There is, or was, a system of law in this land that had been honed and improved over the centuries, much of it based on Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights – it is known as Habeas Corpus.
The way the system worked was that all men and women are born free and as such are entitled to go about their daily lives without interference from the state. To ensure the quality of life and that one persons freedom does not impinge on another’s, laws were made to restrict certain activities that would cause harm or distress to others.
On this basis some laws are obvious, it is wrong to take the life of another or to steal from them. Over the years those who make the laws have generally done so with a great deal of consideration as to why those laws are required.
The way the system operated was that if a law was broken it was reported to the police or a magistrate, who in turn would investigate and seek out the person or persons who they suspected had committed the criminal act. Once caught the suspect was neither assumed to be either guilty or innocent and as such had rights in law (not Human Rights but Common Law rights).
The police officers were allowed to hold and interview the suspect for up to 48 hours and the suspect had the right to remain silent and also request a legal representative. If the police deemed they had enough evidence against the suspect then that person would be charged, if not charged by the end of the 48 hours then the suspect had the legal right to be released from custody. All this is simple and logical.
The next stage for the person who had been charged was to be presented to a court, the charges read out and the suspect asked if they pleaded guilty or not guilty to the charges made against them. If the person pleaded guilty then the courts would sentence them accordingly, but for those pleading not guilty, and dependent on the seriousness of the crime, they could then face a Magistrates Court or a High Court, everyone was entitled to be tried by jury if they so requested.
The defendant in a trial also had other rights, if found innocent by a court they were protected by Double Jeopardy from being charged and tried again for the same crime. If that person had been found guilty of a past crime, or crimes, the court was not allowed to mention it and the jury not allowed to know – this prevented the defendant from being pre-judged.
This then is a basic and simplified explanation of the legal system of which there are three parts. The police have a duty to investigate crimes and catch and charge the person suspected of the crime. They are not there to judge a person’s guilt but gather evidence as to why they suspect the defendant of the crime and present that evidence to the court.
In turn the court, which remains balanced and unbiased, have a duty to dissect the evidence and decide the guilt, or otherwise, of the defendant. Upon a verdict of guilt the court would then pass sentence based on that prescribed by law.
Those who made the laws have no powers over the way the police investigate crimes other than to ensure the police have workable laws to operate under, nor can they interfere with the courts or the judiciary. If the laws they or their predecessors made were deemed bad or unworkable laws it was their duty to either amend or repeal those laws – these are the three separate parts of the legal process which worked well until the EU turned up.
If those making laws make a hash of it and begin to produce bad or confusing laws, then sadly the whole system begins to fall into disrepute and loses the trust and respect of the law from the people.
The police then have to enforce unworkable laws which make them look bad, the courts have to try people for offences that seem either trivial or grossly unfair which then turns the judiciary into a laughing stock and those who make the laws are treated with utter contempt whilst the law of the land loses the respect of the people. Sadly, as the EU now makes 75% of our laws, few of which make sense and all of which override British law, our whole legal system is becoming a mockery.
Ever since Tony Blair and his Home Secretary, Jack Straw, signed the Treaty of Nice the whole British legal system has gone into a sad state of decline. People can now be arrested and presumed guilty for some alleged crimes, Double Jeopardy has been scrapped and the police and the courts can constantly hound a person they believe is guilty by constantly returning them to court until they get the result they want. And, worst of all, no British person is protected from arrest from other foreign courts based in the European Union thanks, once again, the unjust Treaty of Nice.
A court anywhere in the EU can demand the arrest of anyone in the UK by using the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Unlike the days when those elected to Parliament saw it as their duty to protect the interests of those who elect them, no person on British soil has any protection against the EAW even though the evidence provided may be flimsy or purely circumstantial. Once an EAW has been issued then the British police operating bad EU law have to arrest that person. When they face the courts they have no protection there either as it is the duty of the court to honour the EAW even though the court knows the charges are a travesty obliging the courts to carry out bad EU law too. The police and courts are made to look useless and foolish because those whose duty it is to make good laws in our once sovereign Parliament have abandoned their responsibility by giving away the powers loaned to them by the people to a foreign power who have no democratic mandate from the electorate. They have been abandoned as the courts and police have too.
