eurealist.co.uk

Estonian MEP who drafted the media pluralism report, socialist deputy Marianne Mikko, has come under a storm of media attacks in Sweden on her suggestion that there should be register of Bloggers.
Her arguments are elitist in the extreme in that she says:

“The reader should know why this or that blogger should be trusted on a particular issue.”

“It is clear that a Harvard professor of international relations is likely to treat, for instance, the Middle East peace process or European integration in an educated and balanced manner,”

“The same trust cannot be put in a radical high school student from Gaza or a Eurosceptic who has never been out of his village”

“We do not need to know the exact identity of bloggers. We need some credentials, a quality mark, a certain disclosure of who is writing and why. We need this to be able to trust and rely on the source.”

“The Economist is a valuable brand, its articles are trusted by readers without contributors having to reveal their names,” she said. “If there is a way to validate the best bloggers the same way that publishing in the Economist validates its writers, it should be done.”

And who exactly validates The Economist for balance, where does its priorities lie? and how can we trust an organisation where the editorial staff enforce a uniform liberal pro EU voice throughout its pages? The editors say this is necessary because “collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists”

And exactly why should we trust so called balance of in an academic who is paid in the main by the EU, and is therefore only to willing to write reports that support the aims and values of his paymasters in Brussels.
The report calls for a clarification of the legal status of webblog authors and wants to see a disclosure of interests, and the voluntary labelling of webblogs.

I would like to see a clear a clarification of the legal status of the EU something long overdue from an organisation that claims to speak on my behalf.

I would like to see disclosure of interests, from people who fully support the organisation, such as the present leader of the LibDems and all of those in the House of Lords who do not deem it in the public interest to disclose that they are in receipt of large protected EU pensions for as long as they do nothing to bring the EU into disrespect such as voting against an EU treaty or against the interests of the EU. I would like to see the BBC disclose that it receives grants and special rate loans from the EU on condition that it supports the aims and values of the EU. I would like to see the disclosure of interests from Whitehall mandarins such a Stephen Wall who openly admitted that for most of his working life whilst being paid by the British Taxpayer to further the interests of Britain he was in fact furthering the interests of the Union.

For that matter how can we trust the voice of the MEP in question Marianne Mikko, is a socialist MEP, obviously in the pay of the EU and obviously supportive of the EU. Yet she wishes to appear as if she is only looking out for the rights of the European people, but is effectively doing the opposite by furthering to interests of EU establishment by trying to control our freedom of speech by controlling blogs and bloggers.

EUOBSERVER

Even a pessimist like me has a small degree of hope that an obviously lost cause would be reversed in the end. However unfortunately that is not to be, as the high court have now rejected Stuart Wheelers case against Gordon Brown for not holding a referendum.

From Press reports Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mackay said “We are satisfied that the claim lacks substantive merit and should be dismissed.”

“Even if we had taken a different view of the substance of the case in the exercise of the court’s discretion, we would have declined to grant any relief, having regard in particular to the fact that parliament has addressed the question,”

They also refused to allow and appeal “We are satisfied that an appeal has no prospect of success.”

“Whilst the issues raised are interesting and important, that is outweighed by the desirability of certainty and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in this matter.”

“There is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard.”

Actually there is no desirability of certainty, it is better to be right than be certainly wrong, and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the matter, as the EU has put open talks about the ratification back until at the earliest October when the Irish will have to come up with a promise of a new referendum and by which time the Czech Constitutional court will have pronounced on the legality of the treaty, so in reality there is plenty of time for an appeal.

Technorati Tags:
referendum, brown, Lisbon Treaty,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

High Court asks Government to wait for its judgement on the Wheeler case before pressing ahead with ratification of Lisbon Treaty

PA reports that Stuart Wheeler has attacked the Government for proceeding with the final, technical stage of ratification before the outcome of his legal bid to force a referendum. He said it was “disgraceful” that ministers appeared unwilling to wait a few weeks for lawyers to deliver their ruling on his case before completing the ratification process - which involves depositing the “instruments of ratification” in Rome. The Foreign Office has until the end of December to complete this stage, which Mr Wheeler argues leaves plenty of time to await the final ruling on his application for judicial review of the decision not to hold a referendum.

