Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Please write to your MP about the unfair Clare’s Law which splits our justice system into two!

December 3, 2013

Please write to your MP about the unfair Clare’s Law which splits our justice system into two!

By Dark Politricks

If you read my latest article you will know I was a bit annoyed about the new Clare’s Law which was being brought into the UK nationwide.

This law would let women ask the local Police for any criminal history about their new partner. The new law would not apply to men who make up 40% of all domestic abuse victims.

The disturbing thing about this law is that it divides our judicial system into a sexist one where one law exists for men and another for women.

Also the police are able to give out “suspicions” and “allegations” to the inquisitive woman which might not be truthful or correct.

How many vindictive women are out there which would claim that their ex partner beat or abused them because they are upset or jealous that they split up?

I don’t know, but I do know that we have had recent court cases where a women has been prosecuted and jailed for making false claims of rape against men. The most recent one being the case of Natasha Foster who was jailed for 3 years for making up a claim of rape against an ex boyfriend.

Therefore if you think this new law couldn’t in any way affect you then think again.

Not only could your current partner lie and make a false claim of abuse but just by alleging an offence took place, even if it didn’t result in a court case, it could still be treated as an “allegation” serious enough to be given out to future partners.

Also old crimes that should be “spent” after a period of time under the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will still be eligible for the Police to give out to future partners even if the crime happened many years ago. This goes against the whole point of the 1974 law as the crime is not even supposed to be on your record any more.

This turns the whole concept of our criminal justice act on its head. Supposedly, under this law, once you have spent your crime you are “rehabilitated” and therefore allowed to not mention it on job application forms of other legal documents that ask about criminal convictions. This new Clare’s Law, like the Criminal Records Bureau checks before it, have totally negated the nature of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and could throw any chance of rehabilitation away for ex-offenders.

For example if you had a fight with a man 20 years ago this should supposedly be “spent” and no longer on your record. You should be able to apply to jobs and not even mention the event.

However under Clare’s Law the police could give this information out if they felt it was “relevant”. This in itself is leaving a very important matter up to a low-level Police officer rather than a Judge or Magistrate.

Here is what is “supposed” to happen when you have committed a crime and then “spend” it by passing a specified length of time which is dependant on the seriousness and nature of the offence.

I quote directly from the Home Offices own page on the law:

Subject to subsection (2) below, where an individual has been convicted, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of any offence or offences, and the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(a)he did not have imposed on him in respect of that conviction a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act; and

(b)he has not had imposed on him in respect of a subsequent conviction during the rehabilitation period applicable to the first-mentioned conviction in accordance with section 6 below a sentence which is excluded from rehabilitation under this Act;

then, after the end of the rehabilitation period so applicable (including, where appropriate, any extension under section 6(4) below of the period originally applicable to the first-mentioned conviction) or, where that rehabilitation period ended before the commencement of this Act, after the commencement of this Act, that individual shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as a rehabilitated person in respect of the first-mentioned conviction and that conviction shall for those purposes be treated as spent.

Read the full law here: The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Therefore after my earlier rant I wrote to my local MP about this matter and I got a response back telling me that he will raise the matter with the Home Secretary.

Here is the letter I received:

Dear Mr ….

Thank you for your email in which you pose some interesting questions which I shall submit to the Home secretary.  I shall let you know when I have a reply.

Best wishes

Sir Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Therefore I suggest anyone else, male or female, who is concerned about our whole criminal justice system being split into two – one for men and another for women, complain to their MP, or directly to the Home Secretary ASAP.

You can find your local MP and contact them directly online here >

Here is the letter I sent to my own MP. If you cannot think of your own version feel free to copy it and change wording as you see fit.

Dear [YOUR MP’s NAME],

Can I enquire about the introduction of the new “Clare’s law” which is apparently going to be rolled out across the country.

From the news reports it seems that this law is only going to apply to women even though a reported 40% of victims of domestic violence are now men.

I quote directly from a report made from Home Office statistics which was reported in the Observer >

“About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men, contradicting the widespread impression that it is almost always women who are left battered and bruised, a new report claims.

Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men’s rights campaign group Parity.

The charity’s analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states:

“Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture.”

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in
2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.”

