The Ministry of Justice that newly formed body split from the Home Office just a few short years ago has commissioned a report that has decreed the population too thick to comprehend what Judges are saying in trials. The report’s authors seem to bemoan the very notion that people be involved in trials.
Let me put this straight, every report commissioned in the last 13 years under this Labour Government has returned the exact observations and recommendations it was commissioned to. To my mind, this is not some independent report that has produced some startling evidence; it is the latest in a preordained coercion of attempts to lend a commission, a report or a public consultation to a predetermined action or decision. In this case, the removal of the Jury system in the United Kingdom.
The Jury System is wonderful in its conception in that a pool of one's peers are asked to come and sit in deliberation on the questions of fact as presented in a trial so as to establish, whether the facts of the case have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge sits in the trial to rule on the question of law and the application of law as appropriate. If people are having difficulty understanding Judges, then I would suggest Judges be instructed to explain their instructions in lay-persons terms and allow for follow up questions so that there are fewer misunderstandings; they are after all there as the expert of the law, Juries are there to rule on the facts. What we should not do, as this report seemingly points to is the removal of Jury Trials altogether. The removal of ordinary people from political system has long been complete, let us not allow for ourselves to be removed from the criminal justice system also. There is no real evidence that shows that any 12 people are less able to comprehend the complexities of a case any better or worse than a judge who may well be educated, but only so far as where the law is concerned. Why would a 60 year old judge be expected to have a better comprehension of a complex fraud trial involving complex online transfer than say a 19 year old of average intelligence or education? Even if an individual Juror has difficulties in his or her understanding there are 11 others there listening to the same evidence and for who there must be deliberations with. Of course Jurors don't always comprehend the law, but that is not their primary purpose!
Rule by "expert" is a longstanding leftist goal. "Experts" can detach themselves from the reality and emotion of a situation; they would instantly join our ever enlarging ruling elite. They are men with briefcases who have a professional agenda and standing to consider. A Jury is intended to be a representation of our peers, so as to see if 12 people would rule the facts to also be so. I am not saying the decision to legislate against one of our basic freeborn rights would even be put to us, but if it were we would indeed reject the notion as an amazing lack of faith in our own abilities.
We don't need less Jury's we need more. We don’t need more experts, we need less. Juries are not cheap, they are not time or cost efficient but where the justice of freeborn men and women are concerned it was never intended that our system of law be first and foremost anything other than fair.
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Case For A Referendum
From Jack Straw last night, on why he is proposing a referendum on the Alternative Voting System. From Hansard:
Like wise to Chris Huhne on the Daily Politics yesterday regarding the Liberal Democrats position on AV and a referendum:
The Liberal Democrats will have their convictions tested this month when Doug Carswells Bill requiring a referendum on EU Membership reaches the floor and they get the opportunity to vote exactly for what they said was necessary just two years ago. But, of course being the Lib Dems, we won't know which way they will vote until we know which way the wind will be blowing on that particular day.
We propose a referendum, however, because we believe that it is not for us to make the final decision. It is important that the people should have that choice in a referendum. If the Conservative Opposition feel so strongly about the merits of first past the post, why do they not have the courage of their convictions? They should back the proposals and allow the people in their constituencies, as well as those in every other constituency across the country, to make that choice-a mature and balanced choice-after detailed debate some time before October 2011. That is what we propose and that is what I believe should be supported. I commend the new clauses to the House.Right back at you Jackie. Where was the courage of Labours convictions in manifestly promising a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and then withdrawing that referendum pledge when your political masters in Brussels deemed it essential to do so? Labour did not obviously feel they could make the case for Lisbon, nor for EU membership being beneficial to the UK. How stupid the electorate was indeed, for voting Labour who have no intention of following their own manifesto.
Like wise to Chris Huhne on the Daily Politics yesterday regarding the Liberal Democrats position on AV and a referendum:
We have said we think AV is a very small; a most minimal step in the right direction because it it gives voters more choice and less waste of vote... Yes, we will back it.So, the Liberal Democrats under the newly elected Nick Clegg could not support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty despite a maifesto comittment, because it did not ask the question they wanted, that of overall EU Membership. However, they can back a referendum on AV that does not answer what they would claim to be the problem and is nothing more than a small, minimal step.
The Liberal Democrats will have their convictions tested this month when Doug Carswells Bill requiring a referendum on EU Membership reaches the floor and they get the opportunity to vote exactly for what they said was necessary just two years ago. But, of course being the Lib Dems, we won't know which way they will vote until we know which way the wind will be blowing on that particular day.