He said: “You have to ask why the Government felt it necessary to rush through the ratification of this Treaty when only last night European leaders agreed to give the Irish ‘time and space’ to react after last week’s No vote. The Treaty cannot legally be enforced until all 27 member states have ratified it, so why the rush?[...] The flight to Rome doesn’t take six months.”

Meanwhile, on behalf of the High Court, Lord Justice Richards has written to the Government to say “The court is very surprised that the Government apparently proposes to ratify while the claimant’s challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court. The court expects judgment to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgment.”

OpenEurope

Technorati Tags:
Lisbon Treaty, UK Government, leagal judgment, Wheeler case
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Conservative MP Peter Lilly it attempting to bring in a private members bill to reduce MPs pay in line with the transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions.

and reported in the Telegraph

Reading his bill he makes the point that

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities.

(more…)

On Mr Wheeler`s High Court action against the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, on their refusal to hold a referendum on whether the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified.

Information on Mr Wheeler site says that the Speaker of the House of Commons intended to apply to intervene in the case, in order to make submissions concerning parliamentary privilege and the Bill of Rights 1689. Mr Wheeler says “I do not know why the Speaker feels he needs to intervene, as arguments about these matters have already been put forward on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.”

Funny that once again we see the politicians resorting to the use of the Bill of Rights 1689, when it suits them, but they seem to be unreceptive to its other clauses when they demand protections for the people against an overpowering government.

It was the executive that used the three line whip and rewrote the rules to use the guillotine to push this through parliament.

Richard Laming is abusing democracy when argues that Stuart Wheeler is abusing the Constitution of the UK by issuing a legal action to force the Prime minister to stand by his personal and his party’s commitment to hold a referendum on the EU treaty.

It would be far too easy to attack Lamming on a personal level because of his commitment to the EU, our membership of which has done more to abuse the British Constitution than anything else in the past thirty years. But that would not achieve much other than making me feel a lot better.
(more…)

Anyone who has been reading my EU citizenship posts might like to follow up with reading some other thoughts and information on the legality of EU Citizenship and also how to renounce EU Citizenship.

Solemn Treaty Obligations

The UN 1503 Procedure

Mass Debate in Europe

Renunciation of EU Citizenship

The UN 1503 Procedure

You might also enjoy the latest cartoon I did.

Market Forces

The British government say we will not remove anyone who we believe is at risk on their return. However, in order to maintain the integrity of our asylum system and prevent unfounded applications it is important that we are able to enforce returns of those who do not need protection.”

I think that most of us would agree with that, but just absolutely typical, they pick on someone who has a clear need for our protection, someone who is not even an illegal immigrant and someone who was honestly is in fear of his life when he applied for asylum.

My first link

Full story in the Independent

The Telegraph headline Judges have limits introduces an attack on judges for interpreting the law.

The Telegraph is trying to argue that our judges should not have the authority to overrule government ministers.

In one case Lord Justice Collins ruled that soldiers should have full legal protection wherever they are. The Telegraph seems to think that the judge was wrong and says the case sets an unwelcome precedent and it is not for the courts to decide such things.

I would disagree on several fronts:
(more…)

I now declare my Lawful Intent to the Traitors in Parliament.

I, John James Harris now declare my right under Common Law of England to Withdraw And Withhold all allegiance & obedience to the Person and Crown of Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth the Queen, and those who falsely claim to speak &/or to act in Her Name, and by such action, I will remove myself entirely from the authority of those Evil Persons who now seek to abuse & misuse me in the name of Elizabeth, the Queen and in absolute violation of the Common Law of the People to which I belong –

I hereby place on record of all persons that after said 40 days have expired, being the 1st day of May 2008 and the corrections I seek have not been made, by way of the dismissal of the Traitors in the House of Commons, then I John James Harris, will enter into Lawful rebellion under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and therefore will become a Freeman of England within the Freedom of Common Law.
I will then declare myself free from all chastisement, Laws, taxes accorded to the state and any obligations there unto, by way of second and final Lawful Affidavit signed, sealed and served.

