eurealist.co.uk

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Shyster lawyers and charlatans
Proof that this Parliament, apart from making bad law, doesn’t know the reason for repealing good law. I bet the traitor Blair knows though

Good work Anne, it’s a pity the Baroness Scotland couldn’t make a public apology, but hopefully by publishing this letter we can show this inept bunch of politicians up for what they are. Shyster lawyers and charlatans.

This is a copy of a letter from the Home Office dated 20.1.2005.

Dear Ms Palmer,

Thank you for your letters of 22nd November to Baroness Scotland about her answer to a recent parliamentary question from Lord Tebbit concerning treason legislation. This has been passed to the criminal Law Policy Unit of the home Office, which has responsibility for such legislation, and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in doing so.

As you rightly say, the answer given to Lord Tebbit’s question was incorrect because it sated that the Treason act 1795 was still in force when it was in fact repealed by the Crime and disorder Act 1998. Baroness Scotland has since written to Lord Tebbit correcting the mistake. A copy of her letter of 16 December (Which you will see has been placed in both the house Libraries) is enclosed for your information.

The Crime and disorder Act 1998 substituted a sentence of life imprisonment for the death penalty previous associated with offences of treason. You ask why, in the cases of the Treason acts of 1790, 1q795, 1817 and the Treason by women (Ireland) Act 1796, the whole Act was repealed; and why, in the case of the Treason Felony Act 1848, section 2 was repealed.

We know that the Treason act 1790 and the Treason by Women Act 1796 were repealed in their entirety because they did no more than provide for the death penalty for women convicted of treason; and that the repeals of the 1817 Act and section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 were consequential to the repeal of the 1795 Act. However, I am afraid that, despite an extensive search of our records, we have not been able to ascertain why the 1795 Act was itself repealed at that time. (All officials who worked in this Unit during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act have since moved on so we have not had the benefit of their knowledge).

The 1795 Act outlawed plots to kill, maim, imprison etc the Sovereign, his heirs and successors. In modern practice, such acts would be covered by conspiracy law which was placed on a statutory footing by the criminal Law Act 1977. The maximum sentence for conspiracy is the same as the offence the defendant conspired to commit. For example, a person convicted of conspiracy to murder or of conspiracy to commit another serious offence for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, could be sentenced to life imprisonment for the conspiracy too.

Finally, you ask which treason Acts, either in part or full, are still in force. These are as follows: the Treason Acts of 1351, 1695, 1702, 1800, 1814, 1842 and 1945; and the treason Felony Act 1848. The most important of these is the treason Act 1351 which defines the main circumstances in which high treason is committed

Yours sincerely

Kashif Butt.

Thanks the Martin Coles
Ironies:

“A Suggested letter to your MP

Basic to our culture, history and the very construction of our society is the protection we afford the potentially vulnerable through our ancient bigamy laws! Are they now to be ignored?

If so, have we then any remaining reason to trust in the belief system to which most of us try to adhere? A possible letter to those in authority, which I was copied from elsewhere might help. If discrminatory laws begin to be accepted, where will they ever end?

Dear (PM, Chancellor, MP etc),

I am very concerned to learn that the Treasury is contemplating making changes to the Tax Laws to make the Inheritance Tax laws fairer for the multiple wives of men whose religion allow more than one wife. Apparently, only one wife has any benefits from the taxation position at the moment.

Could you please let me know when our laws on Bigamy were amended to allow multiple marriages? If they have not been amended, can you please explain why men in this position appear not to have been prosecuted for bigamy and are their many wives able to claim any benefits from our society? If our laws have not been amended and it is proposed to continue to allow multiple wives, is it the Governments intention to repeal the law on Bigamy to enable the remainder of our society to engage in multiple marriages? If that is not the case, and those following this practice are not to be prosecuted, does this not mean that the action being taken is contrary to the laws against racial and religious discrimination? In which case, what action is proposed to ensure the laws of our land are applied to everybody equally?……………………………. (Amend and continue as you may of course choose!)”

I have now found some links to the story below, but not unfortunately the orgional from EU Referendum, which was posted as “Foxes to investigate chicken coop”

Two members of the committee are committed Europhiles and the others are pro EU but anti Constitution. not exactly independent and Richards description is quite apt.

Sir Stephen Wall who has for most of his career been secretly working behind the scenes to further the cause of the European project against the wishes of the British people, became disenchanted when Mr Blair did his famous uturn and called a referendum on the EU Constitution. He felt that as the people of Britain were most likely to vote no, the best course of action was not to allow us a voice.

