Kejar ptp

Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Gay marriage isn't real

Here we go again - another bloody priest who doesn't play the game making the rules!

The government is debating whether to change the legal definition of arriage to include same sex couples.

Above is Archbishop Smith of Southwark. He has announced that the Catholic Church will "be opposing such a change in the strongest terms". He goes on to say :

It is a lifelong commitment of a man and a woman to each other, publicly entered into, for their mutual well-being and for the procreation and upbringing of children. No authority – civil or religious – has the power to modify the fundamental nature of marriage.

Well that's all very well, but you just contradicted yourself, Bish. The law is the law and if Parliament decides that same sex marriages will have the same legal status as mixed sex marriages, then like it or lump it that is the law and the Church cannot opt out.

But you cannot then go on to to say that 'no religious authority' has the right to decide and then go right ahead and do it!

The crux of this issue is not religious. What it's about is that if the Catholic Church defies the law by disciminating against the marriage of gay couples, then they could very well be sued for refusing to marry them.

Will no-one rid us of these turbulent priests?

Freegans beware

Ther's been a worrying development for all of those who believe that if food has been thrown out, then it's fair game and OK for you to exercise your moral conscience by not seeing it go to waste.

In Great Baddow, Essex, people could not believe their luck after a Tesco Express bagged up thousands of pounds of spoiled stock and left it out in the street following a power cut.

21 year old Sasha Hall, helped herself to potato waffles, pies and ham but was stunned when police arrived at her home and arrested her for suspected 'theft by finding' and took her to the station in handcuffs.

She said

There was £3,000 worth of food going to waste on the street. It had been thrown out, so I thought I could put it to better use. When the police came round I was so upset. I felt like a terrible criminal.

I would think the police have better things to be doing with their time than going after people who pick up potato waffles from the street. It's all been blown totally out of proportion.

Tesco clearly did not want the food. They dumped it and rather than see it go to waste, I thought I could help feed me and my family for a week or two.

They knocked at the door and said if I didn't open up they would use a battering ram. They handcuffed me and treated me like I was a hardened criminal and when we left they raided my house.

The case is up before the magistrates today. If she is found guilty then, frankly, I consider it to be a travesty for common sense as well as for justice...

(You can read the full story in the Daily Mail by clicking here)

Westminster complicit over Megrahi

If ever you wanted proof that you can't trust a word a politician says, you need look no further than the revelations about the Westminster government's collusion with Libya to obtain the release from a Scottish prison of the Lockerbie bomber.

Most disturbing of these revelations to my mind is the document published on the WikiLeaks site which states in a cable that "The Libyans have told HMG flat out that there will be 'enormous repercussions' for the UK-Libya bilateral relationship if Megrahi's early release is not handled properly"

Now that's fair enough. We expect the Libyans to be pissed off if Scotland didn't let him go. But the document then goes on to say that "HMG is also adamant that, despite devolution, London controls foreign policy for the UK, not Edinburgh" whilst at the same time saying that any decision on the release must be made by the Scottish government.

This seems to me to be a case of dumping the blame on the Scots so that Westminster gets off the hook. To a foreigner, it must be hard to understand exactly how a national government absolves itself from responsibility and accepts it at the same time! A prime example of doublespeak...

It is clear that Megrahi's symptoms made a long term prognosis difficult. These things are not always exact and precise. However, the document goes on to say that Scotland "has never before granted compassionate release to a foreign national" so one is forced to ask what influences were brought to bear on this occasion.

To make things worse, a secret US diplomatic cable, obtained by the Wikileaks website and shown to the Daily Telegraph, cites details of a letter sent by then Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell to his Tripoli counterpart. Sent within weeks of Megrahi being diagnosed with cancer in 2008, it outlines "the procedure for obtaining compassionate release", the newspaper said.

Of course, the Foreign Office's stance on this is that it does not comment on leaked documents.

I can understand why...

You can read the full documents on the Daily Telegraph website by clicking here.

"Oh, yes it does..."

Take a good look at the above picture because it contravenes the Geneva Convention!