Well done John

The government is using the 1689 Bill of Rights, which establishes the principle that parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by the courts, as one central argument in its legal battle to prevent Gateway reviews into the feasibility and progress of the government’s ID cards project becoming public.

Gateway reviews ID cards project

As reported in ComputerWeekly.com

The irony of this should not be missed, because much of our recent legalisation is in direct opsition to the Bill of Rights which is why many like to argue that the Bill of Rights has no legal meaning, as it has been superseded by later legislation. Although the final ruling in the Metric martyrs case by Lord Justice Laws specifically ruled that this was not the case because the Bill of Rights was a constitutional statute and could not therefore be changed by implication in later legislation.

The Laws Ruling maintained constancy with the concept of parliamentary supremacy because he did not rule that parliament could not change the Bill of rights, only that to do so it would have to do it directly.

As the Bill of Rights has not been changed directly for over three hundred years most of is still relevant. For the government to use the Bill however is going to be problematic, because by implication they are admitting it is still relevant and they cannot just pick and choose which bits they like and continue to ignore the other bits they do not like.

This is particularly interesting because as I mentioned in a previous post our parliament voted down an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty:

Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.

It would seem our elected leaders want to have their cake and eat it.

Update email exchanges

From: Bill & Ann:

If the government win their case on this then surely the implications

must be that the Bill of Rights precludes the European Court of Justice

from questioning laws passed by parliament.  In other words what Bill

Cash has been trying to achieve in the last few days.  For that reason

alone it is worth watching the outcome. B&A

From Michael Shrimptom:

No, it only applies to parliamentary proceedings.

 The ECJ cannot overturn an Act of Parliament - the Factortame case, which

suggested the contrary, was monist, wrong and is no longer followed by the

courts, thanks to Metric Martyr.

Reacting to the News that the European Union has this week opened its Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna with the stated purpose of collecting data on violations of the EU`s Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide advice to the EU and its member states and to raise public awareness.

The Times points out that many believe the agency should not have been opened because one of its core aims is to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was explicitly adopted as legally non-binding but was then written into the EU constitution and that was voted down in France and the Netherlands so has not been ratified and can therefore have no legal standing.

But legal niceties aside, the agency now exists and will as intended take its place in enforcing the EU political aims.

The Charter itself was until the advent of the Constitution the most, explicit statement of the EU’s claim to direct legitimacy that has ever been produced. The idea being that the institutions and rights provided by the EU should in themselves provide the necessary basis for legitimate government.

There are several problems with the concept of International Human Rights, they are a direct attack on the sovereignty of the nation state, conflict with the ideals of democracy, they create tensions between different versions of human rights, create conflicts with religious doctrines, they are arbitrary applied to different states, many of the ideals are a sham and they are open to manipulation and interest-politics, and offer a disguise for power politics. The EU`s Charter of Fundamental Rights is a coup d’état, for the federalists, and by the left leaning Social Democrats who dominate the EU. They are using this document to permanently enshrine into law left-wing provisions such as the ‘right to strike’ rights to health care, education, and social and housing assistance.

The argument for the Charter runs something like this: The EU has clearly progressed beyond its initial stage of a purely voluntary association. It is an entity with strong supranational elements equipped with executive power. This is evidenced in the supranational character of the legal structure, which is supported and enhanced in particular by the European Court of Justice. In its rulings, it has long asserted the principles of supremacy and direct effect. National law gives way to Community law, and there is a need for safeguarding the rights of the citizens. Through its institutions, it forms a supranational regime with extended competencies for the ordinary man and woman in the EU

In the general scheme of the EU we have been forced to become citizen the Charter now gives us rights over and above our nation states, further diminishing our sovereignty and our choices. So the Charter process represents a very important development in the constitutionalisation of the EU.

The Charter was politically decided by those who stipulate that there must be international law to control excesses of previously sovereign national administrations, yet at the same time claims sovereignty for itself, so the Charta is an expression of EU power politics, and a maneuver to further advance the European Project. Of course quite how an external international agreement can be forced on a parliament which retains its own sovereignty is not debated, but it can only mean that the constitutional sovereignty can no longer reside in the nation states Parliament, which rather undermines Britain’s owns Parliaments assertion that it remains sovereign in all things.

As the EU seeks to turn itself into a single State, it is using common human rights standards, enforced by a central legislature and a Supreme Court, as a powerful weapon in imposing uniformity across the whole of the EU and subordinating national and local Courts and Constitutions to central rule, the Charter marks the EU as a polity with an extended sphere of competencies Giving the EU the powers to decide our rights would bring the EU Court of Justice into virtually every area of life and society.

For Britian in particular it is a very important development because the Charta curbs the power of judge made law, or English Common Law.

The growth of international law limits the principle of National Sovereignty because it forces recognition of equality of rights to non-nationals to those who have no duty to the nation state. Thus a Nation state will find it increasingly difficult to protect itself from those from outside the state who would work to destroy the nation state. This is all very fine for the EU which wishes to create a state of the regions, but it does not answer why the leaders of the nation state would wish to collude with a scheme that is specifically designed to remove the power of its citizens. It enforces a particular secular creed on nation states which are based on religious belifes forcing them to re-write their constitutions and to create laws forcing obedience to secular doctrines. In short it removes the powers of the people to choose their own rights according to their own societies norms.

This of course is why it was only ever adopted as legally non-binding and according to the EU minister of the time Keith Vas to be no more legally significant than a copy of the Beano.

Well it’s taken a couple of years but finally the British government have had to cave into the EU Commissions demand that the British people must be subjected to Random Breath Tests.

Even though giving our police this power undermines one of our basic rights; that strange concept of the Presumption of innocence.

Back in 2004 when the EU Commision first announced its intention to force the British government to implement this proposal, The Home Office expressed opposition to the introduction of random breath tests for drivers, arguing that such measures are “inefficient” in catching drink driving offenders.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The police are already quite adept at targeting drink drive suspects and the government would like forces to continue to use intelligence-based methods to catch offenders.”

Neither did the police feel they needed this power 24 may 2004

The Police Federation of England and Wales has warned against the introduction of random breath testing, arguing that officers already have sufficient powers to tackle drink driving.

Rod Dalley, vice chairman said: “We already have sufficient powers to request breath tests. The ability to carry out random breath tests would remove the need for police to justify their actions and may serve to further alienate the public. The answer lies in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of officers deployed to roads policing duties to enforce the legislation.”

An article by James Kirkhup in the Scotsman said;

THE government is facing a bureaucratic struggle to fight off a European Union proposal for British police to adopt Continental-style random breathalyzer tests of motorists to cut down on drink-driving.

The Home Office yesterday rejected as “inefficient” the introduction of random stop-and-search style policing, which is being recommended by the European Commission. Britain, Ireland and Denmark are the only EU countries where random checks are not legal.

Ad Hellemons, president of the European Traffic Police Network, warned that if the UK does not voluntarily follow the recommendation, the Commission will attempt to make the random-testing plan into a directive, giving it legal force over member states.

“We are aware that the UK is not happy about this, but at the end of the day we are talking about making our roads safer,”

And also suggested a reason for the Stirling defence of the British freedom to make its own laws.

With European Parliament elections and final negotiations for the EU constitution due next month, the government is keen to avoid the impression that Brussels is infringing on everyday British life, for fear of handing political ammunition to eurosceptic parties like the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party.

“We don’t need to be told by Brussels that we need to have random breath-testing,” said Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. “This is the sort of thing we will be fighting at next month’s elections.”

Labour also is wary of further antagonising motorists already angry at rising fuel prices and the widespread use of speed cameras.

But now with Tony Blair in his thankfully last days in power and almost certain to sign up to the new EU document to introduce the EU Constitution by the back door next month, such thoughts can be safely confined to the dustbin.

Now they have changes their tune as the Times story announcing the discussion paper says;

Ministers believe that giving the police the power to stop any driver, regardless of how they are driving, would be a powerful deterrent.

Research has shown that many drivers exceed the alcohol limit because they believe that they can still drive safely and they know that there is little chance of being caught. At present, the police can stop only those drivers who have committed a moving traffic offence or those who they suspect have exceeded the limit.

Not even a hint that the government have been forced into this climb down by the EU Commissions demands.

So the government did not want it- the police don’t need it- it undermines a basic human right- the presumption of innocence- but because the EU Commission demands it we are going to get it, so much for our democratic choice at an election.

When we can not longer elect those who make our laws and even those we do elect are forced into something against their will, we are living in an autocratic tyrannical oppressive state.

Further reading and background

It will take only 15 seconds: long enough for Britain to hand over another £6,000 to the EU. What are you waiting for?

Daniel Hannan begs in the Telegraph; he is of course writing about the BBC Christmas Repeal Which law should be tossed into the dustbin of British history?

Hannan says we should blowtorch all of the six finalists the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Hunting Act, the Human Rights Act, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, the Act of Settlement and the European Communities Act.

But theses six should be a mere apéritif. What about the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, which spawned that slavering manticore, the Health and Safety Executive? Or the 1972 Local Government Act, which destroyed our traditional counties? How about the 1989 Football Supporters Act, the 1997 Firearms Act, the 2000 Financial Services Act, the 2006 Identity Cards Act?

Hannan would like to raze them all; to hack away the brushwood and prune the undergrowth, leaving the glassy-smooth lawn of the limited state.

But we have to start somewhere. Before baling out the tub, let us at least turn off the tap. And that means voting for the 1972 European Communities Act:

For that Act is not like any other piece of legislation. It does not simply lay down what we can and can’t do. Rather, it creates a new legal order, that of European law, and gives it primacy over our own statutes. To put it another way, it creates a mechanism whereby EU laws are automatically given force in the United Kingdom, with or without an implementing decision by Parliament.

In 1972, few of us understood this. If we did, we tended to assume that the supremacy of European law would be confined to cross-border issues, such as trade, competition and pollution. We didn’t imagine for a moment that Brussels would one day become the main source of legislation in this country, decreeing what hours we work, what taxes we pay, what we plant in the ground and fish from the sea, who settles on our territory, what we buy and sell, and in what units.

The tendrils of Euro-legislation curl into even the tiniest crevices, regulating matters that you’d have thought couldn’t possibly have an international dimension. The ban on mineral supplements and herbal remedies? Brussels. Car seats for 12-year-olds? Brussels. The rigmarole you have to go through to open a bank account these days? Brussels.

In fact, the EU is responsible for 80 per cent of the legislation in the member states. (We owe this awesome statistic to the German government; our own refuses to name the figure.) Which raises the question: why bother voting? What is the point of placing your cross next to the name of this or that candidate when four out of every five laws adopted in Britain are proposed, not just by people that you didn’t vote for, but by EU officials whom nobody voted for?

The countryside alliance are urging their supporters to use this opportunity to make known to the government yet again, their dislike of the disaster the Hunting Act has become, but I would beg them to consider that first and foremost they are British voters. The huntsmen and women have mounted an outstanding defence of their sport and have already made a nonsense of hunting act and have already a promise from the Conservative party to repel the act. Just as the countryside alliance brought together different countryside concerns under the one banner, now we all now need to make it clear to the political and media elite that we all want our power to elect and dismiss our own law makers returned to us the people. The countryside alliance slogan is “love the countryside” how about just this once “love the country” and do something to return the power to our own elected politicians.

So please put aside all of your own special interests and please vote to “Turn of the Tap” then we can begin to reverse the disaster our membership of the EU has wrought in this once great country.

Vote Here

Reported on Sky News The Tories have launched a fresh attack on Government red tape, claiming Labour has introduced a regulation an hour, a target a day and a tax rise a month.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne unveiled the figures, which showed there had been more than 30,000 new regulations, 3,000 targets and more than 100 tax rises since Labour came to power.

So what will the David Cameron’s Tories do about this, they have already said they will not lower taxes and as most of the regulations are implementing EU directives, will they remove them thus breaking the EU agreements if so they had better start telling us what they would do to raise the money to pay the fines the ECJ will place on the British government. Or perhaps they would prefer to join the Better of out Campaign, more than likely this is just another half thought out attack on the Labour government which sounds good until you get to the bottom line and then you find the Conservative administration would find its hand tied by the EU in the same way that a Labour administration has.

From Ireland comes a legal challenge to EU law;

The problem arises over the way in which European Community law is enacted in Ireland. EU law is superior to Irish law so when a Directive is handed down from Europe it has to be transposed into Irish law. This is usually done by Statute but also by Statutory Instrument. This is often a ministerial order that’s formally laid before the DÄil and becomes law after 21 sitting days and isn’t formally debated or voted upon by the DÄil. However, there is an important provision within the law that the Irish State cannot impose a criminal sanction by way of a Statutory Instrument unless it had been empowered to do so by primary legislation.

However, it’s turned out that this has been happening for years and now thousands of orders which carry a criminal sanction without expressly being empowered to do so by primary legislation, are being called into question.

Last Wednesday night at the last session of the final sitting of the Dail, the Government attempted to rush through legislation that would retrospectively cover the legal loophole that’s been in place since 1972.

The rushed nature of the legislation was obvious as no copies of the Bill called the European Communities Bill 2006, were available beforehand and at no stage was it flagged to the party whips.

The move was opposed by the opposition parties and now is expected to come before the House in January.

Fine Gael want the section of the Bill that would apply retrospectively to all orders removed and have put forward an amendment to that effect. According to Denis Naughten, the Fine Gael Agriculture spokesman, should the Supreme Court find against the State, it has major implications for legislation dating back to 1972.

The Irish Farmers Journal

Denis Naughten points up the problem we all have with the way our governments use EU laws, and inadvertently makes the real Eurealist argument, when he says “The State assumed massive powers under some of this legislation” This is recognising that the EU allows our governments to ignore their own constitutions and legal statutes and impose their will without parliamentary debate, the EU removes the power of our elected representative to hold the executive to account.

Last week the Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that the Government would not repay tax “incorrectly” levied from more than six years ago.

Unfortunately this is a direct challenge to an earlier ruling by the ECJ, which laid down that such repayments should stretch back to 1973. The same court has made judgments in the past which have forced the Treasury to change tax law and to return tax paid by British businesses. This is not a academic debate that has nothing to do with us, if Gordon Brown is forced to return to big international companies the tax levied legally by the British government on their operations, then we have to pick up the shortfall, and this means either our taxes go up or our services are put under financial pressure.

Neither are we talking about piddling amounts; this coming week for instance the ECJ is likely to rule on a case which could cost us all several billion pounds.

Under British tax laws dividends paid between UK companies within the same group escape tax. However, if a dividend is paid by a company based outside the UK to a British firm in the same group, tax must be paid. A group of companies are challenging the British government’s right to levy these taxes under EU law, and if as expected they are successful the verdict would force the Government to pay back at least £6.7bn in tax plus interest to the companies. The Chancellor’s decision to limit the time they could claim these repayment to six years, would then be challenged, as the ECJ has already said in previous cases that their ruling can be back dated to when we joined the European project there seems very little chance that we could avoid the payments.

I know the political elite would like us all to stop talking and thinking about the affects the EU is having on our government’s powers, but it seems a bit inane of them to actually ignore it themselves. When Brown made his announcement lat week he must have known that it contravened the ECJ ruling, so what is his bottom line -is he prepared to challenge the ECJ supremacy in this matter - if he is not then his will be faced with making a humiliating climb down, I don’t suppose he will be making an announcement to that effect though.

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service is facing yet another challenge under the Bill of Rights,

this time it has been submitted by a solicitor.

Solicitor Frank Rayner, Is not disputing the facts of the case, he is instead claiming that the
Transport for London`s attempt to impose a penalty charge(s) is unlawful, on the basis that
it is extorting money and is in breach of the express provisions
of the Declaration / Bill of Rights 1689.

The law relevant to this appeal is the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights upon which it is
based which clearly states:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

As the Bill of Rights was passed in 1689 it might seem to be old law. Although the Bill of rights
is an act of settlement and states that any attempts to change it are unlawful, it has in the main
been ignored by elected parliamentarians who like to argue that our parliament is sovereign it
can make any law it wishes, and that as one government cannot bind a successor, any new
aw made by parliament overturns an older law.

That was the generally understood position until some people were charged with selling in
imperial instead of metric.
At the time the latest law passed by parliament had allowed imperial measurements.
So of course the charges were challenged because they were based on an older law which
had naturally been overturned or changed by the subsequent law.

In steps the aptly named Lord Justice Laws, who it is suggested is a staunch supporter of the state,
after listening to all the evidence, Lord Justice Laws ruled that in fact it is incorrect to claim that any
new law overturns an older law, because some laws are more important (they were constitutional),
and could not just be simply repealed or changed.
He ruled that although parliament could change any law, it would have to state clearly that its intention
was to change a constitutional law, if they did not, then the original law remained and took precedence
of a later law.

To illustrate his ruling he used such laws as the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights
and 1972 act of accession to the EU.

Lord Justice Laws ruling if taken at face value means that any subsequent law introduced since
the Bill of Rights which did not clearly state that it was repealing or changing the Bill of Rights
was not legally enforceable.

This opens up a whole new can of worms for the government and the legal profession, because there
are already on the statute books several laws which have been introduced since 1689 which contradict
the Bill of rights, and only those laws which stated clearly that they were changing the Bill of Rights
had the force of law.

The provisions enacting the Congestion Charge Scheme do not in fact state that they the bill is
changing the Bill of Rights, but they are imposing a fine or a forfeit before conviction,
which is directly against the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

So far the government has continued to side step this point and have quietly dropped any cases
which have been challenged under the Bill of Rights.

The latest wrinkle in this saga is the recent ruling by Lord Justice Collins, which although not
challenging the Laws ruling said it was permissible to make these fines / forfeits because
they were not in fact fines but civil duties.

Yesterday I commented on a leaked document seen by The Times outlining a set of proposals, drawn up by chief police officers and Home Office officials, for an extension of instant fines to include crimes such as assaulting a police officer.

It would now seem that these suggestions did not go down well with ordinary police officers, magistrates or ministers who according to the Home office had not seen the document “Ministers have not been consulted about these proposals. Most of the suggestions have come from police chiefs. The Home Secretary will never approve any lessening of the punishments for violent crimes.”

The outcries of alarm from Magistrates and the police have nothing to do with removing the rights of the people to be protected from summary justice, but are made on the grounds that the fines are not strong enough for the crimes of assault. Cindy Barnett, chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, makes the point when she said; “that the proposals made a mockery of the criminal justice system and downgraded the gravity of offences that should go before the courts.”

So as I understand it the police and Magistrates are quite happy about the erosion of our rights, but not about the suggested level of fines. Thanks chaps and chapesses we now know who not to look to in order to protect the common mans basic rights.

 The Times is reporting that proposals drawn up by the Home Office envisages a huge extension of fixed-penalty notices from early 2007.

They would apply to nearly 30 offences, including assault, threatening behaviour, all types of theft up to a value of £100, obstructing or assaulting a police officer, possession of cannabis, and drunkenness, the Times say the move, could remove 250,000 cases from the magistrates’ courts.

Unlike conditional cautions, the fixed-penalty notices do not require the offender to admit guilt, however an offender? Can go to court to contest it.

Given that the bill of Rights 1689 which is still one of the founding documents of the British State and is still statute law (as much as many would wish to ignore it).

Makes it clear “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”.

Offering the right to go to court to contest a fixed-penalty notice is simply not good enough, it is in fact reversing the burden of proof, instead of a police officer having to produce evidence in court to prove that an offence has been committed, the accused becomes the offender with out any proof, and will have to appeal against the policeman’s verdict and prove that they did not commit the crime.

Over the past few hundred years we have fought for our protections and gradually these have been put in place. Now New Labour authoritarians want to remove the rights of people against summary and unfair justice, claiming it will free several hundred thousand cases from the courts.

The question is do we want quick summary justice or do we want to protect the people from an over oppressive state.