Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With the
courageous French NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic
self-interested leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their
precious constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to prevent
derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
May 31, 2005 (761 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164?
Iraqi - >17,300 civilians - 25 media
June 17, 2005 (779 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
June 26, 2005 (788 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
July 6, 2005 (798 days since war
ended)
Death Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK -
>6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians - 25 media
August 24, 2005 (847 days since
war ended)
Death Toll: 1,869 US - 93 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
September
29, 2005 (883 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,928 US - 96 UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
11, 2005 (895 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,956 US - 96UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
20, 2005 (904 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 1,986 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
October
25, 2005 (909 days since war ended)
Death Toll: 2,001 US - 97UK - >>6,164?
Iraqi - >>17,300? civilians - 25 media
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
December
14, 2005 (959 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,150 US - 98UK - >>30,000?
Iraqi - 25 media
Why
we'll never win the war on terror
Figures
reveal 1 in 4 terror suspects are asylum seekers, writes
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman, Migration Watch UK - Daily Mail, Dec.23,
2005
Yesterday
brought shocking news that nearly a quarter of all terrorist suspects
arrested in Britain since 9/11 have been asylum seekers. That
was on the very same day that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police was telling Radio 4's Today programme that three major
terrorist conspiracies had been broken up since the London Tube
bombs in July.
Clearly,
police and security services are doing an excellent job. But why
do they have to do it with one hand tied behind their backs? It
is now crystal clear that the asylum system is being abused by
potential terrorists. A Parliamentary answer, slipped out on the
last day of the session, revealed that, of 963 people arrested
on suspicion of terrorist offences, 232 had lodged claims for
asylum - some even after their arrest. At least 50 of these claims
have been made in the past six months.
Why
is this happening? Simple. Britain is a soft touch. A potential
terrorist who claims asylum can be sure of a year, perhaps two,
at British taxpayer's expense while his case and appeals are heard.
Notorious
If
he succeeds in bluffing immigration courts he is in clover. He
becomes entitled to full benefits of our welfare state. If he
fails, he can go underground and join hundreds of thousands of
failed asylum seekers whom the Government has still not removed
from Britain. You would think it was time that the government
got around to doing something effective about this. It is hardly
a new problem.
The
most notorious case was the Algerian in Britain illegally at the
time he stabbed to death Special Branch detective Stephen Oake
at a flat in Manchester in 2003, but there have been plenty more.
The Government could start by analysis the countries from which
these suspects are coming (or claim to come). Algeria, Pakistan
and Iraq spring to mind but there may be other countries, for
example in East Africa.
They
could ensure there is much tighter control over issue of visas
in these countries of concern. Research by Migration Watch, the
organisation I chair, has shown that many visitors from these
countries are issued with visas after only a cursory interview.
But some will still get here and claim asylum. If they do, we
should not let them loose on the streets. Those who pose a potential
risk should be detained until their cases are decided on a special
fast-track procedure.
This
is already done for cases that are considered to be unfounded.
It should now also be done when there is a potential for terrorism
- even if it means expanding the number of detention places. This
leaves two major legal hurdles. The Government is working on one
but ducking the other.
Forbidding
The
first is the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Prime Minister has spoken
of his frustration with this Convention, written 50 years ago
for a few dozen people escaping from behind the Iron Curtain.
Its authors would be astonished if they knew that it was now being
applied to hundreds of thousands of people very year. Tony Blair
has talked about revising it but nothing has happened.
Instead,
the government has found a loophole which they hop will help.
The Convention permits the refusal of asylum for those who have
committed acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.
So Government is now going to legislate to make it clear terrorist
acts fall in this category.
Neat,
if it works. But there is another more serious problem. How do
we get rid of them? For certain, the failed asylum seekers will
claim that they would be subject to torture if they were returned
to their own country. They are probably right. Middle East governments
do not have much truck with those who plot mass murder, wherever
their targets might be.
This
brings us slap up against European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) - another document that goes back more than 50 years to
another time, another world. Article Three of that Convention
is one short sentence: "No one shall be subjected to torture
or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The recent
row about CIA flights around the world focused on exactly this
point.
So
we are stuck. Even if we close off the Refugee convention to terrorists,
the ECHR prevents us from sending them home. And the House of
Lords has even ruled that it is not lawful to detain them indefinitely.
The most that can be done is to put them under a form of house-arrest.
This
has serious implications. Britain could well become a haven for
international terrorists. If they know that they only have to
set foot in Britain and be safe for life then, surely, others
will follow.
Convicted
Indeed,
French and many Middle Eastern governments would claim that this
is already happening. In principle, all European countries should
have the same problem, but the position of London as an international
centre for travel, finance and media makes it a particular target
for this purpose.
Can
anything be done? Revising the ECHR is probably a non-starter;
getting the agreement of more than 50 countries would be impossible.
We could withdraw altogether by giving
6 months notice.
The
Convention has nothing to do with the EU - it comes under the
Council of Europe - but as usual, there are EU complications.
References to the ECHR are enshrined in various EU treaties making
withdrawal, at best, highly complicated. If we could get out of
the ECHR we could write our own human rights law to suit our own
needs and the new circumstances we face.
We
could, for example, give notice that, from a certain date, anyone
convicted of a terrorist offence would be sent back to his home
country on completion of his sentence and without further ado.
The usual argument against any changes to human rights law is
that we would be doing terrorists' work for them. But would it
really be 'giving in to terrorism' to send convicted terrorists
packing, after giving them due warning?
Human
rights are of real importance. But the British also have a right
to expect serious measures to help protect them from suicidal
terrorists. The Prime Minister makes great play of his war on
terror but this legal log-jam makes London an international centre
for terrorist activity. When will the Government face up to the
need for action?
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