Therefore can I ask you the following questions:

-Will men be able to find out if potential new female partners are violent and in this age of supposed equality surely any law should be equally applicable to men and women?

-What actual information will be given out to women enquiring about their partner?

-How does this new law effect the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in which convictions are supposedly “spent” after a number of years. For example if I was arrested and convicted for a street fight against another man when I was 18 will that information be given out?

-What about if a women had made a false claim of rape against me which led to no charge or conviction? From the reporting it seems that even “accusations” true or not can be given out. How would that effect men who have been falsely accused of rape or other violent crimes.

-How are you going to handle “deliberate” misleading reports of domestic abuse by former partners who are upset that their relationships have broken up. I can see no better way for an annoyed ex to get back at me than claim to the Police that I hit or abused her and therefore ensure any future partner I might have could be told about it. It could potentially ruin relationships and allow manipulative women to purposefully ruin lives.

Also I would like to state that in a country where we are all supposedly innocent until found guilty the only way guilt is proven is by a conviction in a court of law.

Therefore giving out “accusations” and “rumours” goes against a supposed long standing maxim of our country that all are equal under the law until proven guilty.

Can you please ask the Home Secretary how she can claim we live under the rule of law when it is not applied equally to all?

Surely in this day and age of female equality when websites exist that let women brag about beating men up > we should all be equal under the law, rather than having two sets of laws dependant on the sex you are born as.

Yours sincerely,


Hopefully if enough of us can get questions raised in Parliament or MP’s actually thinking about the consequences of their new laws they may think again.

I have no problem with sensible measures to protect women from horrible domestic abuse.

However any law in a democratically country should be equally applied and it should not negate previous laws in doing so.

Please help our politicians understand this.


View the original article on Clare’s Law an unfair law to be rolled out across the country here on the main site

Read the The response from my MP to Clare’s Law on my main site:


Is the UK journalist who broke the Super Injunction asking for a test case in court?

May 23, 2011

By Dark Politicks

It seems I wasn’t far from wrong in my last article: UK Super Injunctions prove #altnews is the premier source of real news when I said:

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the person or persons behind the Twitter accounts that are leaking the super injunction info are not far removed from the papers themselves.

It seems that I was spot on. Not only are the lawyers for one of the footballers covered by an injunction trying to sue Twitter to get details of the person behind an account breaching the injunctions but the Daily Mail reported yesterday that:

A journalist on one of Britain’s most respected newspapers – who also appears on a widely-viewed BBC programme – could face a jail sentence after naming on Twitter a Premier League footballer who had taken out a privacy injunction.

In the first case of its kind, lawyers for the soccer star have persuaded a High Court judge to ask Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC to consider a criminal prosecution against the writer for breaching a privacy injunction. If Mr Grieve decides to issue contempt of court proceedings, the individual faces a prison sentence of up to two years.

The unprecedented legal action is the latest attempt by a public figure to try to curb the growing use of the Internet – especially Twitter – to expose the adulterous affairs and misbehaviour of celebrities and footballers.

As the UK Courts are criticised for creating a privacy law through the back door and our Parliament is accused of lagging behind the huge changes in social media these are interesting times in the UK as two “Human Rights” battle each other out for supremacy.

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence”, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and“necessary in a democratic society”.


Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society“. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

So we have the right of freedom of speech battling it out with the right of those who can afford expensive lawyers to take out injunctions to protect their private life.

Scanning the list of named individuals on one of the Twitter accounts at the centre of the storm this usually this comes down to the fact that a famous man has been caught having an affair or some form of sexual shenanigans and is trying to prevent his wife or family from finding out the details.

As Mark Easton says on his recent blog posting:

What is private? And, when push comes to shove, who should decide?

The arguments of the last week have exposed an ancient tension between Parliament and the judiciary.

Politicians, including the prime minister, have expressed concern that “unelected judges” are using the Human Rights Act to create a privacy law on the hoof.

Basically, they are saying: “Get your undemocratic tanks off our lawn”.

On Friday two of the most senior judges in England and Wales lobbed the criticism back saying that, by passing the Human Rights Act, Parliament has already effectively created a privacy law, and it was down to the poor old judges to try to make sense of the confusion and mess.

