Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Real Problem In The Real World

Barack Obama, the stone age god-king presently occupying our White House, has declared that our nation has a problem, the inequality of income.

In reality the difference in personal incomes is the result of differences in human actions.  This includes differences in knowledge and effort for each individual.  Differences in economic income is simply a natural consequence of the differences of each person's actions in the economic sphere of action.

The desire on the part of our god-king and his followers to ignore the reality of natural differences in  actions is similar to their insistence on ignoring the changes in the planetary environment that occur as a result of natural processes.

The fact is that within living memory the state of economic equality was enforced upon a nation.

In 1975 in the wake of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese Army, the Khemer Rouge, a Communist faction took power in Cambodia.  The result was nothing less than horrible.  In order to enforce a state of material equality upon their victims the KR murdered anyone anyone who had any ability above that of a peasant farmer.  They even murdered those they suspected of being able to read.  Entire families where broken up and children were ordered to murder their own parents.

By the time the NVA invaded in 1979 one third of the people of Cambodia had been directly murdered or starved to death as a result of KR policies.

For the God-King Barack Obama to obtain a similar result, to recreate the killing fields, in the United States he and his followers would have to murder roughly ninety percent of our people.

For someone to wish a massacre upon us clearly indicates his absolute unfitness to the hold the office of President of the United States.

Barack Obama must go now!


Countryside Alliance chief urges members to stop supporting 'sinister and nasty' RSPCA as they are now 'more interested in badger culls than animal welfare'

The RSPCA has turned from a 'great institution' into a 'sinister and nasty' organisation which is not interested in animal welfare, the head of the Countryside Alliance has warned.

General Sir Barney White-Spunner has urged his members to stop donating to the charity because they are becoming more interested in animal rights issues such as fox hunting and badger culls.

The former Army comanding officer, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, also questioned where the charity's 'authority' came from and believes the animal inspectors have been given intrusive powers which have no basis in law.

Sir Barney raised money for the RSPCA as a youngster but now wants a new organisation to replace the 189-year-old charity, he told the The Daily Telegraph.

They have received heavy criticism from rural campaigners after their campaigning during the fox hunting ban and the badger cull was investigated by the Charity Commission.

Last year, the RSPCA was condemned during its pursuit of fox hunters, after it spent £326,000 on a private prosecution against Oxfordshire’s Heythrop Hunt.  The judge in the case questioned whether members' money could have been better spent.

More recently, the charity has infuriated dairy farmers by trying to stop the badger cull, intended to halt the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

Sir Barney claims farmers were targeted and 'intimated' by campaigners during the bid and is concerned ministers may now drop the policy.  His cattle herd was shut down because of an outbreak of TB, and he claims to have only just cleared the financial costs.

'It’s a sad story. A once great British institution has been turned from an animal welfare organisation to one concerned with animal rights.

'They have no statutory responsibility, yet when their inspectors turn up in uniform it’s as a private organisation. There is something rather sinister and nasty about it.'

In the interview he also claimed that the National Trust was responsible for turning the countryside into 'some sort of theme park' and said the BBC was guilty of portraying rural people as 'Neanderthal'.

Sir Barney also attacked the limited mobile reception in rural areas of Britain saying there is more signal in Helmand Province than in Dorset.

He said the BBC’s coverage of the countryside was neither fair nor balanced and said Countryfile had failed to cover issues such as shooting.

In terms of mobile phone coverage, he claims there is an ongoing 'digital apartheid' between urban and rural areas. Other nations manage to cover 98 per cent of their population, whereas in the United Kingdom it is around about 80 per cent.

A spokesman for the RSPCA said: 'Sir Barney White-Spunner's interview shows once again how far out of touch he and his colleagues at the pro bloodsports Countryside Alliance are with the reality of public opinion in this country.

'He is clearly unhappy that the RSPCA continues to be proud to represent the views of the majority of British people who do not want to see the return of fox hunting and to speak for animals who have no choice and no voice.

'This has been reinforced once again this week by a new opinion polling showing that more than 80% of both rural and urban dwellers oppose any repeal of the hunting act.

'Sir White-Spunner criticises the RSPCA for bringing a prosecution against a hunt, but fails to mention that the hunt pleaded guilty and the judge in the case was himself criticised for making unhelpful and inappropriate comments.

'He also criticises the RSPCA's inspectors, who work every day of the year to ensure animals are protected from cruelty. Indeed most of their visits involve giving support and advice to pet owners to help them improve care for their animals. But in some cases the only option is the legal route.

'The RSPCA has over a million supporters - a number that is growing, contrary to Sir Barney's assertion.

'The RSPCA does not apologise for doing what the charity was formed to do more than 100 years ago - stopping animal abuse and without fear or favour, bringing those who harm animals to justice.


Former Lord Chief Justice warns European Human Rights court has too much power and is not answerable to anyone

Over-mighty European judges are undermining the power of Parliament to make laws, one of Britain’s most senior judges has warned.

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales until September, delivered an unequivocal message on the actions of the Court of Human Rights: ‘Stop here.’

His remarks will give encouragement to Tory Ministers seeking to rein in abuse of human rights laws by criminals, terror suspects and illegal immigrants.

They come as the President of the European court, Judge Dean Spielmann warned Britain's ban on prisoner voting is a breach of international law.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister David Cameron called for the court's powers to be restricted.

He said Britain 'damned well shouldn't' be forced by European judges to give prisoners the vote if Parliament decides they should be barred from elections.

Judge Spielmann warned any attempt by Britain to pull away from the European Convention on Human Rights could set the UK on a path to leaving the EU altogether.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Lord Judge, said: 'The most fundamental principle of our unwritten constitution is parliamentary sovereignty.

'Our elected representatives have ultimate sovereignty not only over our own unelected judges but in my view over the unelected judges of any other jurisdiction, including Europe, unless we choose to give them sovereignty.

'My very strong belief is that this issue now needs to be resolved by Parliament,' he said.

'This is a court which is not answerable to anybody,' he added. 'If it's right, it can't be overruled by anybody.  'I genuinely don't think that a body of judges - however distinguished - should have that sort of power.'

Lord Judge, who declared himself a supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights, said the court's claims have implications for every EU nation, not just the UK.

He said: 'His (Judge Spielmann's) view means that the court in Europe is entitled to tell every country in Europe how it should organise itself.

'He refers to it as a living instrument. Of course the convention isn't a dead instrument, but it means that legislation can be made by judges on all sorts of societal issues - binding legislation - and if that's the position there is a very serious problem with sovereignty.  'It's not a UK problem, the sovereignty issue affects every single country in Europe.'

He added: 'It is time for us to recognise that it is a very important time. My own view is: stop here.'

Judge Spielmann, however, insisted that the UK should not defy the court's ruling on prisoner voting rights.

'This would be clearly inconsistent with the international law obligations of the United Kingdom and also the obligations under the convention,' he told the Today programme.

He said that if Britain sought to pull out of the convention - as some Tory MPs are demanding - it would mean leaving the Council of Europe, the body which created the European Court of Human Rights, and ultimately the EU.

'I cannot see how the United Kingdom could remain a member of the Council of Europe while at the same time withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights,' he said.

'All the members of the European Union are also members of the Council of Europe. I can hardly see how a member of the European Union could withdraw from the Council of Europe. I see a problem there.

'I think from a political perspective it might be very difficult to stay in the European Union.'

In a strongly-worded attack on interference from Strasbourg, Mr Cameron called for the European Court of Human Rights to have its wings clipped earlier this month.

The defiant remarks put the government on a collision course with judges who have ruled that the Britain's blanket ban on votes for those behind bars is a breach of their human rights.

In February last year the Commons called for the blanket ban to be maintained by an overwhelming margin of 234 to 22, despite repeated warnings from Strasbourg.

Mr Cameron said: 'If Parliament decides that prisoners should not get the vote then I think they damn well shouldn't.'  He added: 'It should be a national decision taken in our Parliament.'  The PM said the court's powers must be restricted, telling workers 'we need to clip its wings'.

The prisoner voting row has been running since 2005, when Strasbourg judges ordered Britain to give the vote to convicted prisoners, who have historically been considered to have removed themselves from the electorate.

Despite overwhelming votes in favour of maintaining the law in the Commons, the European judges have continued to repeat their instructions.

In 2010 Mr Cameron said it makes him 'physically ill' to even contemplate having to give the vote to anyone in prison.

And in October last year he added: 'No one should be under any doubt - prisoners are not getting  the vote under this government.'


Reporting of Muslim lawyers' trial banned 'for cultural reasons': Judge's gagging order lifted after appeal by the Daily Mail

A judge allowed two Muslim solicitors accused of trying to cheat the legal system to hide behind a cloak of secrecy for  ‘cultural reasons’, the Daily Mail can disclose.

He banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community.

In the latest farce involving secret justice, the pair were told they could enjoy the court’s protection because members of their family would pass judgment if the case was reported.

It is a privilege rarely bestowed on defendants in the justice system, which has operated on the principle of transparency for centuries. However, following a challenge by the Daily Mail, the restriction was lifted – enabling the case to be reported.

Judge Peter Hughes reversed his original ban after deciding that the principle of open justice was more important than saving the embarrassment of a defendant.

After almost a year of court appearances and legal argument, Miss Khan has been convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice, while her brother was acquitted of the charge.

They were on trial accused of helping their father, Mohammed, dodge a speeding fine by pretending he was not driving at the time of the offence.

In a saga with echoes of the Chris Huhne scandal, he allowed a man who worked for the family to take the blame instead.

At the beginning of the hearings, Miss Khan’s barrister, Glenn Gatland, argued  she would not give evidence properly in the presence of the Press because she was afraid of family repercussions.

He said she did not want to criticise her father in public – though she was quite happy to have her mother sit in the public gallery.

‘Miss Khan is quite upset that if matters are reported she doesn’t feel she would be able to give her evidence as freely as she would have done otherwise,’ said Mr Gatland. ‘Culturally, it’s very difficult for them to say things in public. The evidence would be impacted on by the cultural background of Miss Khan.’

Judge Hughes accepted the argument and banned reporting of the case but then changed his mind after a two-day legal battle with the Mail. ‘We are dealing with members of the legal profession charged with perverting the course of justice,’ he said.

‘People of all faiths or no faiths should be treated in precisely the same way. We’re not dealing with discrimination against. We’re dealing with discrimination for.’

York Crown Court heard that in August 2010 Mohammed Khan was caught by a speed camera in Newcastle while driving daughter Asha’s silver BMW.

When Miss Khan received the speeding notice, she claimed that the driver was David Moat, who worked for the family.

Some months later, the day before Moat was due before magistrates, her brother faxed the court a letter on Moat’s behalf, saying he wanted to plead guilty by post.

Moat was fined £100 with £30 costs and six penalty points for the speeding offence. Prosecutor Jacob Dyer said: ‘There is no dispute in this case that the man actually driving the car was Kashif Khan’s father.

‘It was hoped by supplying the false details that the trail would be lost and the fixed penalty unit would eventually take no further action. But the suspicions of the unit were aroused.’

Kashif Khan successfully argued he did not realise what was going on and had only been trying to help Moat by filling in the form using information provided by him.

‘It was horrible,’ he said. ‘All my life I have worked so hard and told the truth.’

The Khans work for KK Solicitors in Newcastle and live in the city. Asha Khan, a trainee at the firm, will be sentenced in the New Year, with her father and Moat, who both admitted their part in the plot



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: