The End of British Law – They’re All In It Together.

 Posted by  Comments Off on The End of British Law – They’re All In It Together.
Mar 202013
 
UK leaders

UK Legalises Retrospective Law Enforcement

UK leaders

UK leaders – No wonder they’re all smiling

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!

Pardon?

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.

Workfare

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!

Terrorism

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.

Further Reading:

A police state for benefit claimants? « Ron’s Rants…

 Posted by  Comments Off on A police state for benefit claimants? « Ron’s Rants…
Jan 312012
 

It Was labour What Done This…

ESA Notes Sheet ESA 40 04/09

ESA Notes Sheet ESA 40 04/09

That it was.  I first threatened and then did leave the Labour Party over it.  Right at the time they were trying to bring in and lock uncharged people away for 90 days, reduced to 42 days (yes really, they were – It’s like a bad dream) they also added some “rules” for state benefit claimants.  These are well explained at the top of Ron’s blog entry:

A police state for benefit claimants? « Ron’s Rants….

Ron writes;

It’s been brought to my attention that page 16 of the ESA Notes Sheet ESA40 04/09 contains this gem:- You must also tell us if you or your partner (among much else):- My parentheses and italics. go away from home, even if it is for a day

Ron

Ron (for it is he!)

And indeed it is so!  The document can be downloaded in full here on the DirectGov website.  A screenshot I’ve taken, highlighted the important bits and shown it here.  n.b. Ron is disabled, in several ways, not least by having the fat burned from the soles of his feet with a lightning strike!

Why Is This Important?

English: Human Rights logo: "FREE AS A MA...

A.    Well actually, it contravenes everything that Britain and other freedom-loving peoples have fought for regarding the right not just to life, but to a decent life, free of oppression, free to move and enjoy living just for its own sake, the UK having signed up for all of this in the .

It’s part of the United Nations Charter, adopted in 1948 and part of International Law since 1976.

English: Former U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosev...

Image via Wikipedia

Here are the bits in which the highlighted line in the screenshot above breaks the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status – BROKEN.  Ron’s status is different from others in that he is disabled.  And, by limiting his as described, this breaks
  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. BROKEN.  Ron’s freedom of movement is not the same as those not on benefit.
  • Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  BROKEN.  It is degrading to have to inform faceless bureaucrats of one’s location on a daily basis.
  • Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. BROKEN AGAIN.  It is degrading to have to inform faceless bureaucrats of one’s location on a daily basis.
  • Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.  BROKEN:  Ron cannot participate freely.  Neither can his partner (if he has one).  He must inform the government of his movements which then prevents his free enjoyment that life in a free society provides.
  • Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.  BROKEN.  The UK state has removed Ron’s rights as defined and make law in the articles above.

What Else is Bonkers About This?

You may have noticed I highlighted another line.  For the lazy, this is how it reads, and when you’ve read it, then realise how bad these draconian rules really are:

You must also tell us if you or your partner, DIE!!!

Laughable bureaucracy, eh?

Finale

Of course, I can see why the state may want to do all of this – the powers-that-be have been making a big play in rustling up public opinion against “scroungers”.  But what Labour started, the Tories, as I predicted, have taken all of this up with a vengeance.  True, it’s fine to have paid work and/or a vocation that enervates oneself.  It’s part of the human condition to feel wanted and valued among one’s fellows.  But it’s all wrong to penalise the weakest in society and those that need the most support, by infringing and removing their basic of free movement to enjoy the society we’ve created.

Q. How to solve the conundrum?

A.  I don’t know and I don’t care actually, because I’m not in government and don’t have the power to change.

Those that are, you know, the elected or non-elected ones who decide that they’re better than us, they’re the ones who must, should and can change the rules, because they’re the ones that set them up in the first place!

Enhanced by Zemanta

© 1977, Strangely Perfect.