Friday 30 January 2015

Letter from Mi Irish Mammy



Just a few lines to let you know I'm still alive. I'm writing this letter slowly because I know you can't read fast. We are all doing very well. You won't recognise the house when you get home - because we have moved. Your dad read in the newspaper that most accidents happen within 20 miles from your home, so we moved 25 miles to Wexford.  I won't be able to send you the address because the last family that lived here took the house numbers when they moved so that they wouldn't have to change their address.  This place is really nice. It even has a washing machine. I'm not sure it works so well though: last week I put a load in and pulled the chain and haven't seen them since.

Your father's got a really good job now. He's got 500 men under him. He's cutting the grass at the cemetery. Your sister Mary had a baby this morning but I haven't found out if it's a boy or a girl, so I don't know whether you are an auntie or an uncle. Your brother Tom is still in the army. He's only been there a short while and they've already made him a court martial!

Your Uncle Patrick drowned last week in a vat of whiskey in the Dublin Distillery. Some of his workmates tried to save him but he fought them off bravely. They cremated him and it took three days to put out the fire. I'm sorry to say that your idiot cousin Seamus was arrested while riding his bicycle last week. They are charging him with dope peddling.

I went to the doctor on Thursday and your father went with me. The doctor put a small tube in my mouth and told me not to talk for ten minutes. Your father offered to buy it from him.
The weather isn't bad here. It only rained twice this week, first for three days and then for four days Monday was so windy one of the chickens laid the same egg four times.

We had a letter from the undertaker. He said if the last payment on your grandmother's plot wasn't paid in seven days, up she comes. About that coat you wanted me to send you, your Uncle Stanley said it would be too heavy to send in the mail with the buttons on, so we cut them off and put them in the pockets.John locked his keys in the car yesterday.. We were really worried because it took him two hours to get me and your father out. 

Three of your friends went off a bridge in a pick-up truck. Ralph was driving. He wound down the window and swam to safety. Your other two friends were in the flatbed at the back. They drowned because they couldn't get the tailgate down. There isn't much more news at this time.

Nothing much has happened.
Your loving Mum.

P.S. I was going to send you some money but I had already sealed the envelope.

A FRIGHTENING STATISTIC


THIS IS A FRIGHTENING STATISTIC, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST WORRYSOME IN RECENT YEARS.

25% of the women in this country are on medication for mental illness.

That's scary.

It means 75% are running around untreated.

To Level the laughs

Husband and wife had a tiff. Wife called up her mom and said, "He fought with me again, I am coming to live with you."

Mom said, "No darling, he must pay for his mistake. I am coming to live with you.

So the Religious don't feel neglected

Today's Short Reading from the Bible...

From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."


Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed!


Je Suis Charlie

Wednesday 28 January 2015

Pat Condell telling it how he sees it

Pat Condell on the State of Europe and Jewery today

Met Police end bailiff STOP cooperative operations







Room 1111
New Scotland Yard
10 Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG
Telephone: 020 7230 2029
Facsimile:
Email:
www.met.police.uk
Your ref:
Our ref:
16 December 2014




Dear Sir / Madam



Update - Cessation of Police roadside operations in partnership with bailiffs


Thank you for contributing at the workshops about joint police and bailiff roadside operations. The review team are very grateful for your involvement in this process. 

The ANPR Bureau was asked to examine this issue in more detail and report back to the ANPR Programme Board. Having taken into account the legal position, stakeholder input, trust and confidence in the police and frontline policing practices, the Met will no longer undertake roadside operations with bailiffs. We trust this brings the matter to a conclusion for all involved.

Further communications about the engagement process and findings will be published in due course.

Yours faithfully





Commander Richard Martin



This letter has been sent to all Bailiff Companies and is a result of concerned citizens expressing their legal view that these type of activities were/are illegal.

This letter does not remove from Police Authorities the legal obigations they have towards the numerous victims of a system that abused its powers for almost two decades.  There are too many victims of this abuse of system - to mention purposely the resulting Death of Accrington veteran and former publican Andy Miller - that precipitated the Met being presented with a dossier of 1500 cases of illegal cooperation dated from last March 2014 alone.  The resulting court cases could financially cripple the Met Police for a long time to come.

That is why it is so necessary that people going about their legitimate businesses must have certainty that the Police understand their obligations and fulfil them.  The abuse of powers for the criminal prevention body must never be allowed by drip or ignorance, to jump, boots and all, into the freezing murky waters of civil litigation.  

Powers, given by Parliament through legislation, especially the much under enforced Malfeasance in Public Office Laws, should be rigorously adhered to so that the "Man on the....bus", can be reassured that the vested interest of Corporate Bodies do not dilute the Rights of the legitimate subjects of this Once Great Nation.

