Misplaced effort

It is understood that at the instigation of one Tobias Ellwood who is the Conservative MP for Bournemouth East, supported by Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw among others, it is their wish to rename the Clock Tower - aka Big Ben - Elizabeth Tower as a tribute to Her Majesty, the Queen.


A noble gesture, however are there not more important matters to occupy the parliamentary time of our MPs? While it is acknowledged that much of MPs powers to influence that which happens in our country has been ceded to Brussels, might not their time be better spent causing a fuss about, for example, Chris Tappin, Hollie Grieg, Robert Green, Graham Mitchell; all of whom are victims of a justice system that leaves much to be desired?


Might not their time be better spent causing a fuss about their inability to restrain the Executive and its dictatorial aims? Might not their time be better spent holding the government to account for all its broken promises, for example, the recall of MPs and the Localism Act? Might not their time be better spent causing a fuss about the fact that, in an attempt to divert attention from what was a joke budget, a Secretary of State was making a statement on a Friday morning - a virtually unheard of event? Might not their time be better spent causing a fuss about the fact that since November last year our annual EU contribution appears to have grown by £1.8billion - and this at a time when our overall national debt has increased to over £1trillion? Might not their time be better spent questioning the Minister concerned about what is now held to be systemic fraud at A4e?


In fact - with a very few exceptions - might not their time be better spent finding an alternative career - they're no bloody good at their present one!

The 'trade' in children

Fausty links to an article in the Telegraph, which quotes from the Mail, about what would appear to be malpractice by a doctor working for children's social services.


On 7th March I posted about this subject and that of Hollie Grieg, from which:

"Without in any manner denigrating the importance of the Hollie Grieg case, it should also be remembered that week after week Christopher Booker, in his regular Sunday Telegraph columns, reports on the injustices of child protection courts - examples here, here, here, and here - in which judgements are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question."

I ended that post thus:

"That the Hollie Greig case - and that of the child protection courts - leaves a nasty taste in the mouth cannot surely be denied. If questioned no doubt the powers that be will inform us that all decisions, both judicial and social, are taken with wisdom - yet there is an unpleasant smell starting to emanate."

If Dr Hibbert is guilty as alleged, then it must call into question all evidence that has been presented in child protection cases in which he has been involved. In that earlier post I asked some pertinent questions relating to what has actually happened to the 8,000 children taken into care each year for the past three years. Do the maths - that is 20+ children a day taken into care. 


Returning to Christopher Booker, his column for tomorrow deals with instances where the 'right' report has been bought. A random trawl of 126 cases found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. As with Hibbert, this finding must also call into question the evidence presented in those 126 cases.


I don't know about an unpleasant smell starting to emanate - it has already become overpowering, fanned by the inactivity or interest of 649 MPs.




Update: Richard North posts on this problem - go read!

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!

So, just who is using their public position to protect themselves?

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The phrase: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" is attributed to Gordon Hewart, in Rex v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy (1924).


PJC Journal - IPJonPolitics has two further posts, here and here, on the Hollie Grieg case; both of which are required reading. Both posts are required reading as it is stated that documentary evidence exists which shows that the justice system is being manipulated for personal protection and gain by certain individuals in political and public positions.


We are informed that Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality. In the case of Hollie Grieg it would seem that Lady Justice has indeed wielded her sword with coercive power; that the scales perhaps need checking by weights and measures; and that the blindfold appears to have been completely transparent.


In my post yesterday I referred to child protection courts and Christopher Booker who regularly writes about the injustices of those courts. In one of those posts (at least I am sure it was he) Booker wrote about a child who happened to mention to one of her classmates that she had been smacked the previous day. This was overheard by a teacher who promptly reported the matter resulting in the parents having the police and social services 'crawling all over them' ending with the child being taken into care - and, unless I am confusing cases, the father has had to move out of the maritial home.


Now, whilst accepting that any cruelty to a child is not acceptable, are there not degrees of cruelty? Is not smacking a child permitted, providing one does not leave a mark? Would not any sane person accept and agree that a charge of rape warrants just as much, if not more, investigatory effort as that of smacking? Yet this has plainly not been the case in respect of Hollie Grieg.


I would pose two questions to readers, in the hope they may feel moved to become involved in the campaign "Justice for Hollie". Suppose Hollie was your child? How would you feel? Suppose you had been forced to move from your maritial home at the behest of social services? How would you feel?

Juvenile justice

Where children are concerned it could be said that the justice meted out is juvenile in that it beggars belief those adults within (and without) the system can believe it is reasoned.


I would direct readers to a post from PJCJournal-IanPJonPolitics in relation to the Hollie Grieg case, to which is linked that of Robert Green. IPJ's post contains a 40+ minute video which is well worth watching. That the MSM do not, or have been 'requested' not to, cover this case is illustrated by the fact that SKY, who had cameras present waiting for Ryan Giggs, did not want to know about Hollie Grieg. On that point, the remarks by Brian Gerrish in the video are most telling. That not one Scottish MP raises this matter in the HoC, coupled with the fact it is ignored by the MSM, would seem to also confirm the suspicion that an edict of silence exists from somewhere 'on high'.


The accusation of 'cover-up' because of the high-profile people involved in cases of abuse and paedophilia, an accusation made in the Hollie Grieg case, coupled with the accusation that court proceedings appear to get 'shut down' or 'diverted' when a clear connection to the elite arises is not, it seems, confined to this country as a very recent news item shows.


Without in any manner denigrating the importance of the Hollie Grieg case, it should also be remembered that week after week Christopher Booker, in his regular Sunday Telegraph columns, reports on the injustices of child protection courts - examples here, here, here, and here - in which judgments are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question.


Digressing slightly, a post on Orphans of Liberty relating to a draft bill prepared by the Western Australian Mental Health Commission, leads one to question whether those who can devise such a bill - and those involved in the Hollie Grieg and child protection courts - are fit to live in civilised society.


Both IPJ in his post and Brian Gerrish in the video make reference to how close the UK justice system is becoming to a Soviet system where the state control over people is concerned. This raises questions such as how do we know that children removed from the parental home are cared for properly; how do we know they are still in the UK; if not already fostered, where are they kept if, as reported, an average of over 8,000 children were taken into care each year for the past three years? Do they attend normal schools or is special schooling provided - and if the latter exactly what type of education is provided; does the education provided meet statutory guidelines, or are they being educated to become model european citizens with a common purpose?


That the Hollie Greig case - and that of the child protection courts - leaves a nasty taste in the mouth cannot surely be denied. If questioned no doubt the powers that be will inform us that all decisions, both judicial and social, are taken with wisdom - yet there is an unpleasant smell starting to eminate.


In the words of Henry David Thoreau:

"There is no odour so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted"