Friday, 31 July 2009
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Monday, 27 July 2009
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Saturday, 25 July 2009
"Jacques Barrot the EU Justice Commissioner outlined his remit of the Stockholm Programme in which he called for ‘citizenship in the fullest sense of the word’ seemingly from the cradle to the grave by introducing EU Birth and Death certificates. He was speaking to the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee in Brussels.
Births and deaths have been registered in the UK since 1837 and held by the Registrar General and collected by local registration officers. In 2007 changes were made to the system and Birth and Death Registers were no longer written by hand. Instead, this information is now held on a central online database.
New UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire, who is a member of the committee, said “I was stunned when the Commissioner outlined this proposal. They are not even pretending anymore, it is now full steam to a full Euro super state with a single register for all EU citizens’ births and deaths – what about the protection and respect for national identity?” Nikki also criticised Commissioner Barrot, for his blatant disregard for the voters in Ireland as he talked about the 'When' the Lisbon Treaty would come into effect not if."
Friday, 24 July 2009
The Tories Chloe Smith managed to turn a Labour majority of around 5000 into a Tory majority of 7348, a swing of 16.5% from Labour to Conservative. The Labour Party and Gordon Brown are in real trouble now and this result will probably ensure that the General election won’t take place until the last possible date in May 2010, which will be a repeat of the John Major moment which put an equally defunct Tory administration out of its misery.
Despite the outrageously biased BBC doing everything to talk up the left leaning Green Party and completely snubbing the UK Independence Party, UKIP’s Glen Tingle still managed to come a respectable fourth with 11.85% of the vote, beating the Green candidate by 718 votes. A very satisfying two fingers to the BBC from an electorate that was not conned by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
There were twelve candidates standing in the by-election, the results for the top five were: Chloe Smith, Tory, 13591. Chris Ostrowski, Labour, 6243. April Pond, Lib Dem, 4803. Glen Tingle, UKIP, 4068. Rupert Read, Green, 3350.
On the same day of the Norwich North by-election two UKIP candidates were elected in local by-elections. Peter Reeve who is the UKIP Regional Organiser for the Eastern Region had a double victory by being elected onto both the district and county council in the Ramsey by-election, and in Shropshire UKIP’s Derek Armstrong took three quarters of the vote in a two horse race in the Broseley town council election in Shropshire. On the whole a good couple of days for UKIP – despite the best efforts of the BBC to skew the vote.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Digging into the BBC sand bunker even deeper is Ben Stephenson who is the controller of BBC drama commissioning. He has had the gall to say that the corporation, which lives off the back of its long suffering licence fee payers, who have no option but to pay this BBC tax, should encourage “peculiarly, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, Left-of-centre thinking”.
According to its royal charter the BBC should be unbiased and independent in all matters, its duty is to report but not persuade. Obviously to the upper echelons of the BBC the charter is all bollocks. (I don’t usually swear on this blog but this is a frustrating exception).
A prime example of BBC bias comes courtesy of the Norwich North by-election which is currently taking place. Literally weeks ago public opinion came out against the EU, or so the electorate thought when it gave the highest vote to the Conservative Party (which has given a false impression it is anti-EU), the UK Independence Party (which is genuinely anti-EU) and other parties which also express doubts about the EU. The Labour and Lib Dims did badly.
So, here we are, our new MEPs have hardly had time to find their way around the European Parliament, the Euro election dust has still not settled, and what is the BBC doing in Norwich North? Pushing the pro-EU Green Party which only managed to get one MEP elected compared to the Conservative’s and UKIP’s 13 each. If that’s not bias I’m the six o’clock news.
Naturally, the chaps and chapesses from the BBC, all of whom would have found their jobs in the pages of the left leaning Guardian newspaper, are having great problems with the Norwich by-election. They know that Labour is in for a real hammering and there is little they can do about it, they obviously don’t want either of the top performing Euro election parties, the Tories and UKIP to do well, so the next best thing for them is to come out with all guns blazing for the Green Party instead, despite the fact the public at large only give that party scant support.
In fact the BBC has been so biased in this election UKIP, despite the mass of support given to it in recent weeks, has hardly got a mention in all the BBC reports. If the BBC were to lean any further to the left it would be horizontal!
Monday, 20 July 2009
Normally I am quite a placid and easy going sort of chap, I would much prefer to be sitting in a pub enjoying a pint of real ale and convivial company than pounding the streets delivering leaflets and pestering people on their dorsteps, but I do this because, like many others, if we don’t injustice will be allowed to prevail.
Every time I see or read about injustice I get frustrated and angry, and yesterday (Sunday 19th July 2009) my blood began to boil when I read the front page of the Mail on Sunday: “5m motorists to lose crime victim payout’.
This is yet another, of far too many penny pinching and spurious ideas, to be launched by this nasty little defunct Government we are blighted with in this once fine land of ours today.
The idea is that anyone who has been caught speeding or committing a motoring offence could find that if they become victims of crime any compensation due them will be cut. So, if you are a woman driving along and fail to notice a little visible speed sign and get flashed by one of the proliferation of oppressive speed entrapment cameras and pick up a sixty pound find and three points on your driving licence, then shortly after become the victim of a serious rape attack, you will be delighted to know that your lapse will ensure that your expected victim compensation payment of £11,000 will be cut by £1,650. In effect the Government will be fining you £1,710 for a piddling little offence and bugger the trauma you may be going through. The injustice the Government plans to torment you with should you be gang raped is even worse as the compensation is higher the compensation due will be cut even more by £2,025.
The same applies across a whole array of victim compensation payouts, if you are brain damaged in an attack you can expect your 5 mph over the limit to cost you £26,250 at best and £37,000 at worst. Is your anger at the sheer nastiness of this Government rising yet? I know mine is.
The bit that really gets my ire is that as generally law abiding motorists we are targeted by a vast array of specialist equipment, at enormous cost, to catch any of us committing minor offences – which all will own up to and pay our fines without quibble. However, those who commit violence and criminal acts against us stand little chance of being caught, and if they are they will generally be treated leniently and their rights protected whilst we suffer the injuries these real criminals inflict upon us yet are victimised for minor offences for which we have paid our dues to society fully.
When it comes to this Government injustice is hardly the word, they are a bunch of political deviants who are now acting criminally against the electorate.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Kids sitting at their desks at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, be they scruffy little urchins from the back street slums of what we now call our ‘inner cities, or from village and town schools, would have looked at the maps of the world on their classroom walls and seen that a great swathe of the planet was marked in red to denote the British Empire. No matter how lowly, or how grand their backgrounds, they must have had a certain pride in the power and influence of their country. It was most probably for that reason so many of them went willingly to war in 1914 and again in 1939 to stand up for, and keep, our place as a power in the world.
Britain, in those distant times of around a century ago was a fully united Kingdom, our heavy industries from Scotland, the Midlands and in the south thrived, we were a centre for exploration and innovation and our towns and cities were flushed with municipal pride. We all know those days were hard and short lived for many, but it must have been a fantastic time to be alive too for those who cared about this country – and it was all done, and run, by a handful of civil servants and politicians.
What of today’s Britain where our global influence has diminished, our Empire is nothing more than a distant memory and a bit of red ink on some ancient fading map? Most of our heavy industry has gone, we produce a fraction of what we did in those days, we import our cars, our trains and our ships are made on foreign dockyards. Although still a member of the Commonwealth, sadly we were forced to betray those real friends when we joined the Common Market. These days most people work in none productive jobs in offices, shops, stores and supermarkets, our only remaining real wealth creators are in the financial sectors and even they are under threat from a doubly whammy of the banking crisis and proposed EU financial regulations. What a sad state our beleaguered nation has become.
Yet despite this plummeting in fortunes, despite the fact we don’t even govern ourselves any more due to the actions of various treasonous British Governments giving our sovereign power away to the EU, we have one growth industry – the political industry which churns out mass produced legislation on an industrial scale.
