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!

And who asked us?

Benedict Brogan writes in the Telegraph that the forthcoming Budget holds dangers for both Cameron and Osborne.

"The Coalition’s most senior figures are debating in public how to take money off the taxpayer...." 

And where exactly was it asked whether taxpayers agreed to this? 'Referism'?

".....after the politicians agreed to get it done before the Prime Minister and the Chancellor visit Washington next week for talks with Barack Obama."

And we agreed to the expenditure of public money on their air fares and other travel expenses, when?

"......has exposed deep divisions among Conservatives over the kind of party they want to be....."

Why - and how - can any political party seek a mandate from the electorate if they haven't decided that already?

"......this debate is driven by the forces of circumstance bearing down from all sides on the Conservatives..."

Following on from the preceding point, if political parties are 'driven' by forces of circumstance then they have no principles nor mandate.

"For a start, they have no majority and – in Mr Cameron’s eyes at least – are obliged to give room to the demands of the weakened Lib Dems as the price of keeping the Coalition together."

So, the majority party and their leader are prepared to forgo political principles in order to simply retain their hold on power and the privileges that that entails - and to hell with what is best for their country?

"The Chancellor is a natural showman........."

We dont want, or need, 'showman' - we need politicians!

"But he has been tempted by a Lib Dem offer – made explicit in recent days by Mr Clegg – to trade a reduction in the 50p rate (by how much is unclear but possibly to 45p) for a new mansion tax....."

So, the economic future of the country now depends on two parties forming a coalition, negotiating over a policy on which the public have no say, in order to continue exercising the reins of power?


Need I continue? The remainder of Brogan's article just illustrates that where the future of our country is concerned, be that economic or otherwise, matters not to our political elite - all that they are concerned with is retaining power and to hell with those that they are meant to serve.


Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of direct democracy vs representative democracy? Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of a form of democracy that negates all the foregoing shenanigans that passes for our present system? Can we now have a serious debate about a system that reverses the present situation whereby the politicians are in charge and the people are their servants? Can we now have a debate that brings a little common sense to the subject of how we wish our country to proceed?


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

As I read I wonder.......

..... just what the hell we get for our £165million?

From the print edition of the Daily Telegraph today, 14th February, the following headlines can be read:

"Britain being taken over by militant secularists."
"Brussels threatens pensions and jobs."
"22 hour curfew for Qatada as he is freed."
"No10 powerless in college tsar row."
"Britain in slow lane of global recovery."
"Quango bonuses are fair,says union."
"Elderly care is the great scandal of our society....."
"Public should be charged for freedom of information requests."
"Breast cancer too costly for the NHS."
"Hospital trust counts the cost of translators."
"£1million fund to end blight of binge drinking."
"Women should get time out of jail to see their children, judge rules."
"End of the line for rail firms making millions from weekend buses."
"Hague rules out Syria role for British troops."

There is not one item there that will not involve, in one form or another, the government using our money for finance either now or at some time in the future. I repeat a question from an earlier post, namely where was the element of 'referism'? Where have the people been involved in the decision making for any of the above? Where are examples of any MP returning to his constituents and asking them how they would wish he should vote on each issue? Where, for example, is there any instance of the government asking the people if they are prepared to fund an attempt to end binge-drinking?

If politicians elected to govern, so obviously cannot or will not, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians are able to spend our money, without any recourse to us, why are we paying them £165 million per annum? If politicians, elected to represent their constituents, ignore those constituents and vote according to their principles and views and/or who ignore their constituents by dutifully following the party line, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians obfuscate, lie to us, fail to tell us the truth, trick us, swindle us, and have the morals of a sewer rat, why are we paying them £165million per annum?

The sooner those 'sick' within our society are 'hospitalized', the sooner our country will return to good health.

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