|
I HATE these
UNELECTED FOREIGN JUDGES. BUT today I could kiss
them for BACKING the FREEDOMS we FOUGHT TWO-WORLD
WARS to PROTECT.
By
TOM UTLEY
[Daily Mail- Friday,
December 5,2008]
THOSE who have stamina to wade
through my weekly ramblings and rants will have
gathered That I have
NO TIME AT ALL
for the
European Court of Human Rights.
As one of a dwindling band of
believers in democracy, the least worst system of
government yet devised by man. I'm appalled that so
many of our laws are made by unelected
FOREIGN JUDGES
so alien to our
WAY OF LIFE
that many of us have difficulty even
pronouncing their names.
FOR ALL I KNOW
Bostjan Zupancic, Mirjana lazarova
Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva and their fellow
judges may be frightfully good chaps (or chapesses
-don't ask me which). BUT I don't see what earthly
business it is of these Slovenians, Macedonians and
Bulgarians to lay down rules under which you and I
should lead our lives.
If we want absolute,
unchangeable laws - applicable to every human being
everywhere, without regard to their wishes, national
traditions or changing circumstances -then let GOD
lay them down, say I, and leave it to US to DECIDE
whether or not WE OBEY HIM.
For the rest, I like to feel I have
some sort of say in the way I'm governed - even if
that means having to submit to a shower of
incompetent control freaks like
NEW LABOUR
(though, come to
think of it, I can't remember anyone asking me if I
wanted to be governed by a party led by GORDON
BROWN. . .
Interfer
With my passionately felt objections
to the
European Court of Human Rights
therefore, i find myself in a bit of
a quandary when the COURT comes up with a JUDGMENT
as magnificently JUST and SENSIBLE as yesterday's
ruling that the
BRITISH POLICE
must
STOP
keeping DNA samples taken from people
who have done
NOTHING WRONG.
Should I stick to my democratic
principles and say that these
UNACCOUNTABLE FOREIGN BUSYBODIES
have
NO RIGHT
to interfere in the laws of the UK?
Or should *I smother them in hugs and
kisses (well, perhaps not the Polish judge, who has
the off-putting name of Lech Garlick) and
congratulate them on stepping in
TO RIGHT A GRIEVOUS
WRONG?
On second thoughts, why not both?
With apologies to Voltaire, let me turn his famous
quote on its head and declare:
'I challenge to the death their right
to say it - but, my goodness, I agree with what they
say'.
As an Englishman,
born and raised in the land that kept the
TORCH OF FREEDOM
burning through
TWO WORD WARS
I'm filled with shame
at the thought that we have to take lessons in
LIBERTY from
GERMANS
ITALIANS
ESTONIONS
and
AZERBAIJANIS.
But , alas, those
lessons have become necessary after more than a
decade of rule by a
BRITISH GOVERNMENT
intent on establishing
STATE CONTROL
over every minute detail of our
lives, from what we eat and drink to how we choose
to bring up our young.
WE CAN SEE IT
EVERYWHERE
from the forest of CCTV cameras
sprouting in every High Street (we have more per
head than anywhere else in the world) to the
monstrous plan to set up a database recording the
upbringing of all
12 MILLION CHILDREN
in
ENGLAND and WALES
including information about their
daily intake of fruit and vegetables and judgments
about whether or not their parents provide 'positive
role models'.
NOWHERE
is this CREEPING EROSION of
OUR LIBERTIES more INSIDIOUS than in the POLICE
PRACTICE now so roundly CONDEMNED by the ECHR as a
BREACH of HUMAN RIGHTS - of collecting and keeping
DNA samples from those who have NEVER been CONVICTED
of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
According to the
latest estimates, the genetic profiles of between
850,000 and 1,000,000 innocents are now being held
on the
4.5 MILLION
strong database.
which is already one
of the
BIGGEST on the
PLANET
They include not only people who have
been acquitted of crimes, but those who have never
been charged or even suspected of wrongdoing -among
them. witnesses and victims of offences......