"Oh, no it doesn't..." I hear you cry. Well, sorry but I'm afraid that it does!

Take a good look at Nurse Poltis - that's the one on the left in case you can't work it out for yourself. The Red Cross emblems on her uniform were changed to green crosses after the British Red Cross informed the theatre it was breaking the law and could face prosecution.

Unauthorised use of the emblem violates the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.

The British Red Cross said it had contacted the Pavilion Theatre over the use of a red cross on the nurse's costume in the pantomime.

All I can say is that it's a shame they've got fuck all better to do...

Rotten Boroughs: Lancashire County Council

Hat tip to the Moose for highlighting the balmy scheme by Lancashire County Council to reduce the speed limit in residential areas from 30 to 20mph across the entire county by 2013.

The response to this hair brained idea is, to say the least, unfavourable. But that doesn't seem to worry the council who intend to implement it anyway at an estimated cost of £9 million - so it is good to know that in these times of 'all in it together' and spending cuts that this quantity of money can be just flushed unnecessarily down the toilet.

Perhaps the honorable councillors of Lancashire should have had a word with Ken Livingston. When mayor of London, Ken had a policy of "encouraging councils to make a wholesale switch from 30mph to 20mph, amid evidence that the slower limits could cut accidents and injuries by half."

But the policy was scotched when Boris Johnson came to power. Boris said he would support 20mph zones in residential areas where local people wanted them. But because of "finite budgets", priority would only go to areas with a high number of accidents - especially those involving vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. The Green Party attacked his decision, claiming it would cost " hundreds" of lives.

Scare mongering it seems runs rife in this idea. In Lancashire, councillor Tim Ashton says he wants speeding in built-up areas to be ‘as taboo as drink driving’ in a bid to halt the thousands of people killed or injured on the region’s roads every year. Only, as the Moose quite rightly points out, 702 deaths in 2009 is hardly thousands and a lot of those weren't caused by speeding.

Then it gets worse. Apparently, LCC wants to appoint vigilante groups of local residents and arm them with speed guns to help enforce the limit. Councillor Ashton says “I think there will be a huge amount of support for what we are doing but if there are critics I will take them head-on."

I suggest he should read his post bag and stop being so bloody arrogant.

It's a daft idea, the ratepayers oppose it and there's no money to pay for it...

Cat must do Jury Service

Just to make the case that the law really is an ass - in the States, a tabby cat has been selected for jury service.

Apparently, this is because his owners registered him on a Massachusetts state census form - in the pets section as required by law. This resulted in the cat being called for jury service.

It then gets dafter, because the court refused to believe that this was a mistake and insisted that Sal attend on pain of a fine, despite the fact that they got a vet to write a supporting letter confirming that the cat was a 'domestic short-haired neutered feline' and not human.

So her owners Anna and Guy Esposito wrote to the court asking for him to be disqualified from service because he doesn't speak or understand English. According to the Massachusetts judicial branch website, US citizens who 'do not speak and understand English sufficiently well may be disqualified.'

However, the request for the cat's exemption was refused by a jury commissioner and Mrs Esposito was told that Sal 'must attend' Suffolk Superior Crown Court.

She said: "When they ask him guilty or not guilty, what's he supposed to say - meow? Sal is a member of the family so I listed him on the last census form under pets but there has clearly been a mix-up."

If Sal's application for disqualification is denied, the cat is expected in court on 23 March.

Votes for prisoners

The government seems to be caving in on the issue of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.

The right to vote was taken away from prison inmates under the 1870 Forfeiture Act, and the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act of 1983. Prisoners on remand awaiting trial, fine defaulters and people jailed for contempt of court can vote

Both this government and the previous Labour government has been fighting this issue since 2005. It has been under pressure from the United Nations as well as legal pressure from the European Court of Human Rights. The UK's position is that if a person is removed from society by placing them in prison, then they should not be allowed to take part in society by voting. To me, this seems perfectly logical and reasonable.