The Super Injunction system is plainly ridiculous at the injunctions seem to only cover media covered by English law and this was proved right when yesterday the Sunday Herald published details of one the footballers covered by such an injunction. They claimed that

“The issue is one of freedom of information and of a growing argument in favour of more restrictive privacy laws.”

He added that he had taken extensive legal advice and was not expecting any legal consequences because the injunction was not valid in Scotland – only in England.

His paper, he said, was not published, distributed or sold in England.

Therefore it will be interesting to see how far the lawyers trying to get hold of Twitter account details regarding breaches of other injunctions will get.

Twitter is a US based company and presumably covered by US law and the First Amendment which prohibits the making of any law infringing on the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press.

As bloggers, micro bloggers, Tweets and personal websites could be classified as “citizen journalism” then surely the account the Tweets came from would be protected by this law if based in the USA.

However if the account was based in England or Wales or the computer used to post the tweet came from an IP address located in the countries covered by the super injunction e.g England, Wales and Northern Ireland then there could be case made for a breach.

I cannot believe a tech savvy journalist would have been so stupid to open an account up in his own name, using his real email address and then post messages knowingly from an English IP address unless he wanted to be caught.

There are so many mechanisms nowadays to avoid having to do this such as using Proxy Servers based overseas and Disposable Email Accounts that are untraceable that anyone caught breaching Super Injunctions by micro blogging could only be asking for a chance to bring a test case to a UK court.

Maybe that is exactly what this supposedly famous UK journalist wanted to do in the first place.

Capital Punishment and Law and Order

October 1, 2010

By Dark Politricks

I’ve just finishing watching an episode of Law and Order in which the defendant, a murderer, was sentenced to death.

I am personally apposed to the death penalty and actually found the way in which one of the main characters, Abbie Carmichael, was literally salivating over the death sentence particularly sickening.

I have only just started watching the show but I cannot empathise with this character or in fact any of the District Attorney characters at all. Maybe it’s because I’ve been on the receiving end of such peoples power and can never sympathise with someone who chooses a job in which they can ruin other peoples lives so utterly and completely with just a word or two. People who think nothing of doing just that and see the accused not as human beings but commodities who can aid their own careers. Send defendant X to the gas chamber and get a promotion. Send defendant Y to prison for life with no parole and a career in politics may be just round the corner.

The show is not very subtle in its political messaging and there always seems to be a debate at some point over a major ethical issue during the episode. Usually a conversation is started between the main characters on a contentious point such as the death penalty or the limits of free speech but the argument is never really fleshed out or resolved satisfactorily in my opinion and I always find myself thinking that a good opportunity to discuss the current state of politics and moral quandaries around certain issues has gone awry.

I’m not a Christian but I believe in forgivness no matter how harsh the crime and I cannot get my head around those who believe in the death penalty so passionately. What if your child was raped and murdered you might ask wouldn’t you want the attacker punished for that crime. Yes I would. On a personal level I would probably want to rip the lungs out the perpetrator and deal justice on a very intimate one on one level. However because of that desire, that very well understood emotional turmoil that those close to the crime go through, because of that the justice has to be dealt out by the state in a detached, logical and calm manner.

It is also why I believe the death penalty is wrong and not only because of all the wrongful convictions that are proven years later to have been based on bad evidence or coercion.

Here in the UK we have had a number of people who if the death penalty still existed would have died long ago but were released after serving years sometimes decades in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.

Many of these people were political prisoners, presumed to be Irish terrorists who were fitted up and sent down for multiple murders all based on forged and flimsy police evidence. If the death penalty had not been abolished these innocent men who were all convicted of multiple homicides would have swung by their necks many years ago.

For the government to carry out a murder in cold blood of one of its citizens is in my opinion one of the worst crimes imaginable purely because of its calm methodical nature. I can understand very well how one can kill in the heat of the moment but to kill in the manner of a serial killer with no skipped heartbeat as if an accountant was ticking another box is in my opinion the worst kind of crime and one that I don’t believe a state government should engage in.

I personally see little difference between the state of Texas executing someone by electric chair orthose Islamic countries who decide to wrap someone up in a blanket and throw rocks at them. Would you rather fry to death, electricity pulsing through your skin, smoke seeping from every orrifice or would you rather meet your maker from a hard blow to the head caused by one of many hard rocks being chucked at you by your neighbours.

