eurealist.co.uk

Times Online - Sunday Times” Terror defence lawyer to quit

A LEADING defence lawyer has said he will resign this week over the government’s anti-terror laws, condemned as illegal by the law lords, writes Katharine Houreld.

Ian MacDonald QC condemned the indefinite detention of suspects without trial or the right to know the evidence against them as “an odious blot on our legal landscape”.
snip..
“It would contradict three of the cardinal principles of criminal justice: public trial by an impartial judge and jury of one’s peers, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a right to know, comment on and respond to the case made against the accused.”

I totally agree that those three cardinal principals of criminal justice plus the right of the jury not to convict if they feel the law is unjust, which is another threat under consideration, if the government introduce legislation after the Auld Review of the Criminal Courts which the Government regards as a major contribution to its continuing programme of reform/destruction of the criminal justice system,is the basis of our legal system and has been for over a thousand years.

The point to remember is that our whole system is under threat with the government’s stealth introduction of Corpus Juris. We should also remember that the law lords did not say this particular infringement on the rights of the accused, is itself against the ECHR, only that it was unfair because it only applied to foreigners and not British Citizens. So Ian MacDonald QC and 8 out of 9 Law lords do not seem to be interested in the basic destruction of British rights, they just want them to be evenly distributed to all of us.

Lysander Spooner over 150 years ago set down the reasons the a fair trial in front of a jury of the accused peers was vital to democracy and nothing has change since then to alter the basic truths of his words, in fact all he was doing was repeating that which we have know as a basic freedom literally forever It is unfortunate that this government and this opposition that we have landed ourselves with although full of lawyers do not seem to understand on single thing about British Basic rights.

Other post concerning this issue can be found
Here and
Here and
Here and
Here and
Here

EU Serf posts on BBC bias “Is the Pope Catholic?”
Much has been said about the BBC’s approach to the question of the EU and the unequal treatment of the sophisticated cosmopolitan pro EU spokesmen and the common xenophobic types who don’t like Germans.

So the question is, does the BBC favour the EU in its coverage?

From Vote No, we have a view of the problem. Our experience is that the BBC has been institutionally sympathetic to the euro and the EU Constitution, sometimes to the point of bias.

They give 6 specific ways in which the problem shows itself
1) The wrong approach to this issue
2) The Westminster focus
3) The BBC’s record
4) The importance of reflecting public opinion
5) The BBC’s “cultural bias.”
6) Institutional problems which are particular concernsThe use of independent “experts” who are not genuinely impartial. Use of certain types of people to put the two sides’ cases: Focus on process for “yes” campaigners but issues for sceptics.

Follow the link for details and comments on this very important issue, we do after all pay for the BBC, and if it is going to again back the “YES” side in the referendum on the Constitution, and all the evedence suggests that is the going to be the case, we at least should know this, and discount anthing which the BBC airs as EU Propaganda.

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph has a section about the restructuring of the British Army into new regiment formations of 1500, men thus destroying the traditional British and Scotish regiments.
Also they are eventually to be equipped with electronically-linked vehicles known collectively as the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES).

The reason we are not being told is because Mr Hoon last April agreed with his European colleagues that the EU should be able to deploy “battle-groups” of 1,500 men in international danger zones. The guiding principle behind Mr Hoon’s controversial restructuring of our Army is to make it compatible with the EU’s new defence force. Furthermore, since the Army will be equipped with FRES, it will no longer be able to work alongside US forces – which are planning a totally different system – but only with fellow members of the EU.

This has been fully discussed in several posts on Eureferendum which details of the likely horrendous costs of the FRES and explains that this system is not even off the drawing board, however it is supposed to up and running in 2 years time.

But the most interesting point Mr Booker makes is that “The Tory front bench was well aware of all this last week, but the word had gone out from their chief defence spokesman, Nicholas Soames, that it was not to be mentioned, because the party does not want the debate on Britain’s defences to become a potentially divisive Euro-row. Thus, without the usual White Paper, our most significant defence policy decisions for decades are taken behind the scenes, for reasons not even Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is prepared to reveal.”

When our political parties get together in this way and purposefully keep what they are doing a secret behind closed doors, it is clear evidence that none of them are prepared to take a stand for democracy, but like the European Union itself, they will all shout from the rooftops that they have a democratic mandate from the people.

We the people need to remind ourselves that, if there is no choice there can be democracy, and when we have done that, we need to remind those whom we elect to represent our views that we want democracy returned to our government. There is only one way to do that, because they quite obviously will not listen, and that is to vote against any party or any candidate that refuses to openly discus the ramification of Britain’s membership of the EU, because no matter what these cretins would like us to believe without our vote they are nothing.