiracist’.
Today it’s too late.
Today 52% of the population is dependent on retaining a Labour government for the very food in their bellies. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
Today the government spend 43% of your wages on supporting, amongst other things, that 52% of the population.
Today the government has hung a debt of £33,000 round the neck of each of your children.
Today, Directive 2006/24/EC means that the government will be monitoring every e-mail you send, every friend you make on the ubiquitous Facebook, every mobile phone call you make, every time you log onto this or any other web page.
You can’t even ‘tut’ and ‘grumble’ amongst yourselves in private any more.
Now who will stand up to be counted?
Over in one corner sat Alice, a strong-minded 27-year-old who always said what she thought, regardless of how much it might hurt someone else. In the other corner was Sarah, a thirtysomething high-flier who would stand up for herself momentarily – then burst into tears and run for the ladies.
Their simmering fight lasted hours, egged on by spectators taking sides and fuelling the anger. Sometimes other girls would join in, either heckling aggressively or huddling defensively in the toilets. It might sound like a scene from a tawdry reality show such as Big Brother, but the truth is a little more prosaic: it was just a normal morning in my office.
The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream – a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.
It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.
When I read the other day that Sienna Miller had said there was no such thing as ‘the Sisterhood’, I knew what she meant.
I can understand why people want to believe that women look out for each other – because with men in power at work and in politics, it makes sense for us to stick together.
In fact, there was a time when I believed in the Sisterhood – but that was before women at war led to my emotional and financial ruin.
You don’t see that everyday.
Before I quote the article, I want to provide a little background research on sentencing for rape, as to provide some context. The following is taken from www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk, from ‘Rape Advice’, available here as a pdf, unless otherwise indicated.
Firstly, the definition of ‘rapist’ does not seem to apply to women.
Section 142 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sets the definition of rape as follows;
Rape of women and men
For section 1 of the [1956 c. 69.] Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape of a woman) there shall be substituted the following section—
“1 Rape of woman or man
(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.
(2) A man commits rape if—
(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.
(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.
(4) Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment.”.
In fact, the rape section of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) is entirely male specific, except in the event of incest where the law is equally applied. In the Rape Advice document, there is advice to further entrench male-only rape;
In its consultative report 1, the Home Office Sex Offences Review recommended that the statutory definition of rape should be extended to include any penetration by the penis of the anus, mouth or genitalia.
So according to the Act, as women don’t have a penis (and they are not male) that must mean they cannot rape, right?
The section on Male Rape makes no mention of female criminality either, one would think it was written by feminists. In regards to average sentence lengths;
As can be seen from the sentencing statistics summarized at Annex A to this paper, the average sentence for an adult offender sentenced to immediate custody for rape in 2000 was 7 years 4 months (7 years 6 months on a not guilty plea and 6 years 10 months on a guilty plea). The majority of sentences (57%) fell within the range 5-10 years, but 25% of offenders received sentences of under 5 years, and 17% were sentenced to more than 10 years (including 10% whose sentence was life imprisonment).
The document highlights the circumstances of a life sentence for repeat offenders.
37. The Panel also agrees with the Court of Appeal’s description, in Billam, of the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to consider a life sentence. A defendant who has a previous conviction for rape or another ‘serious offence’ will be subject to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal
So in summary, the average length for rape is 7 years 1 month. Repeat offenders get an automatic life sentence. That is what a man is expecting to get if he is found guilty of rape, something that can happen based on no more evidence than hear-say from a woman. (A consequence of abuse industry campaigning to push up the number of convictions for rape, remove the ancient requirement of burden of proof, or necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.) With proof being no longer needed, and a long list of false rape accusers getting no sentence whatsoever, even being protected by law, the feminists are getting what they want. Now to the article.
A man has told of the pain and humiliation he endured when his estranged wife falsely accused him of rape.
Anthony Scoones, 27, spoke out after Gemma Scoones was jailed for a year for perverting the course of justice.
One year, of which she’ll do less than half. I think they have to use the charge of ‘perjury’ because there is no charge of ‘false rape’.
He described how he was arrested at his home - he was watching TV in bed when police arrived - and spent 16 hours in a cell.
His clothes were taken for forensic examination and he was left naked so that DNA samples could be taken.
Mr Scoones said: ‘I wasn’t just stripped of my clothes, but of my dignity. I was stood there naked, with two police officers at one side of me and a doctor at the other side, having swabs taken from all over my body.
‘It was humiliating and degrading. I don’t blame the officers for investigating, but it is a heinous crime to be accused of and I’m still having nightmares now.’