Convicted axe murderer turned legal eagle, John Hirst, said "I'm going to celebrate for the 75,000 prisoners who will be getting the vote. That includes murderers, rapists, paedophiles - all of them will be getting the vote because it's their human right. You can't start moralising and saying which ones can and can't vote."

Well I totally disagree with you Mr Hirst. In fact, every time I hear bastards like you crowing it is usually followed by the words 'human rights'. I'd like to ask you how you feel about the human rights of the woman whose head you split in half with an axe?

It is time that this government grew some balls and politely but firmly informed the ~~European Union~~ Fourth Reich that this is sovereign country and that our laws take priority within our own borders NOT yours. This country is ruled by a government elected by it's citizens NOT by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.

And can Mr Cameron please explain to me exactly how - short of a declaration of war - the EU Reich intends to fine a sovereign country for non compliance with external rulings?

Tell them to get stuffed - it's our inalienable human right!!

The Fourth Reich marches on...

Herman and Angela : The new Adolf and Eva?

This week, we have seen yet more examples of the inexorable march of the Fourth Reich into the daily lives of the people the United Kingdom. Small inroads, admittedly, but inroads nevertheless...

Germany lost two world wars and one world cup to England, but by God they are certainly winning the third world war. Defeated when they tried force of arms to take over the whole of Europe, they seem to be winning the war of stealth. And we are dumb enough to fall for it!

The United Kingdon is now on Berlin time. A small victory admittedly bit a victory nonetheless! And now, the EU is dictating to our financial services industry how we should be setting our compensation limits.

Why on God's name are we falling for all this bullshit? No - I'll rephrase that - why are we rolling over and inviting the Hun to put his foot on our stomach?

Inch by inch - or should that be cm by cm? - we are surrendering our sovereignty and our daily lives to these bastards. How long I wonder before we have to use round plugs and drive on the right hand side and change all our speeds limits signs to kph? We have already had to dump our toilet cisterns - which don't leak - and use continental ones - which do - because 'they use less water' - even though they waste more in leakage!

Yes, I know all this sounds petty and trivial. But it's indicative of a slow and inexorable drain away of our rights and liberties and way of life. EU law takes precedence. Soon we will all be Germans. And worse - we are being stupid enough to volunteer for it.

Herr Chancellor Merkel and her puppet von Rumpey-pumpey are slowly destroying this nation - and, tragically, we are too bloody stupid to do anything about it!

Dignity in Dying

Returning to a controversial subject for which I have been criticised before on this blog, I would like to introduce you to someone who talks a lot of sense.

The lady on the left is Dr. Ann McPherson CBE. Ann qualified as a doctor in 1968 and was a general practitioner in Oxford for 30 years until 2008.

She is a fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Green College Oxford, and a patron of Dignity in Dying.

On Monday morning she appeared on the BBC Breakfast programme to highlight the issue of 'physician assisted death'. As I understand it, she supports the idea in principle - for people of sound mind with limitted time left to live who find their pain insufferable.

Earlier this year, she wrote the following in the Guardian :

"I am dying of pancreatic cancer. I wish I wasn't. But dying isn't a failure on my part, it is part of life. I wish to live as long as possible, but not at the expense of enduring an undignified death. In the final days or weeks of my life, if I consider my suffering to be unbearable, I would like the choice to die at home at a time of my choosing surrounded by my loved ones."

You can read the full article by clicking >here< and I urge you to do so.

The reason for her appearance was to reopen this debate prior to the GPs conference later this week. She knows it is an important subject and wants to ensure that the debate is kept in the public eye.

I encourage you to find out more about this issue because, who knows, it may well effect you one day...

Ambulance chasers

Question : What's the difference between a lawyer and a fish?

Answer : One is cold and slimey. The other is a fish.

For some time now I have deplored the continuing advance of the litigation culture in this country.

Nothing is ever my fault. If I fall over a paving stone, sue the council. If I drive my car into a ditch, sue the road repairers. You get the picture...

Lawyers hit an all time low in my estimation when they started chasing ambulances. Until today. Today a leaflet came through my door which is disturbing even by their standards.

