The hinges of Brexit

There are several dimensions to this

  • Political independence
  • Commercial autonomy
  • Environmental concerns

Historically there were during

  • the 1600 – 95% of war between European nations
  • the 1700 – 75% of war …..
  • the 1800 – 45 % of war
  • 2000 – 0% conflict so far

Considering that the UK government pledged to cut Greenhouse gas emmission to zero by 2050, it seems illogical to leave the EU now.

Leaving the EU and having trade deals with further away countries, would mean considerably more transport of goods, more travel.

The UK is a water logged country and relies on either planes or boats for travel. There is only one land (under-water, tunnel) form of transport that doesn’t rely on flying or boats and that is via the Euro tunnel.

With increasing weather instability, transport by container ships will be endangered. There will also be a reduction of flights because it is very unlikely that the air travel industry will come up with a distinct change in airplane design that is more environmentally friendly.

Yet Britain relies for a large part on air travel. There are now calls to stop inland air travel but the train fares are too expensive to make that affordable.

Whilst I do not suggest that we should have to put up with any political system in Europe, just to get our trade, we need to seriously consider the implication of a break from Europe from the points of environmental change.


Flooding predictions for London for around 2080

What voters deserve is a clear planning procedure to include the worsening weather conditions, the increased demands on immigration because unstable political systems in Asian and African countries as well as increased flooding of large areas will decrease landmass available for people in those countries and they all will attempt to emigrate to saver regions.

Whilst our own coastlines suffer from erosion and raising sea levels will eventually encroach on our land.

A strong European council will be an assurance that political systems in European countries will not break down and revert to undemocratic methods.

Leaving Europe now without a deal makes us very vulnerable as we will be more dependant on trade deals with distant nations, when the transport of goods may be disturbed by worsening weather.

Being an influencer in Europe and remain as such will do us more favour than just leaving without a deal.

Whilst large swathes of English land owners want to break off from Europe because they have got the land to support themselves, the rest of us including London, Wales and Scotland feel very uneasy.

Of course theoretically the UK could manage on its own but the right-wing nationalists have a strong history of violent racism and that is what makes it an impossible thought to even embrace. The Jo Cox murder proved what right-wing terrorists are capable of.

I would say that the threat of war from an unstable future Europe together with worsening weather conditions would definitely threaten the future of our civilisation. Our armies would be severely hampered by the weather and our domestic situation would become severely unstable too. Further away allies may not be able to reach. Even D-Day had to be delayed because of bad weather and weather is going to be much worse. So we have to be very sensible and build alliances whilst it is possible to do so and prevent a shift to the right and into facism.

For these reasons I sincerly hope that a new Conservative Prime minister will be stopped from suspending parliament to push through a no deal Brexit.


The dialectic of law and politics

I suppose I have to read up on that because the latest development in the Home Office makes me cringe with desire to learn about the subjects. Theresa May wants judges not to interfere with decisions made in parliament.

The lady makes a very good trilogy of thought stating that: “It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual’s right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals,” she said.

There I would say ad hoc that a society should want to protect itself against any type of criminal and that it may be sensible to not let foreign criminals in when we already have local ones.

Yet laws are there as an overriding objective so to speak, that forces parliaments to couch legislation within the laws already present. Thought it must be very difficult to stream politics in a variation direction from existing laws.

Having looked at the budget proposals of the EU it seems that the smallest proportion of money has actually been put aside for the legal process, which probably explains why the European Court of Human Rights refuses 85% of applications on grounds of admissibility. Only the most prominent cases get heard generally. The question is whether there is even the capacity in the courts to rule on all legal questions effectively. The current Human Rights laws are determined by EU laws but the current budget shows that out of 960 Billion Euros, only about 9 billion go to court expenses. See page 6 of this document for individual breakdown till 2020.

I think the European Court would be more effective if they tried more individual cases to give better guidance to countries in how they apply laws in their regions. Yet UK courts have a duty to refer cases to the ECHR if they are not sure how to apply legislation and that is why an Appellant can then appeal decisions instead of making  comments in the political arena.