To add to his ordeal, even some people he thought of as friends doubted his innocence.
The rape accusation was part of an ‘acrimonious separation’ from his 26-year-old wife.
Durham Crown Court heard that she told police Mr Scoones followed her home from a shop, forced his way into the house and raped her in a downstairs toilet.
She claimed she was hurt but had not been able to call police immediately because he threatened to petrol-bomb her house.
It was only after discrepancies emerged in a police interview with her that Mr Scoones was told he was in the clear and his ex-wife was charged with committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.
Jailing Scoones, who had pleaded guilty, Recorder Neil Davey told her: ‘The course you embarked on was one of sheer wickedness.’
Mr Smith said: ‘She was upset and this built up in her as time went on. She accepts there was a degree of planning and she considered her actions for several weeks.’
Premeditated. Kudos to the Police for actually investigating it and not just throwing the poor man to the wolves. But this isn’t the first time this has happened. Here are a few more from the Endofmen archives.
A binge-drinking mother has been jailed after falsely accusing an innocent taxi driver of raping her.
Joanne Rye, who kept up the lie for 20 months, was told by a judge her behaviour was despicable and was handed an eight-month prison sentence.
Repeat offender, life sentence, remember?
This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some articles regarding the rise of false rape/ abuse accusations.
The point of the socialist governments attack on public drinking houses is simple; The pub is a location for people to congregate, socialise and communicate. Throughout history they have been critical in enabling people to meet and organise themselves, in regards to local government or the state. They would much prefer independent pubs to close, to be replaced by generic chain ‘bars’ because they are easier to control.
This is the same thing that is happening with the police, the GP surgeries etc. Centralise it under the State. It also presents an opportunity for the pig bastard state to leech more money off of you, among other things, like conditioning the public to ‘show your papers schnell!!!’.
None of it is necessary, none of it needs to exist. Please visit these sites for more info, I hope you will find them useful.
That was the point of the EU all along.
One of Britain’s most senior judges has launched a fierce attack on the European Court of Human Rights, accusing it of straying beyond its role and seeking to create a ‘federal law of Europe’.
Funny that, I was just watching a YouTube video of Julia Middleton, the head of Common Purpose, the ‘Chatam House Rules’ charity which specialises in indoctrinating people into ‘leading beyond authority’. Listen carefully to her language. For data on Common Purpose, visit these sites: Common Purpose Exposed, and Stop Common Purpose.
Lord Hoffmann, the second most senior Law Lord, said he supported the adoption of human rights legislation by Britain but stressed that it should be for this country’s courts to apply it, not judges in Strasbourg.
The judge, no stranger to controversy, said European rulings that reversed domestic decisions were ‘teaching grandmothers to suck eggs’.
He stressed that detailed rulings concerning the British legal system should be made in London.
Brussels + Lisbon Treaty = Leading Beyond Authority
In comments that were praised by critics of the Human Rights Court, Lord Hoffmann said it had ‘been unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and impose uniform rules on member states’.
Lord Hoffmann, regarded as one of the cleverest judges of his generation, said the court had intervened on issues such as the right to silence, the use of hearsay evidence and even night flights at Heathrow Airport, which he said sounded ‘about as far from human rights as you can get’.
Lord Hoffmann also questioned the court’s ‘constitutional legitimacy’, saying its judges were elected by a committee chaired by a Latvian politician (Boriss Cilevics) and whose British representatives were ‘a Labour politician with a trade union background and no legal qualifications’ (Lord Tomlinson) and ‘a Conservative politician who was called to the Bar in 1972 but so far as I know never practised’ (Christopher Chope MP).
Not surprising really, as our own ‘Minister for Europe’, Caroline Flint, admits never having read the Lisbon Treaty, and why would she, it’s only her f**king job.
South African-born Lord Hoffmann, who is soon to retire, denied he was engaged in ‘populist Euroscepticism’ as he was not questioning the existence of the court but rather its scope and the ‘wisdom or even correctness’ of some decisions.
‘We remain an independent nation with its own legal system, evolved over centuries of constitutional struggle and pragmatic change,’ he said.
A legal system that is overruled by the EU. Lisbon Treaty, Declaration 17: Primacy of Law.
Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve said: ‘It is interesting that concerns we have about the operation of the European Court of Human Rights are shared by one of the most senior members of the judiciary.’
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said: ‘EU leaders are creating a single conception of justice which demolishes our common law that has served freedom well for 1,000 years.’
Exactly! And the new socialist utopia isn’t about freedom, that’s why common law must make way for Napoleonic law so we can all the equally enslaved to the supranational state and its thugs.
