Partisan election leaflets or Stone the Crowe

Anybody hoping to get a good idea about election candidates is going to be bitterly disappointed with the latest ruling of Mr Justice Tugendhat who said that  in an election, statements made about candidates and their associations were “not capable of being understood as anything other than partisan”, reports the BBC.

So in fact we can now count on worst election leaflets to come from all sides involved.

That ruling allows now less clarity, less truth, less facts to be used to win elections and to further deteriorate the content of election leaflets. No truth required, we are all partisans.

But then people keep on asking themselves how it came about that such and such dictator came into power. Of course Justice Tugendhat together with Justice Eady is one of the more colourful judges at the High Court.

Coppers narks

I find it quite amazing that Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses relieved the media of their obligation to supply essential evidence that can help prosecute criminals. The media is worried they might be seen as coppers narks.

Why would the media not want to assist in the solving of crime? why would the media be getting this value free area, in which they can witness crime but do not have to help solve it?

Ordinary residents and businesses are very keen to assist the police by giving information if they can. We hear the appeals via Crime Stoppers, Crime Watch. Every country has crime and wanted criminals bulletins. The recent riots saw the pictures of wanted rioters distributed everywhere.

The ruling of Mr Justice Eady and Lord Justice Moses could now prompt mainstream publishers to refuse showing wanted posters of criminals because they could be seen as coppers narks.

What is in fact the benefit for society if people can report about crime and have evidence of it but have no obligation to give information about the crime to police? There is no value on that at all. We do not benefit from it that we can see ongoing crime, but we only benefit if we see a reduction in crime.

I have long had quarrels with Mr Justice Eady and the High Court myself, who has a strange idea of citizenship and freedom of the press in general. What this judgement actually promotes is crime and it helps the press be a sensationalist instrument that shows crime to sell papers and sell Internet publications on the basis of showing these sensationalist breakages of the law and it suspends their normal citizen duty to help solve crime. That is a completely and utterly ridiculous decision.

continued from before

Or lets say a reporter watches an old age pensioner being mugged and assaulted in the street, he takes photos and only shows the one where the mugger’s face is unrecognisable; this ruling of Mr Justice Eady will sanction it that the reporter can withhold the photos that show the face of the criminal. The paper can then run a story, the brutal face of crime in the UK, police unable to stem the tide of crime or something along those lines.

It is scary and frightening how both the current government and the judges at the high court systematically undermine the police in their duties. But strangely enough, they haunt any publisher that cooperates with the police like News International did (at least so I assume, but don’t quote me on that). It seems even more strange that the High Court and Mr Justice Eady of course wrote a blank cheque to Der Spiegel when I complaint about their reporting and laid open a lot of discrepancies in the law of data capture and publishing but that only News Corp. International get systematically haunted.

In my very personal view I think Mr Justice Eady is a first-class nerd.

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?

The German propaganda hole

This BBC story epitomizes in my view what is wrong with publishing these days but it quite clearly also shows the elaborate concealment of neo nazi activity in Germany in that Germany is helped by some major English publishers to do so.

Apparently the Germans are over-interested in keeping the nostalgia about the Baader-Meinhof group alive and do anything to give everything radical the RAF slant. Yet as these pictures show there is now a considerable silent right-wing opposition that is extremely well organised by the looks of it. It takes some consent to be able to pull a mass demo on the spot, with people who are in respectable jobs, coming out all masked up for a quick demo.

But seeing that the new neo nazis get the same training routine as the former Baader-Meinhof terrorists did and my previously voiced suspicions that not all is what it seems, I think we are dealing with a huge public concealment of facts and that Germany, helped by publishers like Der Spiegel and the British free press, is sitting on a Nazi time-bomb that is probably going to go off in a space of 10 years, or at the latest when the European dream collapses.

The article says that “Human rights groups say more than 180 people have been killed in right-wing attacks in Germany over the last 20 years.

Neo-Nazis have murdered more people in post-war Germany than any other single group, including Islamists and the far left. But this is not yet reflected in official data.

Could it be that Germany’s sensitivity to its history has made it want to play down modern-day right wing extremism?”

And when I then read that “Weapons training is carried out in secret. In the Arab world, for example, with freedom movements there. The right-wing scene sees itself as a freedom movement.”and think of the fact that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists started off their careers by taking training in the Arab world I wonder whether the concealment of actual intent is almost perfect for the German propaganda machine.

And of course the article is about a group of Nazi killers and it asks ”

It turns out intelligence agencies had had the group under surveillance for years, and even found a bomb-making factory in their garage back in 1998.

So why were the trio not stopped earlier? Why were they allowed to disappear and then stay underground? And why was it that security services blamed the murders on the Turkish mafia at the time? A right-wing motive was never investigated.”