Acquitted
Most chillingly of all, the profiles
of more than
150,000
children are held on the database, to
be kept there for the rest of their lives if the
Police and the Government get their way (as yet they
may)
Indeed, one of the two Britons on
whose cases the ECHR ruled yesterday was only 12
years old when his DNA sample was taken, after he
was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in
January 2001. Five months later he was acquitted -
but the South Yorkshire police refused to remove his
details from the database, saying they would be
retained 'to aid criminal investigation'
Now, I know that a great many readers
will see nothing wrong with keeping the DNA profiles
of children or anyone else on a police database.
the more of us whose records are kept, they will say
the safer this country will be, indeed, I've lost
count of the number of letters I've received,
telling me:
'IF I HAVE NOTHING TO
HIDE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.
I completely understand that point of
view. But it was very neatly answered, I though, by
a letter in one of this week's papers, saying:
'I FEAR HAVING TO
PROVE I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE'
There are other things I fear too,
about keeping profiles of in innocents on the
database. For one, nothing could be easier for a
criminal
THAN PLANTING A SAMPLE
or someone else's
DNA
at the scene of the crime.
INDEED, only yesterday lunchtime I
was handed a prize specimen of a stranger's DNA, in
the form of a long, black human hair in my soup.
it's owner will have a lot of uncomfortable
explaining to do if I chose to leave it at the scene
of my next robbery.
THEN there's the disturbing question
of what the
GOVERNMENT
might do with such a database if
Britain were ever to fall into the hands of a
TOTALITARIAN REGIME.
[Well! we are already
within a totalitarian state if one looks at what has
happened in our once FREE COUNTRY over the past
decade. The very weapons that were employed in the
NAZI REGIME are now evident in our own. The recent
break-in of the police into the hallowed building of
our ONCE DEMOCRACY has confirmed that the TRUTH is
now in the OPEN.
After all, our DNA is crammed with
information about
OUR RACE
OUR STATE OF HEALTH
and God knows what else.
There are some things about all of us
that it's just safer, for the Government
NOT TO KNOW.
I mean, just think what use HITLER or
STALIN would have made of a database like this.
Stigmatised.
For all these reasons -not to mention
the astronomical cost of every computer project
undertaken by
THIS GOVERNMENT
and the near certainty that somebody
will leave the entire database
ON A TRAIN
I REJOICE AT YESTERDAY'S ECHR RULING.
Mind you, I don't suppose much will
come of it. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has already
announced that she's
'disappointed'
with the ruling, adding:
'the existing law will remain in
place while we carefully consider the judgment.'
LEAVE ASIDE THAT THE JOB OF SIFTING
THROUGH
4.5 million profiles
TO WEED OUT AND ERASE THOSE OF THE
INNOCENT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE BEYOND THE ABILITY
OF POLICE AND WHITEHALL
If I know the ways of this
Government, Miss Smith will seize upon the judge's
'particular concern' that the innocent on the
database may be 'stigmatised' by being treated the
same way as offenders. then she will tell us that
the way to avoid stigmatising anyone is to put the
whole lot of us on the police database and
TREAT US AS CONVICTS.
[Well! New Labour
have certainly learnt a great deal over the past
eleven years from introducing the very weapons of
totalitarian regimes of the past and about the world
today. They have been helped in their
task by the indifference of many voters who couldn't
see the wood for the trees or more appropriately the
BRIBES to HIDE the
LIES]
AFTER ALL, that is almost exactly
what the Government did after the judges' ruling
THAT IT WAS WRONG FOR
BRITAIN TO HAVE A LAW ALLOWING US TO KEEP FOREIGN
CITIZENS UNDER HOSE ARREST.
Very well, replied the
Government, we'll introduce a law allowing Britons
to be
KEPT UNDER HOUSE ARREST-TOO
SO MUCH FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS.
Ah, well, the great
thing about British democracy is that once every
four or five years, we have a chance to get rid of
the likes of Miss Smith and Mr Brown.
It may seem churlish to say this, on
the day after they struck their blow
FOR LIBERTY
but I only wish we
could say the same about the judges of the
ECHR.