As stated our Empire was run efficiently and profitably with a handful of civil servants, our elected political classes were fewer, many in town halls across the land did their bit unpaid, yet in today’s run-down Britain we now have 29,000 politicians and staff, at a cost of half a billion pounds – for what? These scary figures have been calculated by the Taxpayers Alliance who reported that this growth has taken place over the last thirty years when the numbers were a close to a tenth at just 3000.
We have council officers and staff on eye watering and extravagant salaries, MEPs who have none or little power whose only real role is to give the EU a façade of democracy. They vote through so much legislation they can’t keep track, or pace, with what they are voting for. We have neutered MPs who live in a dream in the wonderful setting of the Palace of Westminster, whose power and influence has been stripped from them whilst they and our Government Ministers still consider themselves of great importance, yet are powerless to run the country without contravening EU rules and bureaucracy. There are pointless politicians spouting little but hot air in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, along with their own political entourages. Even our councillors these days are paid. There was a time only a few years ago councillors did their service for the community unpaid and had great pride in the work they did for their towns and cities. Now they are paid and want to be on their council cabinets to give them an air of great importance, despite having to wade through vast swathes of local bureaucracy whilst at the same time doing less then those unpaid souls who served before them.
This country is now facing a great and devastating plague, a plague of politicians who soak our money and inflict a mass of bureaucracy upon us and blight our lives with unnecessary laws. To deal with this plague we first have to inoculate ourselves from its source – the EU. Once we are free of it we can then begin to rebuild and cull the political classes who are nothing but a hindrance to our well being as a nation. We will never see our world maps in our schools covered in red ink again, but we can, at least, see them without the EU blue flags of occupation and its noose of gold stars.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Under normal circumstances currencies come about after the formation of a single nation, not when a number of diverse and disparate nations decide to commit fiscal suicide and create a single currency for all.
Writing in the Telegraph on Monday 13th July 2009, Mr Evans-Pritchard predicts: “Without a radical change of strategy, the ECB risks pushing the weakest states into a debt-compound spiral that can only end in bond crises and/or the disintegration of Europe's monetary union – whichever comes first.”
He points out the warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which is predicting the eurozone to contract by 4.8 per cent this year. This, he warns, could result in deep damage next year as “Europe remains mired in slump even as the world recovers.”
It seems that Spanish public debt could rise from 36 per cent in 2007 to 90 per cent of GDP by 2011. He warns that “anything above 100 per cent is courting fate” He goes on to report that even German finances are falling apart.
Despite the economic problems being global Ambrose Evans-Pritchard warned that the ECB is “compounding the effect” by not joining the other nations such as the USA, Japan, the UK, Switzerland and Canada in quantitative easing. He also mentions Tim Congdon’s warnings that the eurozone money figures are “horrifying” and that the “senior people in the ECB (and the Fed) have little organised understanding of debt-deflationary processes initiated in late 2008.”
He concludes that Britain’s problems have been created by the Government which the people will soon be able to sack, but asks: “How can Europe’s voters sack the ECB?” Sadly they can’t unless they can convince their governments that the whole EU project is a bad idea and leave. Sadly, all of Europe’s politicians, including our own, listen to each other rather than those who elect them.
Monday, 13 July 2009
Quentin Letts writing in the Daily Mail reported on a question posed in the House of Lords by the UK Independence Party Peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The UKIP Peer put down a Parliamentary question asking the Government if ‘the Security Service has been or is active inside or towards the United Kingdom Independence Party or any of its members’. Quentin Letts said the question asked was: “Were the spooks or police collaborating with European Investigators in relation to UKIP?”
Astonishingly, rather than an outright denial, or a confirmation, all that came back from Lord West who is a Home Office Minister was, ‘no comment’.
He then said that MI5 is prohibited from ‘doing anything in furtherance of the interests of a political party’. As Quentin Letts pointed out, it was “not quite an answer to Lord Pearson’s question”.
Mr Letts theory is: “The Government states that European Union membership is in the national interest, UKIP disagrees. Might not MI5, applying logic, therefore say it should put a tail on UKIP’s wilder elements?” Considering that a large number of UKIP members are of more mature years and the members of ‘Young Independence’, which is the under thirties sector of the party are mostly young people either studying or have degrees, it takes some imagination to consider that UKIP has any wilder elements – unless this UKIP supporting blog is considered wild?
This leaves the question, are those of us who are generally interested in protecting British interests, being monitored by MI5 which in turn is acting on behalf of those in Government who are acting against our interests by surrendering our sovereignty because in reality they are protecting their own interests
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Thursday, 9 July 2009
After all the hype of how well they were going to do their vote was just not there, not even in many of their strongholds such as Stoke-on-Trent where UKIP achieved the highest vote overall. Despite the jubilation amongst their members that they managed to get their first two MEPs elected, in fact the election was really a disappointment for them.
Now they have had another disappointment in the European Parliament as well. To have access to funding and for their MEPs to get on the various committees, they have to be part of a multi-nation grouping with a minimum of 25 MEPs. It has been reported that they can’t form a group and no other grouping will accept them, which means they will now have to sit in the “unattached” group in the European Parliament.
Because of this they will not be able to be on any committees, they will not have access to additional EP funds of up to £1 million a year, nor will they be allowed to have a party office or administrative staff. All they will get is their basic allowances and travel costs.
It seems they tried to negotiate with others who are normally considered to be of like minds in the Parliament, such as the French National Front, the Belgian Vlaams Belang, Hungary’s Jobbik party and Ataka from Bulgaria, but irony of ironies – and I love this bit – these other parties were worried that the BNP’s reputation would lead to isolation. BNP are definitely not on the bloc.
1 July 2009 : Column 218Question
Asked By Lord Howell of Guildford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of the Republic of Ireland on a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Minister for Europe (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, the June European Council discussed and agreed the guarantees that the Irish Government wanted in order to address the concerns of the Irish people about the Lisbon treaty. The European Council conclusions say that the decision,
“gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon”.
Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Again, I greet her and warmly welcome her to her role as Minister for Europe after her excellent maiden speech last night. I should like to ask her about the guarantees. She says that they are legal, but in fact they have no legal force at the moment. They would have to be incorporated into some future treaty if they are not to be incorporated into the Lisbon treaty. Can she explain how that process is going to work? Which treaty will they be put into and when will this occur? That information would help us a great deal.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her new role and ask her a simple question. Does she agree that the role of the United Kingdom in relation to an Irish second referendum is to keep its nose right out of it and let the Irish people make their decision?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful question and of course I can only agree. The point is that we have not pushed or pressed or bullied the Irish into this referendum, as some have suggested. They decided that it was a process that they wished to go through. They consulted and are consulting and, as I said, a referendum is to be held in October.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, of course Parliament will have the opportunity to debate all the issues and the guarantees that I mentioned earlier. There is nothing in the guarantees that was not debated and discussed by Parliament. The guarantees that we have on taxation, on the rights of defence, in particular, and on the right to life were the key concerns and were discussed by Parliament and by others who have ratified the treaty.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, I endorse the warm welcome for the Minister in this, her first Question Time, and wish her well for the future. Is not this absolutely and totally a matter for the Irish people, unlike last time when there was huge outside interference from British and other Eurosceptics? Does she agree with me and an article in the Irish Times of 17 June that last time none of the consequences of rejecting the treaty was properly debated,