Monday 26 January 2015

Fishers Field overflow site: continued








The new site is going on Fishers Field because the ground can be returned to  Foxhall Juniors Football Club and saved from future housing development. So sayeth the United Utilities team promoting the site.  That would be fine if the ground had not be left/acquired for the permanent use of regulated football by children.
This is hypothetical because the Council will not release how they came by the land and if any restrictions were made on usage.
Five years ago the Council removed all the notice boards from around the ground.  Without consultation they opened the gates to the dogs of the area. Really? We are all dog lovers but dogs run the risk of passing on Parvovirus to children.  Children have been heard complaining about the stench of dog poo behind the Club House, just near to where there is a Tots pitch.  Great Planning, Blackpool Council and stunning silence from local councillors.

Blackpool Council has recently wasted much tax payers money on planing trees at the back of Fishers Field knowning that there were plans in place to dig it all up and build a masssive reservoir.  Now those Councillors who are wasting tax payers money knew about this because they had spoken to Foxhall Juniors about the upheaval.  Why would they not tell the gardening department to hold off until after the build.  Both are GahGah?

Fishers Field new development


Fishers Field will now officially house a new storage facility for flood water on the Blackpool Coast.  The plans are ambitious and not unwarranted.  In fact, they should have been done 40 years ago when the Water Board first planned for a deep sea outlet off Fleetwood.  With insufficient facilities to clean the effluence, against scientific evidence, the authorities went ahead and pumped the human waste into the Irish Sea.
Now they are going to address the original problems, forced into action not by a concern for the future stability of the area, nor by common sense, but through financial threats from Brussels.  In their wake they are treating the residents of Lennox Court like Mushrooms. United Utilities have employed a publicity group to get the information out, and this group has failed abysmally.   It would not be beyond the wit of man, or woman, just to knock on the few doors of the residents most affected by this massive undertaking, to talk, to explain.  If anything it tells you exactly where Councillors Hunter and Henderson's priorities lie.  And that is sadly not with their electorate and the imminent upheavals to residents lives.
Compare that to the plight of Foxhall Juniors Football Club!  They are temporarily to lose the use of Fishers Field and have to move, again I iterate,temporarily, to Common Edge.  When they return they are promised a brand new changing room with all the facilities one expects of 2017. Toilets, showers and a moving of the building so that it no longer is an eyesore and menace to some flats owners on Lennox Court.  But Foxhall Juniors have been consulted where the residents of Lennox Court have not.

Tuesday 13 January 2015

Charlie Hedbo today

Only the Guardian has had the courage to reproduce today's Charlie Hebdo front page.

Shame on the popular Press for COWARDICE.
It is now time to stop blaming the victims for exercising Human Rights to Satirise Religion and point the finger at decades of Politician who have undermined our Freedoms by passing legislation that is grossly stupid.

Saturday 10 January 2015

Public Order Act 1986 - the legislation that outlaws Free Speech

 For many years I have campaigned against some, not all, codification of law.  Here is the perfect example of Parliament, with its illiterate majority, promulgating, putting into words, dictats that deny basic freedom to British Ancient Peoples.

 If I wanted to send the reader to sleep I would go into a library of metaphor on "turning the other cheek".  We have never turned the other cheek, in modern times, when free people are being held by the gun in a position of oppression.  Like it or lump it, we have, in Europe, a mindless minority who have, by the use of intimidation and mass murder, usurped our hard fought for Right to Offend.

What was I supposed to say to the gunmen of the UVA/IRA who were threatening the civil liberties of their respective populations? Okay, you can murder your way into power against the will of the people?  That would be contrary to my belief and the sacrifice made by the thousands of my people who fought to keep my people safe.

When I say my people, I mean all those who use argument, irrespective of how offencive, rather than subjugation by the bullet and bomb. My opinions through a life of living and continuous learning, be leaning to what others call The Right.  So what? 


 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Wednesday 7 January 2015

What Sir Bill Cash told Parliament

“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.”
However, article 8(3) goes on: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1…a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality”.
Some states have and some have not gone along with the arrangements, but the article goes on to give the basis on which a state may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, and that is very much in line with the proposed new subsection (6A) in my amendment 22.

Part of the issue turns on the question of allegiance, and Members should therefore be concerned to understand that acts constituting treason cover anyone who owes allegiance to the Crown. Anyone who owes commitment to the Crown may commit treason. The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign. Natural allegiance is due from all British subjects at all times wherever they may be. 

Counter Terrorism and Security Bill-Sir Bill Cash



 Taken from yesterdays Hansard. 