*
[Font
Altered-Bolding & Underling Used-Comments in
brackets]
[Regrettably
the main parties in Westminster no longer represent
the views of a greater majority in our country -or
should we say PROVINCES of the UNITED STATES of
EUROPE. The so-called HER MAJESTY'S OPPOSITION
has proved to be NO SUCH THING. It is most
unlikely that should the so-called CONSERVATIVES
return to GOVERNMENT that they will REPEAL the 'BIG
BROTHER schemes of their predecessor.
One has to remember that it was the
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY which passed the 1992 Maastricht Treaty the
OPEN DOOR to the corrupt, unaccountable and satanic
sovietised totalitarian UNITED STATES of EUROPE.
In
2009 there will be the EUROPEAN ELECTIONS.
'At present
of the 28 Tory MEP's only 8 are eurosceptic of which
TWO Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer have
frankly acknowledged that Britain's interests would
be best served by a rapid withdrawal from the EU and
this given the party a misleading and undeserved
veneer of eurosceptic respectability with the
voters. Lord Randolph Churchill famously
declared that being a Tory implied a readiness to
TRUST THE PEOPLE. A substantial proportion of the
Tory MEP's seem to believes THAT IT LIES IN
DECEIVING THEM.' [eurofacts-28th
November,2008]
We believe that none of the main
parties can be trusted to return our 'Rights and
Liberties' or protect our CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY.
Only by voting for the smaller political parties
will you see democracy return to our political
system. The discredited FPTP system has
proved to be the very instrument which has virtually
turned our once FREE COUNTRY into a TOTALITARIAN
STATE or more correctly
totalitarian
PROVINCES of the USOE - the borders of which cross
national borders. ONLY PR PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION can lead our country back to a
parliamentary democracy where EVERY VOTE WILL COUNT.
Of course you will be told that PR leads to weak and
indecisive government. Well! under such a situation
there would not have been a TREATY of ROME or any
other EU TREATY and as for the 'Big Brother' plans
they would never would have seen the light of
day. Many commentators use Israel as an
example where there is a hard line faction in its
Government which does not wish to compromise with
the Arab neighbours. BUT it is the USA
which has the influence to decide events not Israel
alone. Can anyone reading this
message EVER REMEMBER any article in depth on the
subject of PR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION ever been
highlighted by our supposed FREE PRESS.
The advocates of PR the Liberal
Party/ Liberal Democrats over the years had been
energetically calling for a DEBATE on the
subject and until recent times . But all of a sudden
they lost interest because they would rather tie
themselves to the tails of the main protagonists as
a means of sharing power. This shows that the
LIBDEMS/LIBERAL parties are more interested in their
PARTIES than the welfare of THEIR CONSTITUTION and
COUNTRY
WE REST OUR CASE
*
[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining
Used-Comments in Brackets]
*
[It has for
many years now been our considered opinion that the
demise of the BOBBIE-ON-THE-BEAT has opened the
community to the increased CRIME WAVE. With a
police officer in each locality-known by the people
as their Bobbie there is a bond between the citizen
and their fellow citizen the police officer who is
the intermediary between the Government and the FREE
CITIZEN. As is usual NEW LABOUR took the
BOBBIE off the streets and replaced them by CCTV
cameras and looked on everyone as a wrongdoer.
They lost the TRUST of the PEOPLE and COMMUNITIES.
They also decided NOT TO BUILD PRISONS but instead
have a soft approach to CRIME and as to the rights
of the VICTIM they were ignored and even found
THEMSELVES in PRISON when their were over 100.000
criminals who were told THERE WAS NO PLACE FOR THEM.
Many persistent criminals were very angry that they
couldn't get back to see their mates and others who
were sent to OPEN PRISONS decided to use the
opportunity offered by the Prison's apt description
to wonder in or out at their own accord.
WE have recently had a replacement Lord Chief
Justice who appears very different to his predecessor in
that he believes THE PUNISHMENT should FIT THE CRIME
and the protection of the VICTIM instead of as has
been usual the CRIMINAL. BUT all appears to
have gone very QUIET of late -we hope it has not
been a case of a sudden abjuration which will be
quietly shelved-WE
WILL HAVE TO SEE.
Mind how you go!
DECEMBER-2008
HOME |