Call me a liberal, a bleeding heart, someone soft on crime I don’t care. What I do care about is the limits of state power and its ability to take its citizens life away on a whim. When state executions are an every day occurrence it becomes easier to increase the number of crimes that are capital offences and merit such punishment.

It also becomes much more likely that if you are a political dissident, a peace activist or an unpopular exerciser of free speech that if the government decides it neccessary that you should be caught, tried and convicted as a domestic terrorist for crimes of treason that you might be unlucky enough to suffer the ultimate punishment.

The Tory plans to roll back Labours high tech police state

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

I recently wrote some articles about the upcoming UK general election and the Liberal Democrats proposed Freedom Bill which aims to roll back some of the most intrusive and liberty destroying measures introduced by successive Labour and Tory governments in the last 20 years.

The Liberal Democrats seem quite serious about their intent to roll back the high tech police state we are now living in but to be fair to the Tories they have also repeatedly slammed Labour over the years for their drive towards huge centralised databases, increased survellience and unrestrained government power. David Davies famously quit his position as the Shadow Home Secretary to fight a local by-election so that he could debate the merits of the then proposal to allow terror suspects to be locked up for 42 days detention without charge as well as what he called “the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.”

Now as you should know I am no fan of the Conservative party and I remember the days before Labour came into power and the Tories were just as bad as Labour is now. The only difference was that during the late 80’s and early 90’s the the technology wasn’t around that is now available but I would put good money on it that if we had just experienced 13 years of Tory rule rather than Labour not much would be different. Our civil liberties would still be trampled on without regard and we would still be surrounded by a high tech police state apparatus that enables Big Brother to spy on us in a multitude of ways. The Tories were quite happy to introduce legislation that restricted freedom of movement, the right to protest and and much more during their last time in power so I put little faith in any claims to the contrary that they make now.

However to be fair to the Tories they have put forward an eleven point plan that aims to shrink the surveillance state and although it doesn’t go as far as the Lib Dem’s Freedom Bill it goes some way to reducing the swathes of intrusive powers that Labour has introduced and does promise to give the British people a long overdue Bill of Rights.

The 11-point plan includes:

ID cards: A promise to cancel the identity card scheme and the ContactPoint children’s database; this includes a commitment to scrap the national identity register, which underpins the cards scheme.

DNA samples: Profiles of people arrested for but not convicted of violent and serious sexual offences would be kept for up to three years, extending to five, on a judge’s approval. This contrasts with government-proposed DNA retention periods of six to 12 years for unconvicted suspects for all offences. No DNA samples or profiles of children under 10 would be kept. The DNA of those convicted of recordable offences would be held indefinitely.

Ripa investigations: The power of local authorities to use intrusive surveillance would be restrained. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) would be amended to restrict councils’ access to personal communications data to investigations into crimes that carry prison sentences.

Bill of rights: The current level of legal protection of personal privacy from the state is to be reviewed as part of the Conservatives’ pledge to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights.

Privacy watchdog: The audit powers and independence of the information commissioner would be strengthened, with the appointment made by parliament rather than ministers, and the commissioner given ad hoc powers of inspection and financial penalties for deliberate or negligent management of data.

Privacy impact assessments: To be required for any proposed new laws or other measures involving data collection or sharing.

Communications data: Home Office plans to store details of everyone’s phone calls, emails, texts, and internet use to be subject to a privacy impact assessment.

Data sharing: To ensure proper debate in parliament, all new powers relating to expanding the sharing of sensitive personal data between official agencies would need primary legislation.

Data losses A minister and civil servant of director-general rank to be appointed in each Whitehall department to take responsibility.

Data security: Information commissioner to publish best practice guidelines on keeping personal information safe in the public sector.

Private sector: Consultation with business on setting up industry-wide kitemarks on data security best practice.

Let me know what you think about the Conservatives plan to reduce the governments powers. Is it just vague aspirational talk, the sort we hear lots of before elections or are they outlining some new ideological difference between Conservative individualism and Labour’s nanny state knows best?

Recent Methadrone deaths show UK Laws are out of date

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

You may have heard in the news this week that two teenagers in the UK died after a night out which involved using the legal drug Methadrone (M-CAT or miaw miaw). Even though their deaths have not been conclusively linked to the drug the media has once again gone into hyper-drive raising a moral panic almost on the levels of the Acid House parties in the late 80’s.