Of course there we have it, the right-wing native connection is always swept under the carpet and some illusive left-wing terror connections created to give it all a bad left-wing stint.

But then in my own case before the High court for over 3 years I exactly used those arguments when I asked, how does the Honourable Mr Justice Eady actually make out his judgement by saying that I must have been accused of left-wing affiliations when there is not one shred of proof for that whatsoever? That is just showing that even top judges make public assumptions to talk away any suspicions of right-wing activities and that is what we are having to digest, that there is no real attempt to deal with facts.

I personally was never involved in any right-wing or left-wing activities in any event but what my case really shows is that the mainstream press uses tactics to tint events to suit a publicity campaign to protect certain political movements that they want to protect and to blame something that doesn’t really exist but that is in the best interest to use in order to protect something that is brewing underneath it all.

Mr Justice Eady used his position to say that something must have been happening over 35 years ago and that he knows what happened in the minds of German authorities then and that he has the right to do so and he has been backed up by the Court of Appeal in saying that Mr Justice Eady can determine what German police thought in 1975 when that went against existing paperwork in the case.

So there we have it, a publicity machinery that blames everything on the left and the right-wing movement actually brews up under the surface to face us with totalitarian actions like the shooting of Labour youth in Norway by Breivik.

I also said it in a previous blog that I do not belief that the latest attempts to show that Baader-Meinhof were funded by the East German government are actually true but that this is just an attempt to conceal that Baader-Meinhof all along where just used to put a left-wing stint over the new terrorism in the nation.

I had put plenty of material before the high court to show that the laws then were not proof of political affiliations but that the state at the time could just about arrest anybody on the flick of a finger without much evidence needed. But that arrests had nothing to do with any type of political or religious affiliations but were just intelligence gathering exercises.  I had put plenty of evidence before the court to show that the names involved were never ever connected to any Baader-Meinhof group and still the court found it more important to protect Der Spiegel and affiliated British publishers rather than get to the bottom of the facts on the matter.

Of course then the case was defended because some thought it is more important to defend the right to spread lies under the mantle of freedom of expression. I did in fact proof to the court that non of the names involved where ever connected to the Baader-Meinhhof gang but that didn’t impress the court who still fiddled the case to allow the Big British win and the press to connect anything to Baader-Meinhof to stop people thinking in different places.

Miscarriage of justice in the Laurence case

I belief that the case of Stephen Laurence ended in a gigantic miscarriage of justice.  Due to media hype and the involvement of prominent human rights campaigners and the bad conscience of the British on their human rights record on the treatment of the blacks, the media decided to belief a lie and condemn a group of white crooks to take the blame for the Laurence murder. Just as in my own case, the frenzy of a group of people has mislead and distorted the truth.

It is plainly before all of us what happened from watching the BBC Panorama play. There is is plain to see that Duwayne asked Stephen to run around for a substantive period of time after the stabbing, he admitted it on the BBC.

It is not the action of a caring friend to asked a stabbed mate to run around. He should have called the police immediately and an ambulance and that could have saved Stephen.  Please also read my previous posts.

I have e-mailed the Court of Appeal and the police with the details of my concerns.

A balanced decision against libraries

I am just picking up this story because I have a long history of book involvement on a professional basis and learned the profession of bookseller after leaving business college and books always were my great big love.

What also draws me to this story is the rhetoric used in the judgement in an application against library closures in Brent by campaigners who challenged the council’s decision to close a substantive number of libraries in the borough.

It seems to me that this was plainly a politically desirable solution sealed by a high-court judgement to please some spending plan. Yet stopping communications networks for the sake of a spending plan usually indicates public steering of opinion making channels. In short it promotes a propaganda machinery in this case the Internet.

Of course people rely less on hard copy reading these days. We see the Kobo and the Kindle praise people’s money out of their pocket for e-book reading. Yet this type of reading relies on electricity and an electronic and wireless communications network that is not able to function if one of the components doesn’t work, but with books they always can be read, they are just bulky.

The campaign against the library closures stated after the judgment:

They said: “The Court of Appeal appears to accept that there is a risk of indirect discrimination against significant numbers of people in Brent resulting from its plans to impose devastating cuts on local library services. “But it has excused the council from properly taking that risk into account before deciding to make those cuts.”

“Start Quote

Closing half of our libraries has had a devastating effect on the most vulnerable members of our community”

Margaret BaileySOS Brent Libraries

What is also apparent that people get driven to use the Internet, which itself does not prepare a pre-screened reading environment. In a library you only get certain material that is morally and ethically approved but on the Internet you get a forest of information and it is up to the reader to select what they want to read, making it much easier for the very open minded to stray off into undesirable directions. The responsibility of reading choice is no longer in the hands of the librarian but left to the individual alone.

Generally I find the closure of the reference libraries the most disturbing, they even closed in my area and some books like Gatley on Libel and Slander I cannot even obtain at all in my region.