Religious faith ruling due today at the EU court

People here in Britain were sacked from their jobs after refusing to carry out acts, required by their employers, that would restrict the employees religious freedom. The BBC reports that a variety of cases are heard together and that signals that the EU wants to make a landmark ruling to silence the issue altogether.

I find it strange that some people are not allowed to wear Christian crosses but others are allowed to wear Muslim veils. Expression of religion with external items on the body can take many shapes and forms including jewellery, items of clothing or hairstyles. For examples many Muslims wear beards and are allowed to do so even as police officers but a Christian should not be allowed to wear a cross. That seems discrimination to me.

I reckon if the court rules against the Crosses that then could give employers the right to strip Muslims of their rights to wear head scarves I reckon.

My prediction is that the court is going to go secular and will rule that religious freedom is a private matter and cannot be carried over to jobs. Currently Muslims for example, who work in supermarkets are required to handle pork, though it is against their religion to do so.

However there is a difference in quality of argument because if it comes to deeper matters like human relations the severity of impact on a person of faith is much bigger than with relatively trivial externally worn items.

We have seen mass demonstrations in France against gay marriage for example.

As far as early reports from press across the spectrum report only Eweida won her case in respect of the ability of wearing a Christian symbol of a cross. Here is a press release from the EU court. Chamber judgment Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom 15.01.2013.

The other 3 defendants lost their cases because they refused to carry out work that goes against their religious belief. In particular the sex therapy judgement against Gary McFarlane shoes the dilemma we are in. The question is, how can a heterosexual man who does not like, knows nothing about and does not want to support gay relationships, supposed to give counselling about physical pleasures? At least you got to know your subject.

Be honest, if you are gay, do you seriously want to get sex therapy from a straight person who does not know anything about your practises?

But that judgement shows that judges do not care about service delivery but only that everyone has to deliver a service, without being able to do it with compassion. That is what’s wrong with the world today.

This just proves that we are no longer able to choose jobs we like doing and want to do, we have to do jobs that are available and do everything that is expected of us.  How does that allow us to be free?

One of the most heard complaints about service in general is that customers think that customer services assistants are unfriendly, insufficient, do not know the product service. The judgement given by the EU court today, supports the notion that anybody has to do any job, whether they would do it well or not. People are humans, they are not robots, they have feelings, and feelings are something the law does not accept exist.

Don’t do to others ….

Unfortunately I have to use this very sad occasion, where an enemy of this state might get positively discriminated against by another, higher force, to show that this very old saying still is true and always will be true and it goes: “You should not do to others what you don’t want done to yourself” or another commonly understood one is “What goes around comes around”. I cannot even feel Schadenfreude or glee that this happened to the government because I am not on the side of the bad guy.

But in this instance the government fell victim to the very same rule that was used against me in my own cases before the High Court in that procedural rules are allowed to be broken if the court favours a particular legal outcome.

In my own case against Der Spiegel, dates were obviously falsified, appeals made on the wrong forms, but still the court allowed it all to help the defendant,  win the case. In other cases all types of evidence was allowed against me that by established case law would be forbidden normally.

There we have it if there is a desired legal outcome then courts can break all rules they want because they are the highest authority and what the highest judge says that is the law.

It is particularly upsetting that the UK has to learn that point in the case against Abu Qatada, who is an enemy of the state. It remains to be seen why the EU wants to protect him so much, what does he do for them?

One can now ask the question is there any justice at all if outcomes can be set from the start to reach a desired goal and ignoring all rules along the way to get it.

Looking at the principle of this, our whole education system is set up to teach children to be fast and accurate and correct, but in the legal world, fast and accurate method is not required,all that is required is acting for the pre-determined, winning side and all other principles are forgotten. Is that corrupt or is it freedom?

