Last updated on November 21st, 2015
UK Legalises Retrospective Law Enforcement
No wonder they’re all smiling
In an astonishing move, HM Government has now enacted a law that allows any government (because it’s now part of case law) to sentence someone for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time they “committed” an “offence“.
Worst of all, our dear labour Party let HM Gov do it!
Yes. You heard right. (On the other hand, that’s consistent with my leaving the party some time ago.)
Just suppose that ten years ago, as part of your employment expenses, you were allowed to “flip” your expenses onto your work “home” and back again, yet a few years later this became illegal and you could be imprisoned. I’m talking about the MP’s Expenses scandal of course, famous for its duck island, moat and second homes a mere hoppity-skip from the main home. See MPs’ expenses: How Cabinet ministers have made tens of thousands ‘flipping’ their homes.
So what was “allowed” (as they thinly described it) is now “not allowed”. Legality curiously disappears in this “allowing” farrago, yet some things were and are illegal yet hardly anyone was sent to the clink. Just a few token stooges.
So much for our privileged elite.
Not so good if you’re struggling in this artificially enforced time of economic restraint, wholly created by a roulette-based banking and investment class that shares the revolving door world with our politicians.
Because Iain Duncan Smith’s retrospective workfare legislation has just changed centuries of British law by making a law retrospective.
Now set in case law, the precedent has now been set for any law to be so applied. You can now be penalised for something that was legal when you did it, but isn’t legal now. That’s what it means. Forget (for the moment) the injustice done to thousands of poor folks, fooled and misled into being stripped of their benefits.
The bigger picture is far worse and will have far reaching consequences.
This is really the ghastliest abomination from a whole series of actions where the freedom of the individual has been sequentially stripped over the past decade or so. No wonder they’re all smiling. On top of this they’ve now gagged the press with whom they previously had such a nice cosy relationship. They’ve made it so that if someone wins a libel case, they still have to pay all legal expenses!
Of course, terrorism (or the perception of terrorism through the western filter screen) is at the route of it. The silent majority have let leaders do and say anything for so long that they’ve become accustomed to being scared and placid for so long that they can’t tell right from wrong anymore. But consider this:
It’s always been illegal to trade with certain proscribed countries, organisations or individuals, (call them COI) at a given moment. But it wasn’t always so. At another moment, the list is different.
The precedent now makes it illegal for anyone to have traded with certain proscribed COI in the past even though they weren’t on the proscribed list years ago! This is the bonkers conclusion to this daft legislation. You can dream up any amount of scenarios. All bonkers but now, apparently, all legal.