The two teenagers had apparently not only taken M-CAT but also had been drinking to the early hours as well as taking the heroin substitute Methadone to come down on. Even though the cause of death is more likely to be down to the mixture of drugs especially the dangerous combination of alcohol and opiates the media is behaving like judge and jury and M-CAT has already been found guilty.

There are already cries to ban this currently legal drug which is being sold quite openly as “plant food” openly in shops and on the Internet. Similar in chemical composition to Khat and in behaviour to ecstasy and amphetamines it is just the latest in a line of synthetic drugs created by clever chemists who keep one step ahead of Britain’s antiquated drug laws by changing the chemical signatures ever so slightly as soon as the last product is banned.

We are living in a hypocritical society that allows the worst drugs in terms of deaths to be sold perfectly legally but others that kill minuscule numbers are prohibited. Cigarettes kill over 100,000 people a year and alcohol kills almost the same amount through disease, assaults, accidents and road deaths.  Drugs such as amphetamines and opiates are used in medicine all the time and even ecstasy was used by psychiatrists in the past but how dare anyone decide to take the same drugs for recreational purposes.

People have been taking mind altering substances for thousands of years and will carry on taking them whether they are illegal or not. Prohibition has never worked and only leads to immense profits for drug dealers and deaths due to impurities in the products. If the media has their way and M-CAT is added to the long list of proscribed narcotics then within a month or two another synthetic drug will be on the market to take its place.

As I have previously said we need a totally new approach to drug use in which users are not criminals to be arrested and locked up at great expense. A regulated drug industry could be just what the country needs at the moment as the tax revenue received by taxing products currently used by millions every day would surely help pay off our national deficit.

Addicts should be prescribed their fix by doctors just as they were before 1973 as we have surely proved that trying to treat drug abuse by locking people up in prison hasn’t worked at all. Not only would crime rates fall and addicts get help more easily, the country would benefit through lower insurance premiums and a large proportion of the police force would be freed up to concentrate on serious crime.

The right wing media wouldn’t like it and there would surely be a moral panic generated by the press but if the problem of drugs is ever going to be tackled once and for all then this is the only logical way.  We are currently being governed by children of the 60’s and 70’s who were the first modern generation to properly rebel against the rules that said drugs were bad. Hopefully with the raver generations from the 80’s and 90’s maturing the time will come when the critical mass of right thinking citizens is such that a brave political move to legalise and regulate would not cause the outcry it once would. Hopefully that time is not too far away for just like the war on terror the war on drugs cannot be won by conventional means.

Why we need the Liberal Democrats Freedom Bill

April 4, 2010

By Dark Politricks

The UK general election is only a month or so away. If you are from the UK or keeping up with our news you will know that in recent polls conducted it seems that we may be on course for a hung parliament – with no party in overall control.

I am pretty sure that the reason poll after poll shows the country undecided on who they want to win the next election is that, like me, they are totally fed up with the current batch of elected officials and the whole system in general. It seems to makes little difference who actually sits to the right of the Speaker in the House of Commons, as beneath their political colours they are basically all the same, scrapping over well fought centre ground.

Will I vote to keep Labour in power for a fourth term? No. Labour has badly let the country down over the last decade, and although they have invested billions in public services most of that money has been wasted on bureaucracy – and as a country we are basically bankrupt. Added to our current economic woes is the sad fact that they have brought our country into a living version of George Orwell’s 1984.

It’s not even a joke when I tell people we are already living in a high tech surveillance society, with increased police powers, decreased rights to protest and a massive reduction of legal rights – such as the removal of the right to remain silent, and a DNA database holding millions of innocent peoples’ data.

So will I vote for the main opposition party, the Conservative Party? Nope. I could never bring myself to vote Tory, purely out of principle – and it will take a long time before memories of the nasty party, back to basics, Maggie Thatcher, Poll Tax riots, Anti Rave laws and all the posh school boy sleazy antics have been eroded from my memory. Even if they did have the right policies I am sure my stomach would turn and prevent me from ever reaching the polling booth to place a cross for David Cameron.