Now just to clarify this is a man who has freely sworn allegiance to the British Crown and therefore sworn to uphold the British Constitution, a trusted man who has been employed and well paid by the British people to work for their benefit.

This completely independent panel, however, is to be chaired by a former civil servant, and not just any only civil servant, but Lord Wilson of Dinton, the former cabinet secretary. Lord Wilson, incidentally, is a non-executive director of Xansa, an ‘international business process and IT services company’ which has made provision for ‘EU political donations and expenditure’ totalling in aggregate up to £50,000 per year.

This thoroughly independent chairman will ‘consider’ complaints from Eurosceptics, no doubt in a thoroughly independent and impartial manner, that ‘anti-EU, pro-withdrawal voices’ are routinely marginalised by the BBC. Apparently, his panel will also look at criticisms that too much of the broadcast coverage is seen ‘through a Westminster prism’, and that it has contributed to public apathy about Brussels by failing to explain European issues and their impact on British life”

For other even more “Independent” reports on the BBC Bias try Global Britain

Edit
Richard North has also posted about this with a link to his origional post in November and the EU report on the British Media Here

Now is this not strange, because a group of Eusceptics have constantly complained about the BBC Bias a complaint backed by reams of evidence, a supposedly independent, that is independent of the BBC and not the EU, committee has produced a report accusing the BBC of ‘little England’ mentality over Europe.

Oddly this exactly falls into line with the EU report on British Media, not enough correspondents reporting from Brussels, producing stories from a British perspective, a broader European perspective not explaining issues.

Of course the report did not find the BBC biased in favour of the EU but this was not expected as Richard North said when the committee members were announced said “Foxes to investigate Hen House”.(sorry cannot find the link)

The Telegraph says the report will accuse the BBC of peddling stereotypes about the European Union and too often telling important EU stories only through the prism of British politics.

It will be accused of

Criticisms from both sides of the way that the BBC reports Europe are reflected in the final report, although it is understood not to accuse the corporation of overall bias in either direction.

It calls on the BBC to review its output of EU stories and to sharpen its performance before the advent of a British referendum on whether this country should adopt the Union constitution, expected in spring next year.

One of the criticisms, said an official, is that there is too often a “Westminster context” to the reporting of EU affairs, when the issue is really of far greater importance in the wider context. It also raps the BBC’s knuckles for failing to make proper use of the network of correspondents it has across the Continent, who could give events in Brussels a broader, European perspective.

The report offers a chastening assessment of the corporation’s more high-brow stations, such as Radio 4, accusing them of being less willing to tell the EU story simply and faithfully than more popular programmes. Radio 5 Live was often better than Radio 4 at explaining issues such as how the European Parliament worked because it was not afraid to explain the basics.

A particular weakness was the reporting of the Union’s expansion last year, from a membership of 15 to 25, which marked the end of Europe’s post-war division.

The pro-Europeans in particular felt that this was too often told by the BBC in terms of worries about immigration rather than the wider benefits of opening Europe’s borders and bringing down trade barriers.

Times Online - Comment

Democracy in the EU
From Mr Richard Nice
Sir, Miss Paula Volkmer (letter, Jan-uary 14) claims that the EU is democratic and disputes that we are governed by officials who are “unelected and unaccountable”. As only the European Commission can initiate and implement law, it is the true seat of government; there can be no dispute that it is unelected. In a democracy, the executive must be accountable to a sovereign parliament or to the ballot box; the Commission is neither.

Perhaps, as she claims, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament do have equal powers, but only to accept or reject what is on offer. The Council conducts its business in secret and a national position can just disappear. MEPs are distant because they are nominated by parties and have constituencies several times larger than those of MPs. And the citizen cannot vote out the Commission, his real government.

To make matters worse for us in Britain, although 60 per cent of our legislation comes direct from Brussels, it is reported that “British ministers are EU part-timers” (headline, November 19, 2004); and when Parliament’s scrutiny committee on EU legislation “calls for a debate on the floor of the House, this is invariably refused by ministers” (Bill Cash’s Comment, August 25, 2004).

Comparing this position with that in 1973, when political parties began transferring powers to Brussels, there is no doubt that our lawmakers are now more remote and unaccountable, and that democracy is greatly diminished.

Yours faithfully,
RICHARD NICE,