Corner shops become angels of death

The new rule that forces any shop with a size larger than 280 sq m to hide tobacco products but allows smaller shops to advertise them till 2015 makes small shops, the ideal distributors of deadly materials. What a thing to do, be able to sell items that knowingly ruin people’s health. I would rather give up my shop then just sell stuff that I know ruins people’s health. Such small shops are also often known for selling alcohol to under age youth or allowing adults to purchase it for them, when they are asked to do so.

Incidentally in my area, I tried to get hot cross buns yesterday, which is a particularly Christian food item, and both do not sell them. So there is little reason for me to use my local corner shop because all super markets sell hot cross buns. My local shops are situated next to a Christian church and that should give them a reason to sell the buns but no, those shops are run by non Christians and so they do not sell Christian food. Is it the new type of underhand racism to fade out Christian consumable items?

Just as we hear that also now a case has gone to the ECHR to allow people to wear openly Christian crosses on their clothing at work. Thinking that for a Muslim they do not even have to wear any attachments other than their clothing to show they are Muslims. For a Christian it is not so easy because their is no distinctly Christian clothing. So Muslims are already distinct in the expression of their faith by wearing distinctly Muslin clothing, which they are allowed to do but Christians should be barred from displaying their faith, especially at work.

Cardinal Keith O’Brian asks Christians to proudly wear crosses and that a lapel pin only costs £1. That is much cheaper than a whole Muslim clothing outfit in comparison. But please tell me where can I buy a lapel pin, I do not think they get sold in my church.

Assange is playing with words

Equally not very widely reported is the fact that Assange’s case is now before the supreme Court. The question to be discussed is whether a prosecutor needs to be equal to a judicial authority. Can a prosecutor issue an arrest warrant under the 2003 Extradition Act.

If Assange looses he will no doubt take his case to the European Court of Human Rights and all this to avoid an extradition to face charges of rape and sexual molestation.

Obviously there cannot be complete neutrality in any case as any authority wishing to accuse, question and intern somebody will have an interest in mind, which is to interrogate that person and assume that it is necessary to get that person in per force of warrant.

Obviously if the Swedish system has delegated the prosecutor to issue international arrest warrants, then this playing with words in the English court cannot achieve much change. I suppose if the Swedish authorities have that type of procedure then that is how it is done. Would they have any other procedure then somebody else would have issued that warrant no doubt for it to be valid.

I think that if Assange had any character he would just answer the questions of the Swedish authorities instead of trying to avoid being questioned. Obviously he would have a fair hearing and investigation in Sweden and does not face torture there.

I can’t quite follow the argument that Assange’s extradition request is politically motivated because if that stands, then all people who are involved in politics could bring the same excuse, they could say, I am not a criminal, I am a politician. Whilst such immunity is only available to diplomats, Assange, is well too far away from reality with his arguments.

Justice Eady, the truth is still waiting

I have now suffered several, in my view botched judgements that I had to endure simply because in civil law I am not entitled to legal representation. The case involves an originally British publisher, Der Spiegel and an employee of a Spiegel subsidiary, Lloyds List, which now bought into Der Spiegel. Mr Osler is extremely left-wing and supports all sorts of left-wing groups from Anarchists to Communists. He works in Lloyds list especially on the pirate issue, e.g. Somalis hijacking British ships. Of course several British women have become victims of Somali terrorist activity recently.

Justice Eady found for Der Spiegel, found for Mr Osler and found for all the other defendants involved in the UK left-wing Labour movement. They were spurred on by a member of the Conservative Party who volunteered, without being forced to in any way, to defend Mr Osler, whose defence then benefitted the other attached defendants. British law was so pleased with the performance of Mr Dougans that he became Assistant Solicitor of the Year, that is how the British reward those who work in the best interst of their country. Mr Hilton of course was supported by the big and rich Gay Support Network as he is an admitted and known Homosexual. But still all the Britishness and Gayness doesn’t allow a court to find wrongly on the evidence.

So, yes I am a German immigrant, now in possession of a British passport and I dared to attack the former Axel Springer empire over one of their publications. Of course one needs to know that Springer was implanted on Germany after World War II to dismantle the Hitler propaganda machine.

