Justice? How? Where? When?

"The course of justice often prevents it."
Edward Counsel, Maxims

"Justice in the hands of the powerful is merely a governing system like any other. Why call it justice? Let us rather call it injustice, but of a sly effective order, based entirely on cruel knowledge of the resistance of the weak, their capacity for pain, humiliation and misery. Injustice sustained at the exact degree of necessary tension to turn the cogs of the huge machine-for-the-making-of-rich-men, without bursting the boiler."
Georges Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest

 Yesterday I posted on the case of Hollie Grieg and the injustices involved in her case. Yesterday a post appeared on the campaign website "Hollie Demands Justice", from which:

"Then there is the case of Jim Boyling, embedded police officer in the Reclaim the Streets campaign. Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties.

But the real damage is done when, as has now been exposed, Police Chiefs authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status. When Boyling went into the witness box at the trial, he swore under oath that he was Sutton, and gave evidence under questioning from the barrister for the defendants and the prosecution, according to a legal note of the hearing.

As defence lawyers said at the time:

"This case raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality, and the integrity of the criminal justice system. At first sight, it seems that the police have wildly overstepped all recognised boundaries."

So, someone sworn to uphold the law, is permitted to lie under oath?

Christopher Booker, in his latest column in the Sunday Telegraph, posts the harrowing tale of a mother of two small sons - go read it and then wonder how the law allows social services to make her life a misery, cost her promotion and eventually her job. As Booker writes:

"As the number of children seized by social workers soars to a record level of more than 225 a week, David Cameron merely urges that we must speed up the process whereby only 4 percent of those taken are being adopted – oblivious to the possibility that many should never be removed in the first place."

Who allowed situations such as the above to flourish?  Politicians? True - but they are not the only culprit because we, the people, were complicit too. We, the people have, by our apathy and our disinterest in the actions of our politicians, allowed them to perpetrate all manner of evil upon us - not just in judicial matters - but in matters relating to our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and our speech.

If the course of justice often prevents it, then logically, there is something wrong with our system of justice. If politicians have been allowed, for political ideology, to 'fiddle' with our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and speech, then, logically, there is something wrong with our politicians, our political system and our democracy.

If justice does remain in the hands of the powerful as it surely does, then it is no more than a political tool by which politicians and the 'elite' of our society 'control' we, the people. It must then follow, logically, as free men and women supposedly in a free democracy that there is something drastically wrong with that system of democracy which is currently imposed on us.

It is apparent that we are unable to rely on those we elect to safeguard our nation and its governance, our society and our freedoms - which begs the question what are we to do? It is regrettable that we cannot look to the Lib/Lab/Con to address these concerns; neither, unfortunately, does it appear we can look to the alternative offered, namely Ukip. In respect of the latter party there is no mention in their policies of re-balancing what is obviously examples of injustice. For a party that presents itself as an alternative government - one totally different to the Lib/Lab/Con - not one word have I heard on the subject of Hollie Grieg, nor the matter of children being removed by social services for what can only be described as spurious reasons - coupled with what are draconian restraints imposed on the parent(s).

If there is no justice in a country there can be no country. I am fast coming to the conclusion that a new party will need to be created; one that will promote an alternative system of democracy and which incorporates the element of referism, which hands power to the people so that they can decide the future of their country; one that allows the people to decide what is justice and what is not.

The system under which we live is not a democracy, the justice meted out is not an acceptable system of justice - both democracy and justice have become nothing but an extension of the art of dictatorship.

And we all know how dictatorships end - they get strung up!

British citizenship

Nigel Farndale, writing in the Sunday Telegraph has an interesting article about the British citizenship test that immigrants are required to take. Apparently Channel 4 aired a programme entitled Make Bradford British and as part of an experiment asked a group of born-and-bred Bradfordians to sit the British Citizenship Test, the one introduced by Gordon Brown in 2005. A staggering 90 per cent of them failed it.  Farndale notes that most of the questions seemed to be about the welfare system, the inner workings of the European Union, multiculturalism, and sexual harassment law - noting that it was like being stuck in a lift with Harriet Harman.


Compare and contrast with that operated in Switzerland where cantons and communes can grant citizenship. It will be noted that listed among the requirements of those seeking Swiss citizenship are integration into Swiss society and familiarity with Swiss customs, traditions and lifestyle - plus 12 years residence. It has to be said that perhaps a little more attention paid to those three 'conditions' would have resulted in a lessening of the problems presently experience in our society.


Why should not those amongst whom an immigrant lives be the deciding voice where citizenship is concerned? Of course this is not acceptable to some and the BBC, in 2007, reported a case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim. Leaving to one side the man's ethnicity, as 'benefits' in Switzerland are paid by local communes and cantons the people of his community decided they they weren't prepared to foot the bill. As it is their money, who can deny them the right to decide how and on whom it should be spent?