I have little time for the Conservative party, but if I woke up on the day after the election and heard that they had beaten Labour, would I be happy? Well no, I wouldn’t. They wouldn’t do anything that differently from Labour. Maybe they would spend a little less and cut services a bit more, but they would definitely keep eroding our civil liberties and spending billions on unnecessary wars, and I don’t think I will ever see the day that a British PM dares to tell the USA no in public. Oh what a day of national celebration that would be!

So I guess I am like most of the voters polled recently – very reluctant to vote for either of the main two parties. Whereas over the last few years it had been pretty certain that the Tories would win their lead, in recent opinion polls that lead has dropped dramatically and there are only a few points between them and Gordon Brown’s Labour party.

This recent drop in the polls for the Tories has also coincided with recent news reports regarding the financial markets – particularly the currency exchange markets and a recent drop in Sterling. Apparently the City and international markets in general are very concerned over the prospect of a hung parliament. It would seem from certain well placed stories that the markets would prefer a strong government to run the country, with a clear mandate from the people, as this inspires the necessary confidence that we as a country are committed to reducing our massive national deficit.

Why the UK government is a such a special case in this regard I don’t know, as most European countries regularly have coalition governments who manage to run their economies with success, including Germany. However, it has been suggested that the Tories are using their buddies in the City to spin this line, to try to drum up support and scare the electorate out of our half-heartedness, in the hope that we might vote Conservative. Hopefully this ploy will have no effect, as if anyone should be trying to decide our country’s future it shouldn’t be the banksters and wide boy merchants that helped get us in this mess in the first place.

Whether the recent fall in Sterling is actually linked to this fear of a coalition government or not I don’t know, but a hung parliament may not be all that bad for the British people. When one looks at the party that would probably hold the balance of power in such a situation – i.e the Liberal Democrats – there seems to be an upside to a hung parliament after all.

The Liberal Democrats are an offshoot of the old Liberal party, which held power regularly eons ago, but which spent the majority of the 20th century on the opposition benches. They have been out of government for a very long time, and until recent times have struggled to pick up the votes that fell between the working class – who naturally voted Labour – and those with money, who voted Tory.

They have regularly received on average around 20% of the national vote in the last few general elections, which means they don’t have enough support to win an overall majority. But if (as the polls suggest) a hung parliament is on the cards then they are the most likely beneficiaries of any power sharing coalition, as they would have enough support to make a government, whether it be with Labour or the Tories.

So this could be the one recent election in which they might be able to make a difference – and a vote for the Lib Dems might pack more punch than usual. I have just watched Nick Clegg’s speech at their spring conference, and wanted to inform those people that may be undecided about the next election about one of the proposals that the Lib Dem’s would introduce if elected, which is a Freedom Bill.

Now, if you haven’t heard about this already, the Lib Dem’s have promised to introduce a wonderful bill that would repeal all the laws introduced by successive Conservative and Labour governments that have removed many of our ancient and hard won rights and civil liberties, and have combined to make the UK one of most anti-liberal states around. You can read the full text of the freedom bill herebut it would do the following:

  • Restore the right to trial by jury and the right to remain silent.
  • Reform the unbalanced extradition treaty with the USA that allows UK citizens to be extradited without prima facie evidence to America, but not the other way round!
  • Amend the RIPA act that allows a multitude of government bodies to use investigatory powers to snoop, bug and spy on us without a warrant.
  • Stop the National Identity Card scheme from being implemented.
  • Repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which has given the Police stupid amounts of power to stop, search and arrest people suspected of being terrorists – such as tourists photographing historic monuments or people trying to film police committing acts of brutality.
  • Repeal of numerous offences that have been introduced to prevent people from protesting or assembling peacefully.
  • And much much more.

It’s only a start, and there are many more laws that need looking at, and much more work to be done in terms of the Internet and the freedom to communicate privately without fear of being logged without your knowledge and without a warrant – however, it’s more than any other UK party is doing in terms of civil liberties.

I advise everyone who cares about the high tech police state we are becoming here in the UK read this bill and sign the petition here. Also think about what is likely to change in terms of civil liberties if you vote Labour or Tory at the next election.

The Liberal Democrats may not win the next election outright, but if we are on course for a hung parliament then they could hold the balance of power, and I would hope and urge them to utilise this power to the advantage of all freedom loving people. If they do take part in any coalition government, whether it be with the Labour or Conservative party, then I hope they ensure that as one of the conditions of becoming a partner they get this bill onto the statute books as soon as possible.

Obviously I am living in hope here, and I only have a small portion of faith left that this could happen, as it’s very easy to stand on principled positions when you have no chance of ever implementing them. I do hope that the Lib Dems wouldn’t throw all their principles away just because they have a real chance of joining the government; however, its the best option we have.

If, like me, you are struggling to decide on who to vote for or whether to vote at all, then I would urge you to read this Freedom Bill and see it as a rare chance to actually grant more power back to the people. Hopefully this election won’t be another wasted opportunity to enact some real change in this country.

Call for immediate arrest of 5 supreme court justices for treason

January 24, 2010

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company. Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels? Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative. How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics. Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way. This was an American problem. Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that shoot first and ask questions later. They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers. They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think. The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail. When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash. When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine. However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it. It has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years. Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won. Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check. Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.
Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides. We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government. There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word. Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period. Americans are now destined for serfdom. Their political and economic theories, what are they? Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns. People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena. Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns. In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the Internet. We thought we had changed since that time. We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government. This was the 1780s. The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves. 27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency. Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780. Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence. Feelings are high. How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists. We know that few really mean it. When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans. When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans. This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves. We never agree on anything. We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are. Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time. We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself. We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average. Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.
Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power? What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution. Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives. Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American constituency? Corporations have no religion. They care nothing for the unborn. They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic. They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortium’s of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the ethereal “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them. No serving politician can survive now standing against them. Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks. Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe. “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear. That wasn’t enough. They wanted it all. As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity. Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy. The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy. This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the enviable reward of our industry. It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforeseen. It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them. This was how America was created. We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now. Party politics have failed. Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform. State has become church and church has become state. State is less just and church less godly. All we have left is “we, the People.” This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward. It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it. The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide. We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties” and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.

View the original article at Veterans Today.

The Rule of Law Has Been Lost

January 23, 2010

Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research

What is the greatest human achievement? Many would answer in terms of some architectural or engineering feat: The Great Pyramids, skyscrapers, a bridge span, or sending men to the moon. Others might say the subduing of some deadly disease or Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.

The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book, “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” (2000), the protective features of law in the U.S. were eroded in the twentieth century by prosecutorial abuse and by setting aside law in order to better pursue criminals. By the time of our second edition (2008), law as a shield of the people no longer existed. Respect for the Constitution and rule of law had given way to executive branch claims that during time of war government is not constrained by law or Constitution.

Government lawyers told President Bush that he did not have to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits the government from spying on citizens without a warrant, thus destroying the right to privacy. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the President did not have to obey U.S. law prohibiting torture or the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus protection, a Constitutional right, was stripped from U.S. citizens. Medieval dungeons, torture, and the windowless cells of Stalin’s Lubyanka Prison reappeared under American government auspices.

The American people’s elected representatives in Congress endorsed the executive branch’s overthrow of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Law schools and bar associations were essentially silent in the face of this overthrow of mankind’s greatest achievement. Some parts of the federal judiciary voted with the executive branch; other parts made a feeble resistance. Today in the name of “the war on terror,” the executive branch does whatever it wants. There is no accountability.

The First Amendment has been abridged and may soon be criminalized. Protests against, and criticisms of, the U.S. government’s illegal invasions of Muslim countries and war crimes against civilian populations have been construed by executive branch officials as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” As American citizens have been imprisoned for giving aid to Muslim charities that the executive branch has decreed, without proof in a court of law, to be under the control of “terrorists,” any form of opposition to the government’s wars and criminal actions can also be construed as aiding terrorists and be cause for arrest and indefinite detention.

One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S. government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.

Sunstein defines those who criticize the government’s increasingly lawless behavior as “extremists,” which, to the general public, sounds much like “terrorists.” In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.’s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a “terrorist plot” in order to arrest them.

That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.

The U.S. Department of State has taken up Sunstein’s idea. Last month Eva Golinger reported in the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, that the State Department plans to organize youth in “Twitter Revolutions” to destabilize countries and bring about regime change in order to achieve more American puppet states, such as the ones in Egypt, Jordan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, Britain and Western and Eastern Europe.