Why was I picked on by Springer? It is not known.  Tthe reason why I was arrested can be seen from these documents here, which are from the German Prosecutor from the 70s and 80s. There are 3 documents, all of which are translated. It is more than clear from the documents that I was arrested in line with an investigation against a Wilhelm Boenninger whom I do not know and who, according to my research, is never named in connection with any Baader-Meinhof activities anywhere on the net. There are a vast number of Internet pages, which list known BM or RAF associates. That name is not there, neither is mine. I never met a man called Wilhelm Boenninger and assume it is a case of mistaken identity. See letter from 12 March 1980, Ref 8 Js 500/75. I then was compensated for false arrest and the false imprisonment suffered See letter from 16 March 1978, ref 4StR Es 158/77. Also enclosed and then I received a letter from the German authorities certifying that I was never, not even remotely under suspicion of RAF association. See the underlined word on the bottom of page 1, letter dated 10 April 1980 Ref 1BJs 93/77.

Yet Mr Justice Eady felt fit to belief the palaver of Mr Osler, who argued that all arrests in the 70s in Germany must have to do with the Baader-Meinhof Group. The British publication machinery, including the BBC spread rumours that in Germany up to 35% of the population were in active support of the Baader-Meinhof group, which is a statistic that is very hard to belief. It is false and mere rubbish. You must imagine that if 35% of the population were in support of something then every 3rd or 4th person you would meet in the street would be involved into a criminal gang and actively supporting them. That is practically unthinkable and cannot be supported in any rational argument.  Apparently there is no broadly conducted survey that could support such a statistic, a survey that would have been conducted in Germany itself, asking ordinary German citizens and not just the demonstrating student minority that is so readily portrait on UK websites.

It simply pleases the British mentality to think that the Germans were broadly in support of Baader-Meinhof but that is the reason for Justice Eady’s judgment against me. The fact is that not anywhere in any official paperwork available from 1975 – 1980, not anywhere is there any mention of any political orientation. There is no way that anybody could come along and reasonably argue that any arrest that took place in Germany in the 70s, must have taken place because of Baader-Meinhof activities. Especially also not as at that time Germany did not know a Terrorism clause within Criminal law. A terrorism clause was added in late 1976. It was Der Spiegel that couched my arrest in an article about Baader-Meinhof and Eady J cleared Der Spiegel of publication  in the UK  during my case against Der Spiegel when later he accepted doctored evidence from Osler that it had been published. This is an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Osler seems to be the babe of the court. He works for Lloyds List the subsidiary of Der Spiegel and in particular mostly on the Somali Pirate issues. Several women were kidnapped by Somali pirates recently. Judith Tebbutt, a disabled women, was snatched, her wheelchair left behind, her husband murdered.

The Paragraph 129 as it was in use then was so wide, that anybody would be arrested within it, including Travellers, religious sects like the The Church of Scientology and all would be accused of potentially wanting to throw over the German state and be potential terrorists, there was no actual proof needed for such an accusation. That was the climate under which arrests took place in Germany in 1975. It would be unthinkable today that this could happen with the Human Rights Act in place. It was plain and simply state persecution that allowed the imprisonment of indiscriminate amounts of people so that the state could weed out undesirables and collect information from people. Thousands fell victim to this.

There is no way, that I was ever assumed to be in touch with the RAF or Baader-Meinhof, there is no proof that the state even sought it was possible. The letters proof it, one even says, that I was never, not even remotely under such suspicion.

Not only did Eady J support the dismissal of my case because he thought it was an abuse of process because the difference between a compensated criminal arrest and compensated Baader-Meinhof arrest is too small, he actively supported in his judgement the notion that my arrest must have been for left-wing activities, for which there is no proof available at all. Not in any letter from the German authorities is this actually supported. I protested about this rigorously during the draft-judgement state but Justice Eady knows that without that left-wing element, his judgement cannot stand, and so he put it in just to make it work.