Let's drum up some divorce business!

"Falling apart at the seams? Looking to end your relationship? Try our fixed fee divorce service!"

"Talk to one of our experts in confidence about our fixed fee divorce service. First appointment free."

"We will answer your queries on divorce, seperation, children, finances, cohabitee disputes, domestic violence, living together agreements, pre-nuptial agreements, changes of name and " - wait for it - "other related issues." - whatever they are...

Never mind marriage councelling. Never mind working at the relationship.

If you weren't thinking about divorce already, now's the time!

Piss boiler of the week

I am forced to borrow a phrase from my good friend the Grumpy Old Twat because this one nearly made me burst a blood vessel...

Basildon council has been given leave by the Courts to evict 'travellers' from an illegal site - in fact , the largest illegal traveller site in Europe - because of flagrant contravention of planning laws.

Actually, let's rephrase that. They didn't contravene planning laws, they just pretended they didn't exist and carried on anyway. Sort of stuck two fingers up to the law, really.

Now these delightful people who consider themselves above the law are to be evicted. So what do they do? Believe it or not, the cheeky fuckers write to the United Nations who, even more unbelievably, take them seriously and write to the British government accusing them of 'ethnic cleansing'!

Let's also point out at this stage that Basildon Council has offered them council housing - bet the ratepayers really love that one! However, this infringes their inalienable human rights because it does not offer them a 'culturally acceptable' alternative. Because they live in caravans not houses!

Just yesterday, they had a representative from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission come down to advise them of their 'rights'. Needless to say, she a was a foreigner.

And, apparently, they have also asked the Pope to intervene as they are all staunch catholics and are being discriminated against on religious grounds!

Christ all bloody mighty! Find me a darkened room!

You broke the planning laws. You are supposed to be travellers, so why don't you fuck off and go travelling? Preferably in another country as you feel this one treats you so badly...

The murder of David Kelly

Nobody is ever going to convince me that UN weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly was not murdered.

What makes me even more suspicious is that the inquest into his death was suspended and never resumed.

Lord Hutton concluded that "the principal cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body".

But now some very knowledgable and eminent people are calling for the case to be reopened. Nine experts including Michael Powers, a QC and former coroner, and Julian Blon, a professor of intensive care medicine, said in a letter to the Times that the official cause of death – haemorrhage from the severed artery – was "extremely unlikely" as "insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life."

Now prominent politicians, including former Tory leader Michael Howard and labour leadership hopeful Dianne Abbott, have called for the inquest to be resumed.

Furthermore, Hutton made a ruling to keep medical reports and photographs closed for 70 years. He said that he had made the gagging order to spare Kelly's family "unnecessary distress".

Bullshit. This is sparing no-one but the guilty. What you smell is a good old fashioned political cover up.

New Labour's house of cards has already collapsed around its ears and this whole affair reeks of the sort of manoeuvre that Francis Urquhart would have been proud of. The state cannot hold itself out to be above the law.

Something needs to be done about this right now...

Common sense and justice

I have nothing but admiration for the Gurkhas who fight in our armed forces, which is why I am so outraged at the latest bout of bureaucratic stupidity.

In Afghanistan, a Gurkha soldier, under heavy machine gun fire, beheaded a DEAD taliban so that he could take the head back to base for identification against the most wanted list.

For this act of selflessness under fire, he has been suspended from duty, sent back to the UK and awaits court martial. Apparently, if found guilty, he could be imprisoned.

Here's the question I want answered : Since when has it been illegal in this country for a foreign national to behead a dead person overseas?

Apparently, the problem is that the Afghans consider it bad form to dismember a dead body. They like all the bits to be buried together. Perhaps we should remind the Taliban of this custom after their IED bombs have scattered bits of our soldiers all over the landscape or when they decide to behead our soldiers.

There's a simple answer to this problem. Stick the head back on the rotting body, slap the man's wrist and say don't do it again...

...and then give him a medal for bravery under fire!