After this lengthy preamble we now come to the curious case of Julian Assange, who is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. As everyone knows he became a target of hate from various national authorities for exposing secrets, the bile against him, especially in the USA, is pretty savage. There is a great deal of speculation that the Americans want to get hold of him and lock him up in one of their brutal ‘correctional institutions’ and throw away the key.
The factors in this case are the accusations made against him in Sweden by two ladies who claim that the sexual encounters they had with him became molestation. The BBC has given a timeline on the case which is better read from bottom to top.
When you add into the mix the EAW and the fact that Julian Assange never really had any protection from the British courts, which just went through the process of giving a false impression they could stop the EAW against him, the fact that Sweden have allowed extraordinary rendition and sent people off to face the US Intelligence Agencies without the courtesy of any legal niceties, and ask the question how sound are the allegations of sexual molestation against him and why the Government of Ecuador wants to give him asylum, it all gets a bit murky.
What an odd story this is, when I first wrote my silly Euro Soap story in 1997/98 I included in the plot a part about one of the characters claiming asylum at an American embassy to escape the EU, and in a strange way a bit more of the fiction I wrote has come true.
Why is the British Government so keen to get Julian Assange and even, by the looks of it, considered wrecking protocols on diplomatic rights? If the Government and our Members of Parliament, who should be the law makers of this land, took a look out of their gilded windows they would see a number of British protesters outside the Ecuadorian embassy not supporting the law of the land by complaining that Julian Assange should be handed over to the British authorities, but instead in support of Mr Assange and the Ecuadorians against their own legislature and laws.
This then is where EU membership has reduced us too. Parliament, our courts and our police have lost the respect of the people – all because arrogant people do not listen to them and have abandoned them. Through no fault of the police and the courts they have none the less been diminished in the eyes of the people to lackeys of an unjust state. The real guilty men, and women, are those in Parliament and Government who over the years have abandoned their duties, responsibilities and their country.
The way the system worked was that all men and women are born free and as such are entitled to go about their daily lives without interference from the state. To ensure the quality of life and that one persons freedom does not impinge on another’s, laws were made to restrict certain activities that would cause harm or distress to others.
On this basis some laws are obvious, it is wrong to take the life of another or to steal from them. Over the years those who make the laws have generally done so with a great deal of consideration as to why those laws are required.
The way the system operated was that if a law was broken it was reported to the police or a magistrate, who in turn would investigate and seek out the person or persons who they suspected had committed the criminal act. Once caught the suspect was neither assumed to be either guilty or innocent and as such had rights in law (not Human Rights but Common Law rights).
The police officers were allowed to hold and interview the suspect for up to 48 hours and the suspect had the right to remain silent and also request a legal representative. If the police deemed they had enough evidence against the suspect then that person would be charged, if not charged by the end of the 48 hours then the suspect had the legal right to be released from custody. All this is simple and logical.
The next stage for the person who had been charged was to be presented to a court, the charges read out and the suspect asked if they pleaded guilty or not guilty to the charges made against them. If the person pleaded guilty then the courts would sentence them accordingly, but for those pleading not guilty, and dependent on the seriousness of the crime, they could then face a Magistrates Court or a High Court, everyone was entitled to be tried by jury if they so requested.
The defendant in a trial also had other rights, if found innocent by a court they were protected by Double Jeopardy from being charged and tried again for the same crime. If that person had been found guilty of a past crime, or crimes, the court was not allowed to mention it and the jury not allowed to know – this prevented the defendant from being pre-judged.
This then is a basic and simplified explanation of the legal system of which there are three parts. The police have a duty to investigate crimes and catch and charge the person suspected of the crime. They are not there to judge a person’s guilt but gather evidence as to why they suspect the defendant of the crime and present that evidence to the court.
In turn the court, which remains balanced and unbiased, have a duty to dissect the evidence and decide the guilt, or otherwise, of the defendant. Upon a verdict of guilt the court would then pass sentence based on that prescribed by law.
Those who made the laws have no powers over the way the police investigate crimes other than to ensure the police have workable laws to operate under, nor can they interfere with the courts or the judiciary. If the laws they or their predecessors made were deemed bad or unworkable laws it was their duty to either amend or repeal those laws – these are the three separate parts of the legal process which worked well until the EU turned up.