Justice Eady decided to please Der Spiegel, to please the left-wing Lloyds List employee. Why? Probably its a racist and sexist motivated judgement, that might also have religious grounds. What the British have established to be an anti Hitler propaganda tool, has turned into a pro-British propaganda tool and bends facts to please the British instead. Mr Osler later posted on Mr Gray’s blog, that I was defeated just like the Germans in World War II and the police promptly allocated a crime number for that posting but refrains to prosecute because the fine they could achieve would not exceed £50.

Of course I think sexism plays a big role. I am a single women, not associated with the typically important English male or even female (that if I was a Lesbian, which I am not). Many nasty posts have been produced during the course of the court case, mainly from men with revolting comments, that even one female high court judge remarked upon and then Mr Osler dropped his claim for costs. Unfortunately distasteful sexual comments were all over the Internet on this case.

Unfortunately for me, the whole justice system in Europe is now so impenetrable, that the single judges in the European Court of Human Rights also just tick off applications by unrepresented applicants as not being admissible, like they do in 95% of the cases. They cherry pick cases to hear and mine was not there.

The truth on my cases is still outstanding and I feel I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice.  It is my opinion and I have Freedom of Expression.

One recent reader comments that the court must have been listening to the case for so long to cash in on the payments from the state, which covered the costs for my applications because they need the money. That does not please the British Tax Payer.

I still belief and think I am correct in doing so, that there is a considerable difference in a general arrest and an arrest with specific suspicions of supporting and sympathising with a mayor terrorist group, who solely work from an illegal underground network. That is what the posts implied. Even in Germany the authorities did put such specific accusations in their arrest warrants, but not in mine, which was jointly with one other person, who also never was associated with known terrorists. I am glad to have been cleared of BM involvement, even with the British judgements, yet I was still made to loose the cases.

I shall add links to this shortly and further docs to download as proof

More benefits to strangers

The EU has decided that the UK doesn’t handle benefits applications correctly and expect the country to pay out to all who apply as long as they are from the EU. Question is, can I go to Greece and apply or benefit and I wonder how much I am going to get. Maybe I should choose Iceland instead? That would be fun.

It seems that all national borders are in the process of being torn down. Of course it makes sense, that if we have a bail-out fund for Greece, the same one that Germany just supported, then we all should be able to go to Greece and claim benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith warns that we all should be gravely concerned about having to pay out benefits to people who never contributed to our taxes. Yet he is not so concerned that British firms can out-source work and money to other nations, who are outside of the EU and work in Asia, when they never pay any tax in this country either and we are jobless and suffer economically.

It is quite obvious that under the current regulations with freedom of movement and so on, every European citizen has a right to find a place to live in the UK and then claim benefits. I cannot understand why there can be any discrimination going on that is not unlawful under current EC regulations and did not know that the Department for Work and Pensions makes such discriminations as to the right to work in the UK when that clearly cannot exist for EU citizens.

The great big Conservative waffle has now been dishevelled as a lot of nonsense and proposals to make job seekers to look for work full-time or 8 hours per day makes even less sense when the government wants to advocate the Big Society, that relies on lots of volunteers.

That now brings essentially the housing stock into discussion because you can only pay benefits to as many residents as have a home in the UK at any one time. So to keep unwanted benefits claimants out, one has to restrict housing availability to start with, that is the only rule that maims benefits claimants coming here to settle to claim benefits.

I think it would be a very expensive mistake to not keep to the EU rules that the UK has actually signed up for but doesn’t obey by. So much cloud cuckoo land fantasies are existing in this government is slightly unbelievable. But there we go, people just cannot distinguish reality from their very own dreams.

This government just recently advocated more house-building in Greenbelt land, yet it doesn not understand that any EU citizen from anywhere can just go and rent it. That is where it would have been much more practicable to continue more council house building with rules that give the “Sons and Daughters policy” more prominence to allow local people to stay together as families. Yet the government has dismantled council home building, put away with the right to reside for life and it now complaining that all sorts come to live in properties and want to get paid for living here.  Get real and that is said to both Labour and Conservatives because they both play the same fiddle.