All to no (a) veil

Take a good long hard look at the picture on the left and then tell me that it is acceptable to walk into a bank, an airport or a building society dressed like this.

A lot has been said recently about the niqab and the more severe version, the burqa - especially in the light of the recent ruling in France.

I read recently an empassioned blog about the freedom to dress how you like, and another about the freedom of religious expression. I support both these views, but not at the expense of safety and security.

Firstly, lets deal with the religious aspect. On the BBC breakfast programme on Sunday morning, they interviewed an Imam from a London mosque together with an Islamic woman who, although not a veil wearer herself, disagreed with his views. Surprisingly, the Imam was the one opposing the veil. He pointed out at great length that there is nothing in the Koran about the veil but rather it is a tribal or cultural custom. So as far as I can see, there goes the religious argument.

Secondly, let's look at the French law. The law does not mention the burqa. It makes it illegal for anyone to conceal their face in public. It therefore aplies to, for example, anyone wearing a scarfe over their face, a balaclava or a crash helmet. Let us remind ourselves that there is already a law about hoodies on our statute books.

Thirdly, if we reduce this to a cultural thing, then there is no place for it in our culture. If you come to our country, then you deal with our culture. You do not impose your own.

On this basis, I recommend that certain ill informed MPs would oppose a similar law to the French should think again.

The right to die

A wee while back, I published a post on euthanasia and the right to die on my own terms. I was pilloried.

However, the issue has now again come to a head with the news that Tony Nicklinson, 56, wants his wife to be allowed to help him die without the risk of being prosecuted for murder.

Tony suffers from so called "locked in syndrome". This means that he can only communicate by blinking or nodding his head at letters on a board.

His lawyers say he is "fed up with life" and does not wish to spend the next 20 years in this condition.

He doesn't want his life prolonged on these terms. Would you? Sadly, his only option is to refuse food and starve himself to death. Not very pleasant - and who's to say that some do-gooder wouldn't go to court for an order to force feed him?

He wants to know if his wife will be prosecuted if she helps him end his life. It's a difficult situation and is there anyone out there who thinks that if his wife does help him, she will ever forgive herself. I feel for them both.

His lawyers argue that the current murder law infringes Mr Nicklinson's rights to respect for his private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regrettably, this bring into question once again who exactly is the highest court in this land. Let's not go there as, for once, this is not the most important question.

The most important question is, of course, whether this country will respect the right of its citizens over their own destinies. It is about time for this decision. If this man brings it about, then he will not have suffered for nothing. He has my total respect.

I sincerely hope that the legal eagles will see common sense in this case and let the man die legally and with dignity without persecuting his wife. She feels bad enough already...

The Repeal Bill Song

With our wonderful new coalition government offering us a bonfire of laws, I have called upon the master of the protest song, Bob Dylan, and a reworking of his classic "A hard rains a-gonna fall" to ask "What do you want from your new government?"

I'm sure you can think of a few more things I've missed...

...such as : "We shouldn't be stifled by red tape and nannying"

(I wrote that, then forgot to sing it!)

Shariah law for the UK?

On Sunday last week, I took a trip to the Globe Theatre in London to see the Scottish play.

Unfortunately, as I drove past the East London Mosque on the Whitechapel Road, I became involved in a traffic jam caused by protestors who had apparently rallied in response to the recently cancelled English Defense League march. Some sort of confrontation was clearly taking place and we were somewhat relieved when we were clear of the area.

However, this has prompted me to reflect on demands for shariah law to be introduced in the UK.

Apparently, this is the law of God and therefore is above the laws of men. Absolute bollocks! This is the law of men represented as being the law of God - not quite the same thing...

Regardless of this, we live in a country which is tolerant of religious views and gives it's people the right to peaceful protest. Note the word 'peaceful'.

In this country we live according to the laws laid down by our democratically elected government and these laws are tried in tested in our courts. By all means exercise your democratic right to campaign to change them and to field candidates for parliament who you can vote for in a general election.