There is generally a very disturbing trend on an international level to reduce communications networks with the closure of libraries come the reduction in Post Offices in the US.

Of course that in itself would be much more worrying if there wasn’t an alternative communications network like the Internet, but then if the Internet breaks down the local communities will be much more dependent on local leaders and direct personal decision makers who can exploit their status easier.

A rather disturbing outlook on that motto is the film from Kevin Kostner called the Postman. Apparently it signalled the start of World War II when Hitler closed down postal van depots to use the vehicles for the war effort. So that had a budgeting concern as reason just as today’s decisions in respect of libraries and post office closures have budgeting reasons.

Incidentally we see international frictions rising everywhere. Even here in Europe, the currently polite stance of Germany to deal with the UK’s refusal to join the European group more closely can change any minute, as Merkel has already hinted on a possible war that could follow Europe’s failure to pull together.

The Olympics always hold off international tension but can also lead to a build-up of national pride when countries lose out on the medals and political jealousy takes over from the sporting losses.

The library case was supported by a substantive number of public celebrities who hope to have the Supreme Court take it up.  One important argument to use is I think the fact that electronic communications network can break down and then there is nothing but a void and people are deprived of reading and getting a rounded picture of opinion. It then becomes easier to implement propaganda machines that stirs people’s minds into certain directions, which is probably what is intended with this plan to cut down on library spaces.

Of course every locality is itself the most important and people just have to follow their leaders when it comes to the crunch, I just think what this application against Brent council indicates is that the people are not too confident in their leaders at the present.

But what a reliance on electronic communications also indicates is that individuals are expected to lay out the money to purchase the expensive equipment needed to participate in it. Any electronic equipment is initially expensive and that expensive is impossible to find by someone on the bread line, by people who have hardly enough to buy their foods on a daily basis and by people who find it difficult to even find the bus fare to get to a library further away. People will become more dependant on what they hear and rumours, which is always dangerous. Source

government stalls subsidy on localised solar electricity

I thought it was an excellent idea to stimulate house owners to install solar panels on their roofs and allow them to sell on the extra electricity created for a profit. The principle is the best solution for a planet that suffers from severe energy problems and has problems generating naturally produced and healthy energy. Instead the government wants to bank our future on more nuclear reactors. There are many natural energy producers around the country, who produce energy in a variety of ways. That may be from waste, water generators, wind turbines, etc. All the surplus energy can be sold to energy companies who in turn sell on the energy to consumers who subscribe to green energy schemes or larger companies who sell it on as part of their general energy supply.

People are paid to generate their own electricity with solar panels and that seems an ideal solution to make people bear the cost of installation.

Apparently Friends of the Earth argue that the government stops subsidising an industry that is beneficial for the environment and creates jobs. It also helps create energy independence. I suppose it is this aspect that governments dislike in general, that people can live locally without needing a centralised mechanism to keep going.

The argument is that renewable energy has created 39.000 jobs and with the cutting of the subsidies Britain has fallen from 3rd to 13th place in the world’s renewable producer rankings.  I said it many times already that it was the most disappointing thing for me about this government that they abandon renewable energy production and instead want to revert to nuclear energy. We are told it is not so dangerous and risks are low. We have seen what an earth quake did in Japan. With the Iran nuclear program we are constantly reminded how dangerous nuclear energy is, yet here in our own country, the government is suddenly very keen on it.

I think what we need is transparency who financially supports our governing parties and if necessary put an end to political corruption, which arises out of the fact that political parties rely on sponsorships from commercial companies. There comes a point when profits and production methods are only partly important because the environment does not care about any of it. Of course for some companies large centralised operations are profitable and it is easier to account with large scale supply mechanisms, but that is not always a good solution to pressing environmental problems.

The Euro Superstate was endorsed by Cameron

It is our very own Conservative Prime Minister who wanted a bigger and better Europe. It is not just a secret plan between Germany and France as the Express tries to make us belief. Cameron has widely supported a more functional Europe and all political and judicial decisions that were made lately are geared to support that plan. I just have no confidence in any of our political leaders who are all not really telling us what is actually going on. I do not belief hat a bigger and more federal Europe can bring a solution to the current economic crisis.

Cameron always pretended to be fiercely against European supremacy to catch up all the votes of the Anti-Europe lobby. But when he refused the referendum he actually argued for a bigger European state, with more powers in which the UK has more say but less to surrender.  That is just another dream that our current political leader tries to sell  us. The UK will soon be a County territory of Europe, with local decision making powers that are no more or less than what local councils here in the UK have.

I do not think that this will sort out the economy at all. It will probably be even more expensive to employ useless political leaders who just talk empty trash a lot of the time. European Supremacy is the main reason for all those wars between European countries that happened during the last 1000 years. Since we no longer have Monarchies in individual states, it will be very easy to put on the EU cap on all European nations.