If those making laws make a hash of it and begin to produce bad or confusing laws, then sadly the whole system begins to fall into disrepute and loses the trust and respect of the law from the people.
The police then have to enforce unworkable laws which make them look bad, the courts have to try people for offences that seem either trivial or grossly unfair which then turns the judiciary into a laughing stock and those who make the laws are treated with utter contempt whilst the law of the land loses the respect of the people. Sadly, as the EU now makes 75% of our laws, few of which make sense and all of which override British law, our whole legal system is becoming a mockery.
Ever since Tony Blair and his Home Secretary, Jack Straw, signed the Treaty of Nice the whole British legal system has gone into a sad state of decline. People can now be arrested and presumed guilty for some alleged crimes, Double Jeopardy has been scrapped and the police and the courts can constantly hound a person they believe is guilty by constantly returning them to court until they get the result they want. And, worst of all, no British person is protected from arrest from other foreign courts based in the European Union thanks, once again, the unjust Treaty of Nice.
A court anywhere in the EU can demand the arrest of anyone in the UK by using the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Unlike the days when those elected to Parliament saw it as their duty to protect the interests of those who elect them, no person on British soil has any protection against the EAW even though the evidence provided may be flimsy or purely circumstantial. Once an EAW has been issued then the British police operating bad EU law have to arrest that person. When they face the courts they have no protection there either as it is the duty of the court to honour the EAW even though the court knows the charges are a travesty obliging the courts to carry out bad EU law too. The police and courts are made to look useless and foolish because those whose duty it is to make good laws in our once sovereign Parliament have abandoned their responsibility by giving away the powers loaned to them by the people to a foreign power who have no democratic mandate from the electorate. They have been abandoned as the courts and police have too.
After this lengthy preamble we now come to the curious case of Julian Assange, who is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy. As everyone knows he became a target of hate from various national authorities for exposing secrets, the bile against him, especially in the USA, is pretty savage. There is a great deal of speculation that the Americans want to get hold of him and lock him up in one of their brutal ‘correctional institutions’ and throw away the key.
The factors in this case are the accusations made against him in Sweden by two ladies who claim that the sexual encounters they had with him became molestation. The BBC has given a timeline on the case which is better read from bottom to top.
When you add into the mix the EAW and the fact that Julian Assange never really had any protection from the British courts, which just went through the process of giving a false impression they could stop the EAW against him, the fact that Sweden have allowed extraordinary rendition and sent people off to face the US Intelligence Agencies without the courtesy of any legal niceties, and ask the question how sound are the allegations of sexual molestation against him and why the Government of Ecuador wants to give him asylum, it all gets a bit murky.
What an odd story this is, when I first wrote my silly Euro Soap story in 1997/98 I included in the plot a part about one of the characters claiming asylum at an American embassy to escape the EU, and in a strange way a bit more of the fiction I wrote has come true.
Why is the British Government so keen to get Julian Assange and even, by the looks of it, considered wrecking protocols on diplomatic rights? If the Government and our Members of Parliament, who should be the law makers of this land, took a look out of their gilded windows they would see a number of British protesters outside the Ecuadorian embassy not supporting the law of the land by complaining that Julian Assange should be handed over to the British authorities, but instead in support of Mr Assange and the Ecuadorians against their own legislature and laws.
This then is where EU membership has reduced us too. Parliament, our courts and our police have lost the respect of the people – all because arrogant people do not listen to them and have abandoned them. Through no fault of the police and the courts they have none the less been diminished in the eyes of the people to lackeys of an unjust state. The real guilty men, and women, are those in Parliament and Government who over the years have abandoned their duties, responsibilities and their country.
1 comment:
This is yet another fight we have to put all our energy to, for Habeas Corpus is one of the great parts of our long standing Constitution and for any British Subject's protection in a British Court of Law.
It seems that Mr Clark wants to get rid of it. But this is one Ancient Act that must be protected by many, many British people, that is if they wish to remain "innocent until proven Guilty” and especially to have a true and fair trial. To ensure a trial is not held in secret. This is one major Act that our Sovereign would well be entitled to refuse Her Royal Assent to, in fact any Bill attacking Habeas Corpus. My letters will be going out this next week and especially to our Monarch.
Post a Comment