But Labour MEP Richard Corbett said: ‘His claim that the court represents a “federal law of Europe” simply isn’t true.’
And the director of the pressure group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said that if Strasbourg was fallible, it was even more important to resist calls to scrap the controversial Human Rights Act, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1998 and allowed British judges to rules on such issues.
There is no need for a Human Rights Act. Common law can resolve the vast number of issues we have. The yuman rites act is simply there to play groups off of each other, and to encourage conflict. I’ll explain this in more detail in a later article.
A businessman has been cleared of raping a university student after jurors were shown footage of the sex session taken on a mobile phone.
Gary Taylor, 41, was accused of attacking the 27-year-old woman after turning up at her flat with cocaine and a bottle of red wine.
The woman, who can’t be identified for legal reasons, told jurors that Mr Taylor forced her to perform a sex act on him and then raped her in her living room.
But during cross-examination she was shown footage Mr Taylor had taken on his mobile phone during the encounter on September 26, 2008.
Mr Taylor’s barrister Karen Holt said the footage showed the woman ‘actively’ performing a sex act on him.
Judge Christopher Moss QC closed the public gallery before a graphic clip filmed by the woman was shown to the jury.
The judge warned: ‘You are going to see a clip which from what I have been told you may find extremely distasteful. To avoid making it a peep show, I have ordered the public gallery to be cleared.’
After the footage was screened, Miss Holt said to the alleged victim: ‘You and Mr Taylor were very familiar with each other and comfortable in each other’s presence.’
The woman said: ‘I don’t think I was happily talking to him.’
She also denied ‘actively’ performing a sex act on Mr Taylor.
The prosecution offered no evidence following advice from the judge.
Mr Taylor, who runs a multimedia company, was cleared of four charges of rape and walked free from court.
The Old Bailey heard police had arrived at the victim’s flat in Wood Green, North London, in the early hours of the morning after reports of a disturbance.
She made a complaint of rape and Mr Taylor was arrested at the scene.
Giving evidence she told the court: ‘He wanted to be intimate. Maybe he thought he could force me into it but he went too far.
‘He thought he could be persuasive and it went too far. He kept trying to kiss me that evening and I was saying no.
‘I was quite drunk. He was on top of me at some point with his hand on my mouth.’
Mr Taylor, from Hornsey, North London, denied four counts of rape, including two of rape by oral penetration.
The woman had not seen the film of her having sex with Mr Taylor before it was shown to the court.
No evidence needed to get the man arrested. The lying words of a deceitful female still results in her being protected as a victim by the state, while the innocent man has his name tarnished with a rape allegation (treated as guilty). If that footage wasn’t taken, he would have been serving a long time in prison for something THAT NEVER HAPPENED. And the female would have not cared one jot.
Disgusting, lying, selfish BITCH.
Gordon Brown has made an overtly religious call for a new world order based on the ‘deep moral sense’ shared by all faiths.
Making the first speech by a serving Prime Minister at St Paul’s Cathedral in London, he quoted scripture as he urged people to unite to forge a new ‘global society’.
The Prime Minister argued that through all faiths, traditions and heritages runs a ‘single powerful modern sense demanding responsibility from all and fairness to all’.
He quoted the Christian doctrine of ‘do to others what you would have them do unto you’ and highlighted similar principles in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism.
‘They each and all reflect a sense that we share the pain of others, and a sense that we believe in something bigger than
ourselves – that we cannot be truly content while others face despair, cannot be completely at ease while others live in fear, cannot be satisfied while others are in sorrow,’ he said.
‘We all feel, regardless of the source of our philosophy, the same deep moral sense that each of us is our brother and sisters’ keeper . . . we cannot and will not pass by on the other side when people are suffering and when we have it within our power to help.’
He went on to suggest the world economy and society should be rebuilt around a Zulu word for hope – themba – which is also an acronym for ‘there must be an alternative’.
Well the alternative of the elite ruling classes, is a totalitarian global socialist dictatorship where the human race is enslaved by technology.
But I don’t think they’re puppets are going to be admitting that soon, although only a few years ago, researchers claiming there is a ‘new world order’ scheme in place where labelled ‘nuts’.
UPDATE: The next day the Mail Online is running the title The trillion dollar question: Will Gordon Brown’s ‘New World Order’ pay off? on its front page.
I think this would be a good time to revisit the New World Order gun edition, and also this picture I took (March 2007) of a local ‘news’ paper.
In fact, searching for the phrase on this blog pulls up a large number of articles.