Monday, January 31, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Why Britain is Different
The real division in the Western civilisation is not between Europe on the one hand and North America and Australasia on the other. It is between all the English-speaking countries on the one hand, whose institutions are based on the English common law system, and those of the Continent on the other. It is worth exploring this difference in some detail.
The English common law originated in the customary dealings of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain after the end of the Roman occupation, and became the law of the kingdom of England. Individuals in Anglo-Saxon England were ceorls, or free peasants, who were not bound to any feudal master. The English common law was, essentially, a system in which voluntary arrangements between individuals were lawfully valid, and did not have to be approved in advance by the state. The common law system was and is basically a libertarian one, in that the individual is, on the whole, free to do whatever he or she wants to do unless it conflicts with the equal rights of others, a contract, or a statutory law. In Anglo-Saxon England there was very little by way of written law. When the Normans conquered England, they dispossessed the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy and introduced feudalism, under which most peasants were bound to the land as either villeins or serfs, and served a feudal master. Under the Normans, laws were written down on a widespread basis for the first time. Although the Normans did not consider themselves to be fundamentally changing the law of England, they introduced concepts from Roman law, which considered the Anglo-Saxon peasants to be subjects of a feudal master. The writ of novel disseisin, which the Normans introduced, reduced Anglo-Saxon peasants to the status of sharecroppers on the lands which they had previously considered to be their own.
King John violated the laws and customs of the kingdom, encroaching on the rights of his subjects. In 1215, the barons, clergy and knights of the realm compelled him to sign Magna Carta, a written statement of the rights of the subjects and communities within the kingdom. Magna Carta was not a revolutionary document, but a statement of pre-existing laws. By putting his seal to Magna Carta, John became the first ruler, probably in world history, to recognise that his word was not law, that his subjects had rights upon which he could not legally encroach, and he had to operate within the framework of individual rights and the rule of law. With Magna Carta, John did not grant any rights. He simply recognised pre-existing rights which freeborn Englishmen enjoyed as their birthright, and which were not granted as the favour or privilege of the monarch, and upon which he had encroached. The idea of a king's subjects enforcing the law and compelling a recognition of their own rights from the monarch was without precedent in the history of humanity. In a lecture he gave in London, Wilhelm Nolling, then a member of the Bundesbank Council, explicitly said that British participation in the EMU designed by Maastricht was inconsistent with Magna Carta.
Of course, there were some problems with Magna Carta. In recognising the rights of "freemen", it appeared to exclude the peasants who had been reduced to bondage after the Norman conquest. The attempt to implement its provisions led, in the short term, to renewed fighting between the king's forces and those of his barons. Nevertheless, it provided a definite recognition of a political and legal order in which individuals enjoyed the right to do what they wished to do, except as prescribed by statute law. Where there were legal disputes between individuals, a court would settle those disputes by reference to the common law, and not to the wishes of the monarch. If the king wished to introduce a law which interfered with the voluntary actions of individuals, the onus was upon him to propose it and get it legally passed, rather that the onus being on those individuals to prove that what they were doing was in accordance with a law the king had previously promulgated. The English common law, in short, recognised an area of human action which lay entirely outside the wishes of previous or present rulers.
The English Parliament gradually developed after Magna Carta as a means by which the king was legally required to gain the assent of his barons, churchmen, knights, merchants, etc, meeting in Parliament, for any new statute law. The king had to get Parliament's approval for the raising of new taxes, and Parliament had the legal right to reduce or refuse these taxes. Parliament also defended the rights of individuals when the king's administration illegally encroached upon them. The English Parliament began, in other words, as a means of limiting the actions of the monarch and defending the integrity of that area of activity which lay outside of statute law. Indeed, as early as 1326 Parliament deposed Edward II after his military failures against the "Auld Alliance" of France and Scotland.
It is essential to recognise that, among the major European countries, this situation existed only in England, although in the separate and adjacent kingdom of Scotland a somewhat similar political and legal order developed, in which the people were also considered to be born free from bondage. I apologise to Scottish readers for refraining from a detailed examination of this theme in Scottish history before the two kingdoms were united. In every other major country in Europe - let alone beyond - the ruler's word was, for all practical purposes, law, and the individual had no rights outside of those the ruler had granted. This development of English liberty took place in a context in which the English people were aware of their legal rights and of their power to use them. In the 14th century, feudalism broke down and was increasingly replaced by a wage economy in which peasants received payment for their work. The concept of a "freeman" was gradually extended to cover every individual in the kingdom. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, which was actually led by knights, merchants and clergymen as much as by peasants, was a manifestation of an entirely libertarian protest against the prices and incomes policy and the poll tax in which the common people used their rights within the law of the land to petition the 14-year-old king, Richard II, for the redress of their grievance, while expressing loyalty to him. Unfortunately, the king tricked them by first agreeing to their demands and then betray-ing them after they had dispersed. This was the personal fault of the king, and not of the system in which individuals enjoyed freedom. The Peasants' Revolt in England should be compared with the peasant Jacqueries of northern France and the Low Countries in the 14th century, in which rebellious serfs looted, burned and killed without motive. The peasants who participated in the Continental Jacqueries had no conception of individual liberty within the law, and nor did they have any reason to do so, given the systems under which they lived.