Now of course, if we had direct democracy.........................


Just saying...........

Compare & Contrast

It is reported that Frank Carson counted Bernard Manning as a friend and defended him against charges of racism. “How could anyone call Bernard a racist?” he wondered. “He even had black horses at his funeral”.


In the same newspaper we read of a man who, having placed his belongings including a scarf on the belt to pass through a scanner, noticed a woman in a hijab pass through without showing her face. Querying what would happen were he to cover his face with his scarf resulted in a lengthy questioning session in which he was accused of making a racist remark. After considerable time, during which the police were called and management from BAA, a compromise was reached in which this man agreed that his remark could be considered offensive to a Muslim. So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?


How have we allowed ourselves to be conditioned to the extent that free speech and even our private thoughts can be held to be verboten? As with the health & safety brigade, so have the politically correct brigade built an industry, ones that the taxpayers fund.


Frank Carson was renowned for suffering from what might be called verbal excess, yet this man - because of the pc brigade - was prevented from talking the hindi leg of a donkey. Is it not better that we allow a thousandfold abuses of free speech than to deny free speech? Likewise, does not free speech carry with it the another freedom; to listen?


To underline my point that we do indeed live under a system of democratised dictatorship, I am reminded of a quote by Herbert Hoover:

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

 On that note - and to borrow a legal phrase - I believe I am entitled to say that I rest my case!

A different 'wind of change' required?

Within his Sunday Telegraph regular column, once again Christopher Booker manages to hit three nails on the head. First, he shows how and why the European Union is doomed to fail; second, where he hopes that Edward Heath is indeed in Hell when writing: "If only Edward Heath could look up to see where his hubris has led us to."; and third, where he highlights the draconian attitude of our social workers where the well being of a child is concerned.


Never mind that Christopher Booker should be awarded a Knighthood for his work, one which won't be forthcoming needless to say; he can perhaps console himself that - and long may the day be in coming - when it is his turn to 'look down'.............


Just saying, CB................

Most definitely not Britain then

Haiti where Port-au-Prince is one of the most densely populated cities on Earth, a pretty wretched place for the tens of thousands still living under temporary shelter and tents; where vast pyres of burning rubbish can be seen on most corners, where rivers and canals have become open sewers and cholera is rife.*

"In a little coastal town an hour from the horrors of the capital, a wooden shelter houses several hundred schoolchildren. I sat in the shade of a tree and watched one of their lessons in Creole. Each child was immaculately dressed in clean, ironed clothes. The girls all wore ribbons in their hair and I could see my reflection in the boys' shoes." 

Anyone noticed our schoolchildren going to or coming home from school lately?


Just asking.........


* From the print edition (sadly, apparently not on line) of today's Sunday Telegraph in which Ben Fogle pens a short article in his regular Country Diary column, this time about his recent trip on behalf of Shelterbox,  a charity of which he is an Ambassador.

Yet another 'journalistic' masterpiece (not).....

.....comes from the latest offering by Matthew d'Ancona in his usual Sunday Telegraph op-ed piece, this time on matters Huhne and the credibility of politics. It may have escaped the notice of even so 'self-renowned' a journalist as d'Ancona that the credibility of politics and politicians has long been in the 'public dock', if not in the 'MSM dock'. d'Ancona ends his 'offering' thus:

"At worst, whether he is acquitted or not, the court of public opinion will look upon Huhne, the political class, its antics, and its hypocrisies – and deliver a furious verdict."

The public will not deliver a furious verdict because by then they will probably have forgotten about Huhne - and the political class will no doubt ensure that another 'crisis du jour' is presented in order to make sure the public forget. No doubt that point never entered d'Ancona's thought process - and if it had, he would not dare write about it.


Just saying................. 

More 'faux' journalism from another 'faux' journalist

Patrick Hennessey, erstwhile 'Political Editor' of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, reports that David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms.

That current planning laws are 'rigged' in favour of the state is not addressed by Hennessey; that Huhne, rather than face a charge of treason, has settled to face the lesser charge of perverting the course of justice is not addressed - but I digress; that the building of wind turbines is the result of compliance with EU requirements is not addressed; that these 101 MPs will have as much effect as those calling for the repatriation of powers is not addressed; that Chris Heaton-Harris is no more a eurosceptic than Cameron is a Conservative is not addressed; that the Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll” and as a result are unable to represent their constituents concerns (another deficit of our democratic system of representative democracy) is not addressed; that Tracy Crouch can punt a football further than she will be able to punt opposition to this is not addressed.

And this article is journalism? And Hennessey is a journalist?

Sheesh! Is it any wonder the public are 'ignorant' of matters important when they are reliant upon 'informers' such as Hennessey?

Just asking...........


Update: The text of the letter to which the article refers can be read here. Heaton-Harris' amendments aren't worth the proverbial crock of!