My main concern is the quality of life we get when people constantly move around from all corners of the globe and that is what I voluntarily do, is try and keep our locality safe to live in.  Because trying to deal with the very contradicting politics is a sheer night-mare, with 3 major political parties making policies they don’t really understand the implications of, as this situation proves.

I’ve now also learned that Ed Miliband used the words “I believe” 17 times in his leader’s speech before the party conference. That makes me double disappointed with politics as there is no precision, no clear focus and no knowledge of what those politicians doing. What qualifying factors do political parties employ to let a party member stand for office and what choice to voters have?

It’s a bit like shopping but you do not get what it says on the tin.

It’s Clegg the peg

with the extra leg, du, da, du, da, du, da, duuh.

I wonder whether Nick Clegg has developed some extra human conscientiousness over the past few weeks. As if he has not done unrivalled damage to his own party, that is short of being obliterated from the voter’s conscience.

Now Clegg wants to ride the popular Human Rights argument. I think he must have read my blog some time ago, when I used the same arguments as he does now. But Nick Clegg now spreads around silly things just to pretend that he is braving up to the Tories, whom he flirts since his Deputy Premiership.

Of course the Human Rights Act is nothing but a clever political trick to hold nations over a barrel whenever and wherever it suits the European Union just to assert the power over the EU. The ECHR is breaching its own rules each and every time an application is being refused for not complying with regulations when that application was made by a private individual without the help of a lawyer. If the ECHR seriously wanted to give individuals equal chances it would make legal aid available for all wishing to make an application and allow them to do so with the help of a lawyer. Instead conveniently the ECHR dismisses around 90% of all applications made without legal support because it has flaws.

There are now single judges sitting over applications, which are not scanned for merit but merely scanned for how useful they are to pressurize a nation to give up a sovereign rule that is a thorn in the eye of the EU. It is obvious that the ECHR cherry picks cases that allow it to root out all types of free thinking that many people cannot longer have. The ECHR is in the process to build an impenetrable political correctness throughout Europe that forbids free speech and furthers inequality.

Nick Clegg is a Pratt who is completely irresponsible and just puts pressure on the government to show how powerful he  is and he is enjoying it. Never mind the insults and abuses he gets, he enjoys those too, as this is proof of his importance to him.

UK suffers from EU denial and lives in the past

The UK politicians always want to pretend that we do not need the EU and that nothing is more embarrassing than the EU. So when an university failed to display the sponsor, as agreed with a flag they were fined a hefty sum. It’s a plain breach of contract clause I imagine. It is totally normal that one displays the logo of sponsors.

But then Eric Pickles comes along and makes matters worst by calling the penalty unfair. Its always this us against them attitude, which doesn’t help Britain make progress and instigates silly behaviour trying to deny that they rely on the EU funding to bring services to people.

The British press is full of articles, on how bad the EU is for Britain and that it is all such a drag to be in it. Yet we are always reminded in all other matters that a positive attitude is essential but the old-fashioned tsars of British politics who are currently in power, make things not better definitely for us. We only always get the negative and all ‘faults’ are blamed on the EU membership like that is the most evil thing on earth.

I think the Conservatives haven’t got a clue on how to run services cost-efficient and just blame somebody for the problems. It’s a little like the library fiasco, funding was cut in the hope that libraries and local authorities who run them get together to find on the spot a new system of running libraries cheaper, which is possible but those quickly required changes never do take place easily in public services and not enough guidance was given and so a lot of frustration happened all around.

Again we get threats of further VAT increases, further home energy price rises and the UK seems to get worst and worst. Housing benefit has been cut, pensions have been cut, yet the UK borrows even more than previously and further price rises are on the horizon. Something just doesn’t add up and where does all the money go that the fiscal purse stuffs in its coffers, I just want to know that.

I am fed up with the usual polemics and strategies that always blame somebody else. Eric Pickles please stop your childish blame game.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,048 hits
%d bloggers like this: