Lawful Rebellion can provide the solution. You saw what happened in Wall Street, and you saw what happened in the City of London. Multiply that by 500 or 1,000 times and we will be free of Europe, free of Party politics and we can institute true Democracy by have a Chamber of Independents who will Govern by consensus. We shall completely divorce ourselves from the Banking Cabal that are attempting to run the whole World with a single government -THEIRS. We need to rebuild our Military, Industry, have a National Bank that issues Interest-free money (instead of having the 'engineered' financial collapses) which circulates permanently, recommence trade with the Free-World, and put on Trial all those traitors that have deliberately got us into this sorry state. There are millions of good people in this Country and perhaps no more that fifty thousand whose 'Common Purpose' has been to destroy our Sovereign Nation.
Britain CAN trump Europe on human rights, says
our most senior judge
Last updated at 5:10 AM on 21st October 2011
Lord Judge said Strasbourg 'should not always win' in tussles with Britain's courts
The Lord Chief Justice yesterday cast fresh doubt on whether Britain should be following the instructions of European human rights judges.
Lord Judge said that in arguments with the French-based European Court of Human Rights, ‘maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win’.
His remarks to a committee of peers were the culmination of a growing movement of criticism among senior judges of the court and the decisions it tries to force on this country.
They suggest that discontent with the human rights court from the public and politicians, which came to a head in the row over whether prisoners should have the vote, is increasingly mirrored among the judiciary.
Lord Judge, head of the judiciary in England and Wales, told the Lords Constitution Committee during a discussion of how its rulings should be treated: ‘I would like to say that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win.’
He questioned whether the most senior British courts needed to be bound by Strasbourg judgments.
‘For Strasbourg there is a debate yet to happen – it will have to happen in the Supreme Court – about what we really do mean in the Human Rights Act, and what Parliament means in the Human Rights Act when it said courts in this country must take account of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
‘I myself think it is at least arguable that, having taken account of the decision of the court in Strasbourg, our courts are not bound by them.’ Lord Judge added: ‘We have to give them due weight, and in most cases obviously we would follow them, but not necessarily.’
Up until two years ago, British courts accepted rulings handed down from Strasbourg without question.
Among the key decisions followed to the letter was the ruling that no British Home Secretary could set the jail term a murderer must serve, and the instruction that the treatment of children in the justice system must change because Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the juvenile killers of James Bulger, did not receive a fair trial.
But the Supreme Court has recently challenged Strasbourg in at least two little-publicised cases.
Contested rulings: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg's decisions have only persuasive influence in British courts
Strasbourg judges are likely to make a new ruling on prisoner votes this autumn which will insist that Britain obeys the order to allow convicted offenders in the jails to vote in parliamentary elections.
Such a ruling could provide a major test of whether British courts are willing to defy the European judges.
Lord Phillips, head of the Supreme Court, indicated yesterday that he believed British courts had no choice but to obey.
He told the peers’ committee: ‘In the end, Strasbourg is going to win so long as we have the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Act is designed to give effect to that part of the rule of law which says we must comply with the convention.
If we have Strasbourg saying “you can’t do that”, it raises some very real problems.’
Unhappiness among senior judges at the behaviour of the ECHR surfaced two years ago when newly retired Law Lord Lord Hoffmann warned that Strasbourg ‘considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe’.
Since then judges to question the Strasbourg court have included Lord Phillips, who said there were cases in which its judges should ‘think again’, and his deputy at the Supreme Court, Lord Hope, who said last year: ‘We certainly won’t lie down in front of what they tell us.’
--------------------------------------
Posts
Here's what readers have had to say so far.......
I believe we live..under the English Legal System...i have Never voted for Anything..other than ..that..? BUT.. it got all screwed-up..after the Normans invaded..!