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"

One question begats yet more questions

An article has appeared in today's Sunday Telegraph reporting that nine members of Ed Miliband’s opposition team have received free help from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the accountancy giant that helps its clients avoid millions of pounds worth of tax a year. The article, authored by Robert Watts Deputy Political Editor, lists those involved, amongst whom is Ed Balls whose disclosure in the latest Register for Members’ Interests shows that he has accepted "the services of a research assistant/analyst to support him in his opposition front bench role" for a four-day-a-week second between January and April of this year and that the arrangement is valued at £59,976, based on the PwC worker’s salary.


The article does not specifically state that this free help is for personal gain, neither does it state that it is to assist politicians with their parliamentary business. The criticism by John Mann, Labour, that it appeared that there was now a PwC “caucus” within parliament seems valid - especially when noting those ex-PwC employees now occupying senior positions in politics and advisory bodies.


If we take Ed Balls as an example - and the question can be put to every politician who has accepted these free services - what exactly are the duties of these research assistants/analysts and what support is provided. While their services may be free what, if any, other payments are made? Who pays their travel costs if said research assistants/analysts are required to accompany their political masters on visits/meetings outside Westminster? We all remember, during the Expenses Scandal, of reports of politicians claiming tax advice on their expenses. Unless the duties of these research assistants/analysts are made public the doubt will remain that politicians are up to their old tricks.


That our politics has the stench of corruption attached to it is well known and this story can only add to that stench. Transparency was trumpeted by Cameron and Clegg in their programme for government - sadly, as has been shown, this has been but another false promise. I note, incidentally, that Channel 4 intend to air a remake of 'A Very British Coup' with the twist that the series will pose the question what if the public voted in a prime minister who was committed to always telling the truth and sticking to his pledges. So, yet another fiction series for the masses to watch! Needless to say had we direct democracy and referism the series would not be fiction, but faction!

Meanwhile, in other news .....

Laura Donnelly, The Sunday Telegraph, writes that plastic surgery 'cowboys are to come under the scrutiny of an influential committee of MPs. Meanwhile, in other news, it has been reported (not by the MSM, needless to say) that the 'cowboys/cowgirls' in the politics industry are to be investigated by a group of ordinary people as a result of the growing dissatisfaction with matters political and the behaviour of those in their industry.


As the committee of MPs will be looking at the sales tactics and safety record of the industry and whether lax regulation has allowed a 'cowboy' market among British clinics; so talkconstitution.net will be looking at the tactics and record of the politics industry and whether lax regulation has allowed 'cowboy/cowgirl MPs'.


Just as Danni Star believes that she feels totally fobbed off; that she feels so angry that companies can make loadsa money from breast implants; that when there is a problem she believes there is no help available; so talkconstitution believes we are being fobbed off; that MPs are making loadsa money at our expense and that when there is a problem - one caused by their inappropriate decisions - there is no help available.


Just as Dr. Daniel Poulter, a practising doctor and Conservative MP, believes that an industry has grown at a great pace over the past 10 years; that the breast implants scandal has helped shine a light on wider issues about the way the cosmetic surgery industry works, so talkconstitution believes that the political industry has grown at great pace and that the expenses scandal and the discussion over devolution for Scotland has helped to shine a light on our politicians and our system of democracy.


Just as the committee of MPs will examine the skills and qualifications of those carrying out surgery, so will talkconstitution examine the skills and qualifications required of those who aim to become politicians; how few politicians are required; their working practices and the areas of responsibility that will be delegated to them.


Politicians, Bureaucrats, Quangocrats - you are being 'investigated', not just by talkconstitution but also by JudasClass.




Update: On the breast implant business Richard North, EU Referendum, has just posted that there is indeed an 'elephant in the clinic' factor in the subject.

There are 'gravy trains' - and there are 'gravy trains'

An article in today's Sunday Telegraph reports that £68million of public money is spent funding the union activities of public employees, with the print edition 'headlining' that MPs want the gravy train halted.

How about halting the Westminster 'gravy train', one costing circa 0.5billion - or halting the Brussels version which costs circa €1.61billion?

I suppose unions will argue that they get something in return for all this expenditure of public money - but what the hell do we get in return for the expenditure of public money on Westminster and Brussels? Just more authoritarianism with the resultant ordering of society and the engineering of same. If those holding ministerial positions in government need 'special advisors' on the public payroll, just what the hell are those ministers doing in the positions they hold?

That we are indeed blind to what is happening in front of our eyes, dumb for not speaking out and deaf to the voices of those attempting to point out the deficiencies in our system of democracy, surely cannot now be ignored.

No doubt the electorate can - and will......!

Faux politicians and faux politics

We have all read about the 'faux europsceptics headed by 'Useless Eustice' but we seem to have ignored the 'faux politicians' and 'faux politics' that has happened, not just since May 2010, but for decades now. From Peter Hitchens in today's Mail on Sunday, writing on what he terms the fake fights twixt the LibDems and the Tories within the Coalition:

"Mr Cameron is far closer to Mr Clegg than he is to his own voters. He loves being manacled to him, and much prefers Coalition to governing alone. Mr Clegg helps David Cameron ensure that the Government remains pro-EU, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-tax, politically correct and pro-immigration."

In those three sentences Hitchens sums up the present state of our political system and those involved in that circus - because circus is exactly what it is. By allowing Clegg to dictate policies such as Human Rights, EU membership and a host of other matters allows Cameron to maintain his 'liberal left-wing tendencies', whilst at the same time controlling the more right-wing members of his own party - or at least the odd half-dozen or so who have no desire for a ministerial position but who still wish to continuing receiving their 30 pieces of silver by remaining under the Conservative banner.

That the Lib/Lab/Con will never, ever agree to a referendum on EU membership; that they will never, ever agree to a cost/benefit analysis of EU membership; that they will never, ever even agree to a public discussion on EU membership cannot now be beyond doubt. That Party Leaders are able to continue to exert their hold over our political system by means of their ability to nominate those for 'elevation' to the House of Lords; that Party Leaders likewise exert a dictatorial control over the selection of party members and in which constituencies those party members may be included for selection as a candidate, is also beyond doubt.

Bearing in mind the tribalistic voting patterns, I wonder whether anyone has actually bothered to talk to those committed 'tribalists' to explain just exactly how they are being led by their noses? To explain just what exactly is going on and the future to which we are all being led?

In today's edition of the Sunday Telegraph Janet Daley has an article entitled "What is the point of the Labour Party" - bearing in mind the troughs of dispair into which our country has been led, I would pose the question: What is the point of any political party?

Just bear in mind policies that are presented by the Coalition as devolving power to the people and thus to put the people in charge, are a sham - or to be more precise; a bloody great sham. I give but one example and that is the Localism Bill in which we, the people, are to be 'allowed' to have a referendum on any local issue we wish - but in the small print it also states that if local authorities wish to ignore the result of that referendum they have the power to do so. Whatever policy you care to read, ultimate control resides with central government and so the process of controlling us continues by the political elite. 

Just remember the words of Ronald Reagan:

"When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons....... it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled."

That our political elite are disarming us by placing obstacles in our democratic path must also be obvious and therefore the only means of rectifying the situation will be by us taking to the streets and forcibly removing these bastards!