The tyranny which is the EU now rules in this land without the legitimacy of the consent of the British people. The longer that we are denied our opportunity to have our say on the EU into which our political elite has suborned us, the more rumbustious will be the spasm that eventually throws off the thrall-shackles thus placed upon us.
So much does history teach us about those who try to rule without consent."
http://thehuntsman2
...............
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
That Stasi Tendency, again
So deeply in love with the EU is
our nasty little bunch of Stasi Ministers
that they have taken to proposing
the latest piece of EU tyranny instead
of merely rolling over and adopting it as usual
our nasty little bunch of Stasi Ministers
that they have taken to proposing
the latest piece of EU tyranny instead
of merely rolling over and adopting it as usual
In a remarkable - though wholly unsurprising - move The Erich Honecker Gordon Brown Regime has teamed up with some other regional Prefects to 'persuade' the EU to adopt a measure which will allow UK citizens to be tried in absentia by foreign courts. Consequently you may find yourself doing time in a nice little slammer in Romania without ever knowing about your trial.
Let us first contemplate how it works in England & Wales at the moment. We do not recognise, with some very limited exceptions, trial in the absence of the Defendant. In The Crown Court a Trial which has started can continue if the Defendant legs it. This happens pretty rarely and usually is as a result of Chummy getting a good working over in the witness box by Prosecuting Counsel upon which he reckons it is time to leave. The earlier the Defendant leaves the less likely is it that the Trial Judge will let it proceed in his absence. If convicted and sentenced to imprisonment the Defendant will, when arrested on the no-bail warrant inevitable in such circumstances, go first to the local police station and thence straight to prison.
In the Magistrates Court trials do take place in the absence of the Defendant, but only where the accused has been duly served with notice of the hearing to the satisfaction of the court. Thus, in effect, no trial takes place where the Defendant does not know about it. He certainly cannot be imprisoned without having a chance to address the court, through counsel or by himself.
Now, however, in pursuit of something chilling called 'a common area for justice' (Newspeak for a common judicial system), The Times informs us:
The scheme would allow courts to make judgments without defendants being present where they were imposing fines or confiscation orders; when dealing with criminal offences carrying a custodial sentence; and when issuing the European arrest warrant. It could cover offences such as traffic trangressions, theft, shoplifting or fraud, up to assault or murder. People who have been accused in their absence have the right to a retrial or the right of appeal when extradited.
It is said that "Countries will not be able to enforce judgments where a person was not properly summoned or informed of the trial procedures" but the standards for giving notice of trial in Upper Transylvania may be utterly defferent from those which we would consider to be the bare minimum. So, you have a minor shunt on holiday in some remote part of the Empire, you duly give your details to the nice Traffic Policeman and nine months later a British Policeman turns up at your front door to tell you that you are off to serve a sentence in a Bulgarian Prison.
It may well be that you have a chance of a retrial as of right but one knows only too well that trying to organise a lawyer from a priuson cell in a foreign land is likely to prove a nightmare, and then one is faced with an entirely alien legal system where the standards of proof and burden of proof bear little resemblance to those we think of as being entirely right and proper.
Quite what our government is doing as a sponsor of this appalling state of affairs is beyond me.
The concept of a 'common justice area' has, of course, never been subject to the approval of the British people and was certainly not on the menu in 1975 when we were asked to vote on our membership of the then European Economic Community.
That is unsurprising: had that old Quisling Heath ever suggested as much, the 'Yes' Vote would have lost its deposit in the Referendum of that year.
And that, people, is precisely the problem the EU has in the UK. None of the massive political, constitutional and legal changes since 1975 has ever been subject to the direct approval of the British people. Now few of them will ever be debated in Parliament let alone voted upon, let alone voted upon by us.
The tyranny which is the EU now rules in this land without the legitimacy of the consent of the British people. The longer that we are denied our opportunity to have our say on the EU into which our political elite has suborned us, the more rumbustious will be the spasm that eventually throws off the thrall-shackles thus placed upon us.
So much does history teach us about those who try to rule without consent.
Let us first contemplate how it works in England & Wales at the moment. We do not recognise, with some very limited exceptions, trial in the absence of the Defendant. In The Crown Court a Trial which has started can continue if the Defendant legs it. This happens pretty rarely and usually is as a result of Chummy getting a good working over in the witness box by Prosecuting Counsel upon which he reckons it is time to leave. The earlier the Defendant leaves the less likely is it that the Trial Judge will let it proceed in his absence. If convicted and sentenced to imprisonment the Defendant will, when arrested on the no-bail warrant inevitable in such circumstances, go first to the local police station and thence straight to prison.
In the Magistrates Court trials do take place in the absence of the Defendant, but only where the accused has been duly served with notice of the hearing to the satisfaction of the court. Thus, in effect, no trial takes place where the Defendant does not know about it. He certainly cannot be imprisoned without having a chance to address the court, through counsel or by himself.
Now, however, in pursuit of something chilling called 'a common area for justice' (Newspeak for a common judicial system), The Times informs us:
The scheme would allow courts to make judgments without defendants being present where they were imposing fines or confiscation orders; when dealing with criminal offences carrying a custodial sentence; and when issuing the European arrest warrant. It could cover offences such as traffic trangressions, theft, shoplifting or fraud, up to assault or murder. People who have been accused in their absence have the right to a retrial or the right of appeal when extradited.
It is said that "Countries will not be able to enforce judgments where a person was not properly summoned or informed of the trial procedures" but the standards for giving notice of trial in Upper Transylvania may be utterly defferent from those which we would consider to be the bare minimum. So, you have a minor shunt on holiday in some remote part of the Empire, you duly give your details to the nice Traffic Policeman and nine months later a British Policeman turns up at your front door to tell you that you are off to serve a sentence in a Bulgarian Prison.
It may well be that you have a chance of a retrial as of right but one knows only too well that trying to organise a lawyer from a priuson cell in a foreign land is likely to prove a nightmare, and then one is faced with an entirely alien legal system where the standards of proof and burden of proof bear little resemblance to those we think of as being entirely right and proper.
Quite what our government is doing as a sponsor of this appalling state of affairs is beyond me.
The concept of a 'common justice area' has, of course, never been subject to the approval of the British people and was certainly not on the menu in 1975 when we were asked to vote on our membership of the then European Economic Community.
That is unsurprising: had that old Quisling Heath ever suggested as much, the 'Yes' Vote would have lost its deposit in the Referendum of that year.
And that, people, is precisely the problem the EU has in the UK. None of the massive political, constitutional and legal changes since 1975 has ever been subject to the direct approval of the British people. Now few of them will ever be debated in Parliament let alone voted upon, let alone voted upon by us.
The tyranny which is the EU now rules in this land without the legitimacy of the consent of the British people. The longer that we are denied our opportunity to have our say on the EU into which our political elite has suborned us, the more rumbustious will be the spasm that eventually throws off the thrall-shackles thus placed upon us.
So much does history teach us about those who try to rule without consent.
COMMENT THREAD
Posts