“but they have been dramatically brought home to voters since then ... there has been a substantial shift ... to the Yes side since last autumn”?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his important intervention. The European Union has listened carefully to the Irish people and has respected the position of the Governments and the parliaments of the countries that have ratified, too. That is an important point to make.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I give a warm croeso to my noble friend, who seems totally at home in your Lordships’ House already. Will she confirm that there was in no way some sinister manoeuvre on the part of the European Union, but that this was a specific request by a sovereign Government—the Government of the Republic of Ireland—to which the Council of Ministers responded positively?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We were giving the Irish Government what they wanted, which was to address the concerns that people had about the Lisbon treaty. It is another important step towards bringing the treaty into force.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new position and, indeed, commiserate with it, but will she tell your Lordships, and through your Lordships’ House the Irish people, what happens if there is not another accession treaty for Croatia, Iceland or any other country? What then is the position of what she calls the binding guarantees if they cannot be turned into protocols? Would she also be good enough to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who asked whether your Lordships’ House and the other place would be able not only to debate these binding arrangements and/or protocols, or whatever they come to be called, but to vote on them?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, it will remain as I said: the binding guarantees will be in place until such time as they are transferred and become part of the protocol. That is likely to be in the reasonably near future and the Irish are agreed that they are comfortable with it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from these Benches, too, our congratulations on her first appearance at Question Time? Does she not agree that it is slightly baffling that such a fuss is being made about this matter when—I think that I am right in saying this, but perhaps she will confirm it—the obligations that this House endorsed in the Lisbon treaty are not being changed by one iota? Also, as every one of the guarantees and clarifications given to the Irish are either neutral for us or beneficial to us by entrenching subsidiarity and by making it clear that the European Union does not have the right to alter company taxation, is it not a little odd that there is not more cheerfulness around?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord and thank him for his comments. What he says is true: there is nothing at all contained in the guarantees that we have not seen. As I understand it, noble Lords debated and discussed these issues for 25 days in Parliament, so they will be much more aware than I am of the detail that was gone into. I am surprised that some Members are not aware that everything in the guarantees has been agreed by the Parliament of this country.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, if and when the Irish people accept these new arrangements, does my noble friend agree that the logical advice for the Conservative Party to take, not to mention UKIP, is that often given by Denis Healey: when you are in a hole, stop digging?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Again, I can only reiterate that there are issues that have been resolved by the summit undertaken by the Council of Ministers, at which our own Prime Minister was present, and all these matters were discussed and resolved on the basis of ensuring that the Irish Government felt that the concerns of the people of that country could be addressed. Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to this House and congratulate her on her ministerial appointment. I never thought, when I first met her in 1970, that at any time I would be addressing her as “the noble Baroness the Minister”, but I am proud to be able to do so. To get back to the question—Noble Lords: Hear, hear! Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not have been better if the Commission and the Council had accepted the Irish no and renegotiated the Lisbon treaty so that the guarantees that are now being given to the Irish could have been given to all of us?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I did not expect to be addressing the noble Lord as a “noble Lord”, either. I reiterate that no one in the other member states of the European Union undertook any bullying or cajoling of the Irish on this matter. It was decided that it was in the interests of Ireland to try to pursue the concerns that the Irish have about their position in the EU and that is exactly what they have done. Other member states have facilitated that in whichever way they can, but again I say that it is the business of the Irish; it is their concern, not that of anyone here. I am certainly not saying that it is our business to tell them what they think is good for them.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
On the front of the business pages of today’s Daily Telegraph (8th July 2009) is a headline which screams out: “EU reforms to take away UK voting powers”. This article written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard relates to the EU’s meddling in the way it is “considering a voting structure for its new apparatus of financial regulation that would make it almost impossible for Britain to block measures, even if they pose a major threat to the City of London.” As Amrose points out.
He reports that the EU has set up three supra-national bodies with full-time staff to oversee banking, insurance and securities. The powers the EU will invest in them will be binding and will thus limit the UK’s own Financial Services Authority to simple “day-to-day” management.
The normal way things are usually done is by qualified majority voting (QMV) which gives each EU member country a weighting dependent on size, but according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard the EU is “mulling a simple majority system, making it harder for the UK to mount a "blocking minority" with like-minded allies.” This would give the small nations equal voting rights as the larger nations such as Britain, France or Germany.
In the same edition Damian Reece commented on this and said that the “EU dog will not only bark but will take a bite out of the City”.