BUT - and this is a big but - at the end of the day, if you do not like the way we do things in this country, then please exercise your democratic right to fuck off and live somewhere else...

Why cutting alcohol limits won't work

At this point I have to admit that I once lost my licence because of drink driving. It's not something I'm proud of and it's not why I am criticising the proposals to lower the drink driving limit from 80 to 50 mg.

Let me explain the circumstances. I was invitied by an old neighbour to a dinner party that I knew perfectly well from past experience it was going to be a boozy affair. I planned accordingly.

First, I asked her whether it would be alright to leave the car at her house and pick it up in the morning. Then I diverted to the supermarket to pick up a bottle of wine and at the same time take some money out of the hole in the wall so I could pay the taxi driver.

So what went wrong?

Simple really - and this the crux of the matter - when you have had a skin full all logic and coherent thought tends to go out the window. At two in the morning, I decided that it was all a load of fuss about nothing and I would drive home. I was nicked, being 2.5 times the legal limit.

I went to court and pleaded guilty. I explained that this would never happen again because having been caught by the catch 22 of logic and drink, next time I would take the taxi both ways. It cost me £600 and a 12 month ban. I deserved it. I was stupid.

The reason I don't think it is necessary to lower the legal drink limit is that when you are pissed, you don't think clearly and you won't be told! You certainly don't worry about the legal limit and whether you are over it.

Yes, it might make people think before they start drinking, but no it certainly won't stop poeple once they've started - and most serious accidents involving drink are caused by people well over the limit.

I don't drink at all now if I am driving, not because next time it's a three year ban but because it's stupid and irresponsible - and that's not something I do twice...

Guns, the community and me

I have just returned from a week's holiday in a cottage in the village of Boot.

A little over a week ago, this tiny community was blighted by yet more mindless and senseless shootings. Many people were killed or injured. My thoughts go out to them.

This is not the first senseless killing spree of it's kind. Many years ago, I lived near Hungerford in Berkshire where you may recall that a lunatic with a hunting rifle sat at the top of the hill overlooking the High Street and picked off terrified shoppers at random.

Some years after that, we remember the maniac in Dunblane who walked into a school and murdered young children. This second occasion resulted in a knee jerk reaction from the government of the day to ban all legally held hand guns in this country.

And yet, here we are again...

I raise this serious subject because I was one of the gun owning community. I used to shoot handguns for a hobby. I was good at it and used to compete at county level. I owned a .22 calibre Browning automatic and a Colt Python .357 magnum. To prevent another Dunblane, they took my guns away.

It was a stupid decision, it hasn't worked and it never will.

When I applied for a firearms certificate, I first had to join a shooting club and undergo a course of instruction in the proper handling of weapons. After six months, I was allowed to apply for my licence. This involved submitting references and an application form to the police, followed by a period of positive vetting.

The certificate allowed me to purchase specified weapons only. These were to be stored in a tool proof locker and my security arrangements were inspected by the police. If I wanted another weapon, this had to be applied for separately and added to the certificate.

Why then was a member of my club allowed to own 12 different pistols including a Walther PPK? The only permitted use was for target shooting. The PPK has a very short barrel and is really only suitable for self defense. I defy you to hit a target at 30 metres. Don't believe what you see in James Bond films.

The answer of course is that he wasn't properly policed. Nor was the Dunblane murderer.

The shooting community in the UK are amongst the most strictly regulated in the world. Done properly, this would be enough. We are responsible law abiding people in the main.

When I applied for my certificate, I remember the desk sergeant telling me that no member of the public should be allowed to hold a gun. I pointed out to him that if I wanted to rob a bank, I wouldn't go through all this rigmarole to get hold of a gun first. I'd just go down the nearest east end pub and rent one for £500 - and if it was returned unfired, I get £250 back! He looked at me thoughtfully. Then he said "You might have a point."

Things are slightly different today. You just go across to the continent, buy a gun and ammunition in the nearest shop and then stick it under your back seat as you drive off the ferry.

And that's why you will never stop these incidents and why taking my licence away achieved absolutely nothing...