The First Amendment is being closed down. Its place is being taken by propaganda in behalf of whatever government does. As Stratton and I wrote in the second edition of our book documenting the destruction of law in the United States:

“Never in its history have the American people faced such danger to their constitutional protections as they face today from those in the government who hold the reins of power and from elements of the legal profession and the federal judiciary that support ‘energy in the executive.’ An assertive executive backed by an aggressive U.S. Department of Justice (sic) and unobstructed by a supine Congress and an intimidated corporate media has demonstrated an ability to ignore statutory law and public opinion. The precedents that have been set during the opening years of the twenty-first century bode ill for the future of American liberty.”

Similar assaults on the rule of law can be observed in England. However, the British have not completely given up on government accountability. The Chilcot Inquiry is looking into how Britain was deceived into participating in the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. President Obama, of course, has blocked any inquiry into how the U.S. was deceived into attacking Iraq in violation of law.

Much damning information has come out about Blair’s deception of the British government and people. Sir David Manning, foreign policy advisor to Blair, told the Chilcot Inquiry that Blair had promised Bush support for the invasion almost a year in advance. Blair had told his country that it was a last minute call based on proof of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Sir William Patey told the inquiry that President Bush began talking about invading Iraq six or seven months prior to September 11, 2001. A devastating official memo has come to light from Lord Goldsmith, Prime Minister Blair’s top law official, advising Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be in breach of international law.

Now a secret and personal letter to Prime Minister Blair from his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has surfaced. In the letter, the Foreign Secretary warned the Prime Minister that his case for military invasion of Iraq was of dubious legality and was likely as false as the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would bring Iraqis a better life.

Blair himself must now testify. He has the reputation, whether deserved or not, as one of the slickest liars in the world. But some accountability seems to be heading his way. The Sunday Times (London) reported on Jan. 17 that the latest poll indicates that 52 percent of the British people believe that Blair deliberately misled his country in order to take Britain to war for the Americans. About one quarter of the British people think Blair should be put on trial as a war criminal.

Unlike the U.S., where government takes care to keep itself unaccountable to law, Britain is a member of the International Criminal Court, so Blair does stand some risk of being held accountable for the war crimes of President George W. Bush’s regime and the U.S. Congress.

In contrast, insouciant Americans are content for their government to behave illegally. A majority supports torture despite its illegality, and a McClatchy-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans agree that “it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism.”

As our Founding Fathers warned, fools who give up liberty for security will have neither.

View the original article at Global Research.

Labour is dreaming up 33 new crimes a month… including barring you from swimming into the Titanic

January 22, 2010

James Slack
UK Daily Mail
Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Labour has created 4,300 new crimes since taking power – including a ban on swimming in the wreck of the Titanic and on the sale of game birds shot on a Sunday.

Gordon Brown has been the worst offender in this unprecedented ‘legislative splurge’, with his Government creating new offences at the rate of 33 a month.

Under Tony Blair, Labour invented 27 new ways of criminalising the public every month.

The ‘crimes’ range from swimming in the hull of the Titanic without the permission of a Cabinet Minister to ‘disturbing a pack of eggs’ when instructed not to by an authorised officer.

In total, between 1997 and 2009, 4,289 new criminal offences were created – approximately one for every day ministers have been in office. It is twice the rate at which new crimes were created under the last Tory administration.

View the original article at UK Daily Mail

Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court

January 12, 2010

Police powers to use terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The Strasbourg court has been hearing a case involving two people stopped near an arms fair in London in 2003.

It said Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton’s right to respect for a private and family life had been violated.

It awarded them 33,850 euros (£30,400) to cover legal costs.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the home secretary to authorise police to make random searches in certain circumstances.

But the European Court of Human Rights said the people’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

The court said the stop and search powers were “not sufficiently circumscribed” and there were not “adequate legal safeguards against abuse”.

The pair were both stopped outside the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition at the Excel Centre in London Docklands in 2003.

Mr Gillan, 32, from London, was detained by police for about 20 minutes as he was cycling to join the demonstration.
Ms Quentin, 39, a journalist from London, was in the area to film the protests. She said she felt she was detained for about 30 minutes, although police records said five.

View the original article at BBC News.