As the centuries went on, Parliament grew in strength. In the 17th century the inherent conflict between the powers of the king and that of Parliament broke out in the English civil war. When the Parliamentarians had Charles I executed in 1649, unjust though that action certainly was, they did it by legal process. Every king, Pope, emperor and tsar on the Continent expressed amazement that in England the king's subjects could use the law of the land to commit this act of regicide. It would have been utterly inconceivable anywhere else in the world. Eventually, in the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89, William of Orange accepted the Bill of Rights as a fundamental statement of English law, and affirmed the sovereignty of Parliament. It was not actually a revolution, of course, but merely a reinstatement and recognition of existing rights which had been violated by James II. The people of England - later of the United Kingdom - remained freeborn individuals, despite the increase in state interventionism in the twentieth century, until this status was put into question by one act of Parliamentary legislation after another which gave jurisdiction over individuals in the UK to foreign authorities whose rule was based on the supremacy of the state, and in which the individual had no rights. As Enoch Powell put it in 1980:
In 1946 Parliament enacted that any change in the law necessary to comply with a mandatory resolution of the United Nations was to be made not by Act of Parliament but by an Order in Council. Apart from having to be 'laid' before Parliament, such orders which were of the most comprehensive scope - `such provision as appears necessary or expedient, including provision for the apprehension, trial and punishment of persons offending' - were subject to no parliamentary process or control whatever. ... Twenty years later the Act was used - when Britain called in the United Nations to help it coerce Rhodesia.
In 1951 Parliament provided, by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights without debate, that both the Crown itself and any of its subjects within the realm, corporate or personal, could be arraigned and judged before an external court, which could give orders accordingly. Again twenty years elapsed before recourse began to be had to this external, superior jurisdiction. ...
[I]n 1972 the Crown in Parliament made a comprehensive surrender to an external power of all the aspects of sovereignty, domestic and foreign, from the right to conclude treaties to the right to tax, from the right to make laws to the right to judge causes. This price of admission to the European Economic Community was paid, not indeed without debate or opposition, but by a Parliament and a public prepared to treat with ridicule as obsolete the question of authority itself, of the external sovereignty of the state. ... Not merely do external institutions now tax, legislate, and judge causes in Britain, but the courts of this country will enforce the law of the European Community, if Parliament fails to pass or to enact the necessary legislation. It may be wondered what basis for the rule of law can be afforded by institutions which have themselves publically abdicated.
The English tradition of the common law, individual liberty, freedom of contract, and the rule of law, which makes what we call "libertarianism" possible, was extended to those countries which were colonised by the British and later became independent of them. What we call "libertarianism" applies only to those countries, and has no meaning outside of them. Among the existing nations of the world, the UK, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Republic of Ireland and possibly South Africa are the only ones where libertarian principles apply, or could conceivably apply. Even in such countries as India, Malaysia and Nigeria, which were once under British colonial rule and law, these traditions have not survived the end of British rule, and the supremacy of the state over the individual has been re-established. And now that the UK and the Irish Republic are subject to EU law, their inclusion in this list is now in some doubt.
The legal and political tradition of Continental countries is the exact opposite of the British tradition, and there is no way in which they can be merged without destroying one or the other. In the conception of law and society which exists in Continental countries, the state is not merely the supreme, but the sole legal entity within society. No person or institution has any rights whatsoever that have not been granted by the state, and which are in the power of the state to revoke. Under the Code Napoleon, which is the fundamental law of France, Italy and Belgium, every activity is illegal unless a law has been specifically passed permitting and regulating it. The German legal system is very similar. By contrast, in the British tradition every activity is legal unless Parliament has passed a law prohibiting or regulating it.
Saturday, January 29, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Following the kerfuffle last week over who has the power to determine policy over immigration and asylum seekers, I received a response to my post here. In full, in italics, with my commentary, the email, in a personal capacity, from the Director General, Justice Freedom and Security, European Commission
Re your comment "Just How Much of our Law Comes From Europe? Interesting little blow up yesterday about immigration and asylum seekers. The opposition party in a sovereign nation decides to concentrate on those two subjects as part of the ramp up to elections in a few months time. Within hours, a supra-national authority states that whatever you say, think, laws you pass, does not matter, for we are the people with power in this matter. It does beg the question, is that nation actually sovereign in any meaningful way if it is not allowed the most basic of powers, that to decide who may enter the nation?"
That’s the part of my previous post that he wishes to comment upon.
The Commission does not make laws on these issues in the EU. The Council of Ministers, including of course British ministers, legislates.
One of the things wrong with the project of course. Legislatures legislate. The Council of Ministers is where the horsetrading goes on. The actual legislature, the European Parliament, has, incredible as it may seem to those used to the basic procedures of a free country, no powers whatsoever to initiate legislation. That is reserved to the Commission, passing through the Council before being passed or not by the Parliament. In essence, if the Commission doesn’t propose it it ain’t gonna happen. If it does, it probably will although not certainly.
Member States decide for themselves how many immigrants they admit.
Asylum is governed by international law, most specifically the Geneva Convention of 1951. There are recently agreed EU directives making a modest start on the creation of a common asylum system, within the agreed international framework.
As it stands at the moment we can leave that treaty committment. At least we could, until the recently agreed changes, which is what everyone is whining about. We can’t, any more, as we could under the Geneva rules, opt out of all or part any more, for we are about to be bound by further EU rules. The point really. A sovereign nation can sign up to treaties, sure. It can also leave them. Except when the big brothers at the EU get involved apparently.
The point of the EU is that some sovereignty is best exercised collectively.
I realise that you need to believe that in order to be able to cash your pay cheque each month. You’d be amazed at the number of people who don’t believe it though. There is not one single matter, one single area of policy or legislation where sovereignty is better exercised collectively even in philosophic terms, let alone in the delightful realities such as the CAP, CFP, frauds and cheating that we actually get. I will accept that the free movement of goods, people and capital are good to have. We had the latter two before, 1870-1914 and managed without a supra-national body to "run" it, the first is properly the province of the WTO. So, sorry, I don’t accept the basic premise.
In an open territory within which it is easy to travel, EU countries have understood that migration should be managed together.
The UK is not part of Schengen, people have to show their passports to get in. We can manage it on our own thank you.
The EU has the political and legal mechanisms for that purpose
Political mechanisms? There is no European Demos, thus no politics of any kind that can be called remotely democratic. Legal mechanisms? It has one court which takes 5 years to get to. OK, OK, you can call that a mechanism if you want to and those enlargment pills advertised by email really work too.
The EU is is not a detached supra-national authority; it is all of us deciding together on matters of common concern.
Us, We, get no chance to decide anything. You get to decide a lot, set the agenda. Ministers get to cull the verbiage a bit, the Parliament has a veto power (although given the details of how that place works, for example, legislation not failing at the end of a session, bills now, in the new P, having their second and third readings when the first was in the old one....this isn’t how a Parliament works in the real world) but we the poor bloody citizens continue to have the social democratic nightmare thrust down our throats. I would also point out that "All of us deciding together on matters of common concern" is a pretty lousy way to run a continent. What to have for dinner is a matter which everyone individually is concerned with but no one, outside N Korea, really believes that we should decide it collectively. Except, well, your colleagues who write the food regulations. I am so grateful that someone has decided that jam may not contain lemon oil but may contain carrots. A stunning contribution to human welfare I call it, well worth 1.2% of GDP.
Once laws are made, they should be applied. That is the rule of law.
Indeed it is. Budgets should be audited, crooks punished, looters of public money jailed, countries which sign up to stabilization programmes kept to them, fined as the law allows, indeed insists upon, illegal state aid should be stopped, milk subsidies repaid, those who lie to get into currency systems thrown out. Ooops! Sorry I was describing a free and rational world there wasn’t I? How naive and Anglo-Saxon of me. Just can’t do nuance. We also retain a modicum of freedom, that pesky little thing called jury trial (whatever Clarke’s attempts to get rid of it) the entire point of which is that if the Jury thinks that the law is an ass they can acquit. As they sometimes do. Dastardly plot by us Anglos eh? Must be why Eurojust won’t use that system.
There would be no point in having EU rules if the members were then free to do something different.
Then again, I don’t think you’ve really looked around this site very much. There is no point in having EU rules as there is no point in having an EU. This post might help get the idea across:
Yours in a private capacity (but I will not conceal my job, which is of course directly relevant to these matters),
Director General Justice Freedom and Security
I must say thank you for your email but may I explain a little bit about these blog things? The idea is that debate is public, that’s what the comments sections are for. I look forward to your thoughts.