Friday, November 20, 2009
More Lies; Three Months Later Megrahi Lives
It has been three months since Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison and sent home to Libya to see out the final three months of his life in his home country.
Today, Al-Megrahi lives, and according to Guido has been discharged from the medical centre that was treating him. Seems he is not so close to death after all.
The Governments in Westminster and Edinburgh have lied to the people of the UK about this story. Leaked Ministerial documents to the Sunday Times showed that the view from the UK Government was that it was in the "overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" that the convicted terrorist be released. At the same time a long standing negotiation between Libya and BP that had been running for many months hit the rocks. The conclusion of the UK Government was of course linked to the oil deal. Gordon Browns government made the decision to release Al-Megrahi and very soon afterwards the Libya/BP deal was concluded.
The Sunday Times claim that it was in fact Jack Straw who pushed for a U-turn. They claim that two letters dated five months apart showed that Al-Megrahi was not under any consideration for release, though there was a British-Libyan prisoner exchange on the table. The Libyans ramped up the pressure on the BP deal, and included Al-Megrahi as a condition.
Upon his release Saif Gadaffi insisted that Al-Megrahi's release HAD been linked to the oil deal, yet the UK Government still denies this. Said Gadaffi concluded “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”
In case you are wondering, £15 Billion is the estimated profit BP will make from the oil deal. And in the end it took just a few weeks for our Governments to stitch up a deal that sold our principles and belief down the river for the associated tax revenues of an oil deal. There was no vote in Parliament, no public debate, no consultation with the families of the victims of The Lockerbie Slaughter. This is just how politics is done in Britain today.
Today, Al-Megrahi lives, and according to Guido has been discharged from the medical centre that was treating him. Seems he is not so close to death after all.
The Governments in Westminster and Edinburgh have lied to the people of the UK about this story. Leaked Ministerial documents to the Sunday Times showed that the view from the UK Government was that it was in the "overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" that the convicted terrorist be released. At the same time a long standing negotiation between Libya and BP that had been running for many months hit the rocks. The conclusion of the UK Government was of course linked to the oil deal. Gordon Browns government made the decision to release Al-Megrahi and very soon afterwards the Libya/BP deal was concluded.
The Sunday Times claim that it was in fact Jack Straw who pushed for a U-turn. They claim that two letters dated five months apart showed that Al-Megrahi was not under any consideration for release, though there was a British-Libyan prisoner exchange on the table. The Libyans ramped up the pressure on the BP deal, and included Al-Megrahi as a condition.
Upon his release Saif Gadaffi insisted that Al-Megrahi's release HAD been linked to the oil deal, yet the UK Government still denies this. Said Gadaffi concluded “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”
In case you are wondering, £15 Billion is the estimated profit BP will make from the oil deal. And in the end it took just a few weeks for our Governments to stitch up a deal that sold our principles and belief down the river for the associated tax revenues of an oil deal. There was no vote in Parliament, no public debate, no consultation with the families of the victims of The Lockerbie Slaughter. This is just how politics is done in Britain today.
Monday, November 16, 2009
An Interesting Thought
With David Miliband not taking an EU job there were unsurprisingly a few whispers that there might be another coup attempt in the offing somewhen before the next elections. I personally do not think an attempt will now be made to usurp the Prime Minister. The plotters have already failed to remove the least most popular Prime Minister in recent history, which really shows what little strength they truly have. Besides, any challenge would almost certainly now trigger an early General Election rather than a leadership contest and too many Labour MP's stand to lose too much money if they get sent home early.
Anyway, the keen eye is on Ministers and ex-Ministers to see who will move first, and who is posturing now ready for a post General Election Labour leadership bid. There is one candidate that no one has yet mentioned as a future leader of the opposition. Gordon Brown.
It seems to be assumed that following an electoral drubbing Gordon Brown will step down as leader. But why? The man is quite delusional when it comes to his outlook on most things. He swore that the UK was best placed of all EU and G8 countries to weather his recession.... look how wrong he was, but look also at how he believed it to be true. He also thinks he has saved the world, and that only he and his mroal compass know what is best for country and party. Labour failed to step up and remove Brown when they had the opportunity to. They listened to Gordon's tears rather than what the country wanted. With a reduced number of MPs in the next Parliament, possibly under 180 seats in total, the task of forced removal may actually be even harder than now under Labour Party rules. Gordon Brown may just see it as his duty to stay on, he will probably assert that he is the only person who could lead the Labour Party back to past glory, and it may be old hands in safe seats that control that balance and allow him that opportunity. How will messers Miliband, Straw and Johnson react to that?