Counter Terrorism and Security Bill

Sir William Cash: I am concerned, and have been for a long time, about the apparent not indifference to but unawareness of the danger facing citizens of the United Kingdom if jihadists of the kind I will describe in moment—my amendment 22 provides a definition—return to the UK and commit horrible and appalling atrocities similar to that which we witnessed in the case of Lee Rigby. I ask hon. Members to think about what they would say if one of their constituents were murdered in that unbelievably atrocious manner. I also ask them to consider whether there are people among the many hundreds—some suggest thousands—who have already gone abroad who may wish to return under cover of their jihadist activity and perpetrate and perpetuate their activities in our own homeland of the United Kingdom. If such murders and atrocities were committed, would our constituents and the British public as a whole think it right that those people had a right of abode here? I think that most of the British public would say that if the circumstances defined in my amendment were complied with, they would not want those people to return to the United Kingdom.
One then turns to the question of whether those people’s human rights and the issue of statelessness are such that they should override those considerations. I am profoundly concerned and disturbed to hear some colleagues suggest that a person’s right of abode, so-called human rights and the need not to be rendered stateless are so overriding that they should prevail even in the circumstances I have described and even following the atrocities that I fear could occur.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his support, but I happen to know from discussions I have had that many other Members very much agree with the sentiments expressed in my amendments. I sincerely trust that, whatever happens—I have yet to decide whether I will press my amendment to a vote—the matter can be looked at again in the House of Lords.
I have heard on many occasions, both from Front Benchers and others, about the evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights received from Mr David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism. I have looked at those proceedings, but nobody asked any questions about the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, which lies at the heart of the issue. In September I heard Mr Anderson and others, some of whom are present, on the “Today” programme, strongly asserting the arguments that have now been made on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether they have reflected on the implications for the British public if we do not take proper measures to exclude the right people,
6 Jan 2015 : Column 190
by which I mean those who are pronounced jihadists and who, if they were to return, would by all accounts be likely to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities I have mentioned.
When the Prime Minister made his statement on 1 September 2014, I was concerned, having just heard so many contributions on the radio, about the importance attached to people not being made stateless and so forth, and about their human rights being of such overriding importance, irrespective of the impact they might have on the public or of individuals being murdered in atrocious circumstances. I asked the Prime Minister:
“On the matter of statelessness and preventing British terrorist jihadists from returning to the United Kingdom, has my right hon. Friend been briefed that, under article 8 of the United Nations convention on statelessness, domestic legislation in certain countries may render a person stateless where he has acted inconsistently with his duty of loyalty, has behaved in a way prejudicial to the interests of the state or has declared allegiance to another state and shown evidence of repudiation of allegiance? Does he not accept that that is exactly where we are now, and that it would be extremely important to get that right so that the Leader of the Opposition”—
who had made some derogatory remarks to the Prime Minister on that—
“understands that the matter can be made clear?”
The Prime Minister replied:
“My hon. Friend makes a good point, which shows exactly why we need to discuss and examine this issue further. The reason why everyone will want us to examine this is that it absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this country to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared their allegiance to another state. That is the problem that we need to address, and my hon. Friend will be useful in doing so.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 34.]
Well, his hon. Friend will continue to be useful in that respect, because I think that it is very important that we properly examine in this debate not only potential atrocities but the legal basis on which arguments are presented both for and against such orders.
I have corresponded with the Minister for Security and Immigration. If he was good enough to listen, he might want to intervene because I am about to refer to our correspondence. I am failing in my attempt, so perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), could give him a nudge. [Interruption.] That is very good of him. I just want to let the Minister know that I am about to refer to correspondence between me and the Department.
I wrote to the Minister, and had a reply. I will not go into every aspect of it, but I found that I had to write to him again on 15 December. His letter alleged that the convention on the reduction of statelessness did not really apply, but I made a point about article 8(3). The beginning of article 8(1) of the convention—bear in mind that the United Kingdom has signed it—clearly says:
“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.”
However, article 8(3) goes on:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1…a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality”.
Some states have and some have not gone along with the arrangements, but the article goes on to give the basis on which a state may retain the right to deprive a
6 Jan 2015 : Column 191
person of his nationality, and that is very much in line with the proposed new subsection (6A) in my amendment 22. It is clearly founded on the exclusions from the provisions of article 8(1).
2.15 pm
The Government have prescribed conditions A to D for temporary exclusion orders, which include making reasonable assumptions at certain decision-making points, all of which would be subject to judicial review. In line with the international convention on the reduction of statelessness 1961, and using almost the same words, I propose a new condition:
“Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or”—
to deal with ISIL—
“territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.”
The decision is made on the basis not of whimsy but of someone repudiating allegiance to the United Kingdom and adopting allegiance to the new state or to a territory taken over by jihadists.
Given the potential danger to individual members of the British public, it seems to me inconceivable that we should not accept amendment 22. A lot of wishy-washy human rights waffle does not make any difference whatever to the reality of the present and clear danger facing the British people. It is going to happen, and if it does, I fear that those who have refused to listen will be responsible. It is no good talking about the common law or the human rights of the individuals concerned. The British people simply will not countenance it. I am certain of that fact.
Part of the issue turns on the question of allegiance, and Members should therefore be concerned to understand that acts constituting treason cover anyone who owes allegiance to the Crown. Anyone who owes commitment to the Crown may commit treason. The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign. Natural allegiance is due from all British subjects at all times wherever they may be.
The House is clearly determined that there should be temporary exclusion orders for the circumstances described; in other words, before such people come back to this country, they can have an order imposed on them. If that assumption is used as the basis of temporary exclusion orders and the people in question are in fact guilty of treason on their own admission—they have provided definite evidence of repudiating their allegiance, and have claimed allegiance to a new state and/or territory of the kind I have described—then it absolutely follows that they fall full square within the proposal in my amendment 22 and should therefore not be allowed to return.