The City of London as a major trading centre has been under threat from various EU measures for a long time. It has been pointed out that if the square mile was a country in its own right it would rank quite highly, anything that threatens it as a trading centre threatens the whole wealth of the UK and the well being of every British subject. The irony is, out of the 27 EU member nations, only three of those nations are net contributors. They are Germany, Britain and Holland – if the EU through its insane addiction to bureaucracy and regulation destroys the City of London it in turn will impoverish the UK. That in turn will reverse Britain’s position of a net contributor to a dependent nation status. This is like cooking and eating the goose that lays the golden eggs. But who has ever considered the EU, its acolytes and drive it forward to show sanity or any form of rationality.
Like all parasites it will destroy its host and when that happens it destroys itself. As long as we stay in the EU, I the words of Private Fraser in ‘Dad’s Army’: “We’re doomed, all doomed.”
Monday, 6 July 2009
In a two page letter to Ban Ki-Moon one section of the letter pointed out: “Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written and clear so that all involved can understand the true meaning of them for these are meant to be long lasting and binding, therefore great trouble should be taken in the drawing up of the Treaties-the previous now abandoned EU Constitution took longer than two years. All should understand fully in complete truthfulness and in complete understanding so that in the ratification and the people that they apply to can understand them fully.”
Many people in this country see the abandonment of our sovereignty and the handing over of governance to the EU to be illegal as it is treason – which there can be no denial. The trouble is trying to get any authority to take this seriously as those who hold the power to do so are the ones committing the crime of treason – it’s like asking a thieving policeman to arrest himself.
However, if you read the above section of the Vienna Convention and apply it to the Lisbon Treaty which was deliberately drawn up so that no one can understand it, the EU has actually committed a crime under international law as laid down by the UN.
It seems that Ban Ki-Moon nor anyone else from the UN bothered to responded to my friend, the letter writer, but what if Bank Ki-Moon found a sudden flood of letters quoting the above passage? would the UN be obliged to take the EU to task over the confusing wording of the Lisbon Treaty?
Just in case you are inspired to do a bit of letter writing, here is his address: His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General, United Nations, New York, USA.
Friday, 3 July 2009
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Being in Wales, as I often have to be to see my mother and do a few jobs for her, I have become aware of how there are now one set of rules for us English and another for the Welsh since devolution – it’s the same too for the Scottish. A typical example was this simple visit to the hospital, something that gets more frequent as your parents age. A couple of weeks ago we had to get Fred, my father-in-law to his nearest hospital one Sunday morning after a bit of a scare. Fortunately he was ok, but after several hours parking at the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield my fiscal resources looked less healthy than that of Fred after paying my parking bill. Not so at Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital in Bangor – parking there is free as it is in all hospitals in Wales – free prescriptions too.
These little injustices, such as special privileges for those living in some parts of the British Isles, whilst others such as the English are discriminated against yet still expected to foot the bill for the special concessions in Scotland and Wales, set me thinking even more about injustice after reading a news item in the Daily Mail on the 27th June 2009.
This injustice, as do so many these days, comes courtesy of the EU, as the Daily Mail reported. It would seem our superior masters in the European Union want to force our British judges to, as the DM put it, “bow to Sharia law”. This would be for some divorce cases heard in Britain including family disputes such as the dispensing of wills. Sharia law always discriminates against female members of the family, rather than sharing equally between any brothers women beneficiaries are awarded less whilst brothers are treated equally. Under British law this would not happen – all would be treated as equals.
However, the EU in its wisdom, wants those facing family courts to be able to request the court to hear the case using the law of whichever country the couple have the closest links to. Courts would be forced to adopt the legal systems of all twenty seven member nations and even further afield, such as Sharia law.
To my mind this is sheer madness, I was always raised to accept there was one law of this land meted out equally to all who faced it no mater who you are, where you are from or what your religious views were. That, to me, was clear, simple and fair. These days fairness no longer matters. As the debate about the rights, or not to wear burqa’s rage, which is an insignificant argument as anyone should have the freedom to dress as they please as long as they are not bullied into it, the whole framework of our once blind justice is being dismantled whilst few seem to notice. The daft thing is, should the burqua debate end in court – what system of law will ponder the issue and will justice be given impartially? There should be one law for all which treats us equally – that law should be our common British law whoever you are as long as you live in Britain.