It is totally apparent that even in European law the high court does not want to upset the European balance and especially not when it comes to the established publication machinery. With the exception of Murdoch, who is a family run business and family run is currently being negatively portrait in the Federal Republic of Europe. Murdoch was compared to the Mafia in the most recent question and answer session, which is frankly outlandish. The good publishers like the BBC, Der Spiegel and other similar publishers are all corporations with little family power in them.

The current trend in the UK to give business to private corporations to run public services whether its publishing or health will lead to further breaches of common law when the companies start to collect data that helps them keep costs down or stimulate sales. It is simply what any government agency does but private business is not allowed to do. That is where the privately run principle fails because business will never have the same powers as the state.

A new iron curtain?

I suppose the title of my most previous post “A bad political strategy” could also head this one, which is about the Russian, Iranian and world political relationship.

Russia now refuses sanctions against Iran over the Iranian development of nuclear energy. The UN, in line with western expectations accuses Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. It all sounds like the run up to the next invasion of some eastern country by western and UN led forces.

Iran say they have a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but the West of course accuses them of wanting to make nuclear weapons. We had arguments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it led to the Iraq invasion and enquiries ever since. Iran has long been a thorn in the eyes of the western politicians, as it will not bow to pressure and is outspoken in opposition to all western policies. Israel has already vowed to invade Iran and attack them to destroy the nuclear power plants they have built or are about to build.

The Russian – Iranian allegiance makes this very interesting though in a dangerous sense.

Britain is at its best to seriously annoy the Russians though, which again draws a big international line across our world geography. Russian oligarch has won case against Russia in the case of murder allegations. Now has an active court case before the High Court, in particular Justice Eady, claiming billions from the owner of an English football club who happens to be Russian. So the Russians do not mind being part of our western world. Anybody really loves their footsie. The West however wants to see more submission to us in the political sense as well as the football club alone.

If Eady J now lets the Russian defector win against the Russian football club owner, there will be some serious thinking to do what can be done with the political headache that is about to become a giant migraine. Of course I said it before and say it again, the courts and in particular civil law is not the method to make politics but this is what is emerging. Judges make politics these days and it not only jeopardises the functionality of justice, it also can cause a war. Think about it. If Russian sides with Iran and the West attacks Iran and Russia is on their side, we have a big dangerous scenario.

Student protest is a farce

Reading this little sentence from Universities Minister David Willetts, which says: “Most new students will not pay upfront, there will be more financial support for those from poorer families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do now once they are in well paid jobs.” “Students, like other citizens, have the right to participate in peaceful protest.”

So I do not understand what these student protests are all about because there is no rational argument that these protests are about the tuition fees because if fees are not to be paid in advance and the repayments are lower, so why do students protest? The only people who are probably worst off, initially are the very rich ones and nobody poor should have reason to support them.  I think that whatever this new government has implemented has not properly been marketed and some individuals exploit that fact to mislead others to find a reason for a protest. 

Please consider the facts and stay at home if you do not really want to protest, dont’ let yourself be drawn into a protest that is not really yours.

It is quite obvious that the police’s first and foremost job is to keep essential order and if the protest gets out of hand they are allowed to use rubber bullets. We already have the tents around St. Paul’s and now we get the students, some of which already occupied some campuses.

I am starting to think whether our current university elite is actually all that clever because if they were they would not participate in that protest and I am also starting to think whether university education is selective enough. I do know that among young people communication works not around what people read but what they tell each other and social networking makes a huge chunk of that communication.

I know all those dreadful strings of nonsense that is constantly spread on Facebook for example when it comes to Facebook Fees and people ask each other to copy and paste it onto their walls. A lot just do it without thinking whether what they spread is actually a fact or not, they do it just because somebody asked them to do it.

Ironically next week the Lord Mayor’s parade also will use the St. Paul’s route to get to the High Court. That will be a ridiculous ceremony when the Lord Mayor has to make his speech among tents of protesting demonstrators.

But as we do have a justice system, that is not ideal and as I have experienced it myself, cannot deliver justice effectively we will see a fair amount of discontent going on because people simply cannot cope with irrational leadership. Yet I could not blame the government for the student protests but think those protests originate elsewhere and fees are just a reason to have a protest. People are quite sensitive to illogical behaviour and since justice is used as a political weapon instead of just what it is supposed to be the current system that should hold itself up, is crumbling away with widespread protests. We have judges sitting in the highest court who disrespect justice and that is the route of the problems I think.

I think that the policy makers should look at the source of the discontent and put justice right before they consider getting any peace for the government.

But just for those still unsatisfied with the student loans on offer here is the student loan calculator from the BBC website. Looking at the fact that a GP now earns around £100.000 per year, where is the problem?

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,390 hits