Just something to think about.
Anyway, the keen eye is on Ministers and ex-Ministers to see who will move first, and who is posturing now ready for a post General Election Labour leadership bid. There is one candidate that no one has yet mentioned as a future leader of the opposition. Gordon Brown.
It seems to be assumed that following an electoral drubbing Gordon Brown will step down as leader. But why? The man is quite delusional when it comes to his outlook on most things. He swore that the UK was best placed of all EU and G8 countries to weather his recession.... look how wrong he was, but look also at how he believed it to be true. He also thinks he has saved the world, and that only he and his mroal compass know what is best for country and party. Labour failed to step up and remove Brown when they had the opportunity to. They listened to Gordon's tears rather than what the country wanted. With a reduced number of MPs in the next Parliament, possibly under 180 seats in total, the task of forced removal may actually be even harder than now under Labour Party rules. Gordon Brown may just see it as his duty to stay on, he will probably assert that he is the only person who could lead the Labour Party back to past glory, and it may be old hands in safe seats that control that balance and allow him that opportunity. How will messers Miliband, Straw and Johnson react to that?
Just something to think about.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Jack Says No
The [so called] Justice Minister has today decreed that the minutes of two meetings held in March 2003 when the legality of invading Iraq was discussed. He has signed a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom Of Information Act to prevent the contents being revealed. This is the first time since the FOI act was passed that this has been done.
I am quite frankly shocked and appalled.
In normal circumstances I would agree that Cabinet Meeting Minutes should be released in the normal way and in the appropriate time. This would also include meetings where decisions are taken that maybe deeply unpopular.
Where the decision in 2003 to invade Iraq is concerned though, the premise upon which we were publicly told that the invasion was taking place has been proven erroneous already, proven when the weapons of mass destruction that we were supposedly there to seize failed to materialise. Our government put the lives of our brave Armed Services and that of Iraq's civilian population into jeopardy for reasons that later turned out to be untrue.
This is not about if you think the invasion was right or wrong, moral or immoral. What were were told was untrue, and these minutes give the details of what was discussed and recorded in the room whilst this decision was being made. That decision was wrong. The people who made such a massive decision were wrong. They now need to be held to account.
It is outrageous that Jack Straw who was in the room as Foreign Secretary in those 2003 meeting can be allowed to block the publication today as Justice Secretary. It stinks.
Mr Straws has said that allowing the publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet Government, an essential principle of British democracy." I think you got your words wrong there Jack; in my opinion your decision causes damage to the members of the cabinet and seems designed to conceal your personal contribution and embarrassment in the decision to go to war.
Democracy relies upon accountability. Mistakes can be made in democracies, and in healthy democracies mistakes are published, analysed and learned from. When individuals put themselves above such concerns, the people suffer. Publishing these minutes would not put anybodies life in jeopardy; but how many people have died as a result of the decision that was reached?
They were brave enough to take the decision to commit human lives for a cause they deemed noble and necessary. We should be able today to look back and assess the sum of lives lost against the virtue of the decision, and the benefits achieved. Mr Straw prevents this. I ask myself why? Please ask yourself the same.
Unsurprisingly the Conservative Shadow Justice Spokesperson Dominic Grieve has backed Jack Straws decision. Perhaps Mr Warner was right today, maybe it is time we swept the Labour and Conservative parties aside, for both have lost all sense of philosophy and purpose.
I am quite frankly shocked and appalled.
In normal circumstances I would agree that Cabinet Meeting Minutes should be released in the normal way and in the appropriate time. This would also include meetings where decisions are taken that maybe deeply unpopular.
Where the decision in 2003 to invade Iraq is concerned though, the premise upon which we were publicly told that the invasion was taking place has been proven erroneous already, proven when the weapons of mass destruction that we were supposedly there to seize failed to materialise. Our government put the lives of our brave Armed Services and that of Iraq's civilian population into jeopardy for reasons that later turned out to be untrue.
This is not about if you think the invasion was right or wrong, moral or immoral. What were were told was untrue, and these minutes give the details of what was discussed and recorded in the room whilst this decision was being made. That decision was wrong. The people who made such a massive decision were wrong. They now need to be held to account.
It is outrageous that Jack Straw who was in the room as Foreign Secretary in those 2003 meeting can be allowed to block the publication today as Justice Secretary. It stinks.
Mr Straws has said that allowing the publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet Government, an essential principle of British democracy." I think you got your words wrong there Jack; in my opinion your decision causes damage to the members of the cabinet and seems designed to conceal your personal contribution and embarrassment in the decision to go to war.
Democracy relies upon accountability. Mistakes can be made in democracies, and in healthy democracies mistakes are published, analysed and learned from. When individuals put themselves above such concerns, the people suffer. Publishing these minutes would not put anybodies life in jeopardy; but how many people have died as a result of the decision that was reached?
They were brave enough to take the decision to commit human lives for a cause they deemed noble and necessary. We should be able today to look back and assess the sum of lives lost against the virtue of the decision, and the benefits achieved. Mr Straw prevents this. I ask myself why? Please ask yourself the same.
Unsurprisingly the Conservative Shadow Justice Spokesperson Dominic Grieve has backed Jack Straws decision. Perhaps Mr Warner was right today, maybe it is time we swept the Labour and Conservative parties aside, for both have lost all sense of philosophy and purpose.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Who Is Backing Gordon Brown?
Gordon Brown Quotes:
So, do people share your views Gordon?.....
What about Ed Balls? Well, let’s look at who he is first. He worked for the Financial Times as an economic leader writer (1990 – 1994), before going on to work for Gordon Brown in 1994 in the then Shadow Cabinet. After Labour won the 1997 election he worked for the then Chancellor (again, one Gordon Brown) in a position called “Chief Economic Advisor” where he allegedly earned the title “The most powerful unelected man in Britain”.
It would be fair to say then, that Ed Balls is intimate with Gordon Brown, familiar with the internal workings of the treasury department, the Government and of the national economic position.
Last night, Ed Ball told a Labour conference that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape". He also said the current economic situation is "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s" (See here.)
Oh dear. That doesn’t sound very supportive of Mr Brown or this Labour Governments official position.
Ok, well let’s look at someone else then… how about Nikolas Sarkozy. Well again let’s look at who he is. He is the democratically elected President of France (means he won an election of the whole country, Gordon may not be familiar with this concept).
Any way, what did Mr Sarkozy have to say on Gordon Browns Economic competence? Surely as a European leader, he will look at what Gordon brown was quick to do, and follow his leadership.
Oh dear. Well let’s look at the IMF then. They have effective control on the world’s supply of money, they must recognise that “Gordon Brown has not only saved the world….” Ooops, he didn’t mean to say that did he.
Anyway, the IMF know what they are talking about, they must agree that the UK is well positioned economically. They have a report here. Oh, I forgot, they placed the UK at the very bottom in their outlook of developed nations, and are predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 2.8% in 2009.
Ok, maybe these are too specific. How about House owners?
No, wait, house prices have fallen an average of £22,000 per house hold in the last year or so.
What about the Unions? They love Labour Prime Ministers.
Hmm, forgot, they though when Gordon Brown said “British Jobs for British Workers” he was going to do that. He didn’t thell them that the EU won’t let him.
Labour voters?
Well, admittedly they might be hard to find now, as only 28% of the electorate is considering voting for Labour.
Polly? Getting mixed signals from Pol. Best not disturb her today; she is getting a bit of a kicking today from her readers.
My Blogs readers… No, wait, this is getting embarrassing… I almost forgot, but 92% of them want Brown to resign.
What about Gordon Browns Cabinet, they must support him and his claims on the economy…
Let’s see, The Foreign Secretary? No, that’s David Miliband, he was going to run a campaign against Gordon Brown Last year. Nobody, not even Gordon Brown thinks David Miliband trusts Grodon Brown.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary? Well she is supportive, but then again she is making massive amounts of money from the position Gordon put her in, she would have to back him, he is probably keeping a public enquiry from her door.
Jack Straw? haven’t heard from him in a while… hmmm, wonder where the Justice Secretary is?
Ed Balls? No, done that one already.
Labour MP’s. They will of course support their leader. They have to, it’s their job to, and they wouldn’t want to make dear Gordon cry again. Come to think of it, a lot of them will be out of a job soon, they are probably less happy..
I t seems I may am struggling to find a credible example of somebody who will back Gordon Brown’s economic policies, and actually for him to remain as Prime Minister. Is there anybody left that does?
Oh wait of course there is. I forgot, there is the BBC and the EU.
"at root our economy is better placed to weather the global storm than it was in
the seventies, the eighties and the nineties". – To North West of England
Business Leaders (see here.)
"It's a financial global recession everybody knows and started out of America,
we are having to deal with the fall out. We are better placed in Britain than we
have been in the past and are better placed that many other countries" – BBC
Interview (See here)
So, do people share your views Gordon?.....
What about Ed Balls? Well, let’s look at who he is first. He worked for the Financial Times as an economic leader writer (1990 – 1994), before going on to work for Gordon Brown in 1994 in the then Shadow Cabinet. After Labour won the 1997 election he worked for the then Chancellor (again, one Gordon Brown) in a position called “Chief Economic Advisor” where he allegedly earned the title “The most powerful unelected man in Britain”.
It would be fair to say then, that Ed Balls is intimate with Gordon Brown, familiar with the internal workings of the treasury department, the Government and of the national economic position.
Last night, Ed Ball told a Labour conference that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape". He also said the current economic situation is "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s" (See here.)
Oh dear. That doesn’t sound very supportive of Mr Brown or this Labour Governments official position.
Ok, well let’s look at someone else then… how about Nikolas Sarkozy. Well again let’s look at who he is. He is the democratically elected President of France (means he won an election of the whole country, Gordon may not be familiar with this concept).
Any way, what did Mr Sarkozy have to say on Gordon Browns Economic competence? Surely as a European leader, he will look at what Gordon brown was quick to do, and follow his leadership.
"The British chose a recovery plan by boosting consumer spending, notably by
cutting VAT by two per cent. It is plain to see that it has brought absolutely
no progress. "
Doesn’t sound very supportive, maybe we should look at what else he said…
"The reason is simple: because it's in people's heads. If the consumer no
longer consumes, he won't change just because we add or subtract one VAT point,
it's because he's scared for his future, he's scared for his job and says to
himself: 'I must save, because bad times are coming'.
"In France, we chose investment because when we put France into debt by
taking money to invest, in return we have assets, infrastructure. When you put
your country into debt to pay for operating costs, you have nothing in return
for your debt and you ruin the country.
"If the English did that it's because they don't have any industry
left. Gordon Brown cannot do what I am doing with carmakers [giving them up to 6
billion euros]... in construction and other industries, because they haven't got
any left."
Oh dear. Well let’s look at the IMF then. They have effective control on the world’s supply of money, they must recognise that “Gordon Brown has not only saved the world….” Ooops, he didn’t mean to say that did he.
Anyway, the IMF know what they are talking about, they must agree that the UK is well positioned economically. They have a report here. Oh, I forgot, they placed the UK at the very bottom in their outlook of developed nations, and are predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 2.8% in 2009.
Ok, maybe these are too specific. How about House owners?
No, wait, house prices have fallen an average of £22,000 per house hold in the last year or so.
What about the Unions? They love Labour Prime Ministers.
Hmm, forgot, they though when Gordon Brown said “British Jobs for British Workers” he was going to do that. He didn’t thell them that the EU won’t let him.
Labour voters?
Well, admittedly they might be hard to find now, as only 28% of the electorate is considering voting for Labour.
Polly? Getting mixed signals from Pol. Best not disturb her today; she is getting a bit of a kicking today from her readers.
My Blogs readers… No, wait, this is getting embarrassing… I almost forgot, but 92% of them want Brown to resign.
What about Gordon Browns Cabinet, they must support him and his claims on the economy…
Let’s see, The Foreign Secretary? No, that’s David Miliband, he was going to run a campaign against Gordon Brown Last year. Nobody, not even Gordon Brown thinks David Miliband trusts Grodon Brown.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary? Well she is supportive, but then again she is making massive amounts of money from the position Gordon put her in, she would have to back him, he is probably keeping a public enquiry from her door.
Jack Straw? haven’t heard from him in a while… hmmm, wonder where the Justice Secretary is?
Ed Balls? No, done that one already.
Labour MP’s. They will of course support their leader. They have to, it’s their job to, and they wouldn’t want to make dear Gordon cry again. Come to think of it, a lot of them will be out of a job soon, they are probably less happy..
I t seems I may am struggling to find a credible example of somebody who will back Gordon Brown’s economic policies, and actually for him to remain as Prime Minister. Is there anybody left that does?
Oh wait of course there is. I forgot, there is the BBC and the EU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)