Thursday, January 27, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Campaign to Reject the European Constitution
CREC, the campaigning organisation that helped force the government to concede a referendum on the European Constitution, today condemned the proposed referendum question on the European Constitution as unfair. The government has proposed this question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?” CREC says the question should be: “Do you wish the European Constitution to replace the British Constitution?” CREC has today written to the government and the Electoral Commission asking for the wording of the question to be changed.
‘BRITISH PEOPLE MUST BE AWARE OF CHOICE’Tony Bennett, CREC Secretary, said: “Our proposed question is more straightforward and honest. It emphasises to British people that they have a stark choice. To adopt the proposed European Constitution means giving up the British Constitution. The European Union will become a state and the United Kingdom will cease to be a nation. The right of our Parliament to determine its own laws, its own foreign, defence and domestic policies will be swept away for ever. The referendum question should enable British people to be aware of the choice that faces them”.
‘LIBRARIES HAVE NO COPIES OF THE CONSTITUTION’
CREC is also very concerned that, three months after the European Constitution was signed (on 29 October), there are no copies available to the general public. Chairman Derek Norman said: “The only way to get a copy is by ‘phoning the Foreign Office and getting an unbound pile of hundreds of loose-leaf pages. There is no bound copy of the European Constitution available yet. No-one can walk into a public library in this country and read it.
‘CREC LABELS EXPLAIN WHAT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION’
CREC has therefore ordered hundreds of thousands of envelope labels to inform British people what is in the Constitution. Examples are shown below. Graham Wood, CREC’s Northern Organiser, who distributes the labels, said: “We’re informing the nation what’s in the Constitution. The government should do it but they’re not. Our labels inform people about the main features of the European Constitution. We’re getting lots of requests for them and we have 15 separate labels in mind. We’ve published the first two and, as funds permit, we aim to produce a series of 15”. CREC plans later this year to distribute a 4-page pamphlet warning of the dangers of the European Constitution.
POSTCARDS TO THE QUEEN
CREC began in March 2003 as the Campaign for a Referendum on the European Constitution. It has been best known to date for organising a mass postcard-writing campaign. 180,000 British people signed our attractive purple ‘Postcards to the Queen’, which called on Her Majesty not to sign the European Constitution into law until there had first been a fair referendum on it. After Blair’s concession of a referendum, CREC turned itself into the Campaign to Reject the European Constitution.
Derek Norman, 9 Station Cottages, HUNTINGDON, Cambs PE29 3BW Tel: 01480 435837
Tony Bennett, 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 0DJ Tel: 01279 635789
Bryan Smalley, The Old Nurseries, MUCH HADHAM, Herts SG10 2AT Tel: 01279 842185
Peter Rogers, 22 Kingswood Gardens, LEEDS, Yorks LS8 2BT Tel: 0113 293 7437
Graham Wood, 32 Station Road, Poppleton, YORK, YO26 6PY Tel: 01904 795204
Holocaust Remembrance Day
The importance of this power of protective custody was set forth in Das Archiv, 1936, in the following language:
"The most effective preventive measure is without doubt the withdrawal of freedom, which is covered in the form of protective custody, if it is to be feared that the free activity of the persons in question might endanger the security of the State in any way. While protective arrest of short duration is carried out in police and court prisons, the concentration camps under the Secret State Police admit those taken into protective custody who have to be withdrawn from public life for a longer time."
Wednesday, January 26, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
St Bernard for Rover
Article 87 of the EC Treaty prohibits any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain firms or the production of certain goods. The aid in question can take a variety of forms as, for instance:
state guarantee or holding;
provision by the state of goods and services on preferential terms
Tuesday, January 25, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Hunting for MEP's
The 1911 Parliament Act was introduced to cut the powers of the Lords. They were no longer allowed to prevent the passage of 'money bills' The legal status of the Parliament Act, 1949, is questionable with regard to forcing through the Fox Hunting Bill, Some respected constitutional lawyers believe that it is not valid. It purports to enable legislation to be enacted after a year despite the opposition of The House of Lords. But, as Professor Hood Phillips pointed out over 50 years ago, the Act cannot be valid because it was rejected by the House of Lords and no power of amendment was conferred on the House of Commons by the Parliament Act, 1911.
Indeed the Parliament Act 1911 offers no authority to the House of Commons to amend primary legislation at all. And if the Parliament Act 1949 is invalid, so must be much European-led legislation, including most recently the European Parliamentary Election Act,1999. If the Government did use the Parliament Acts to force through this Bill they might come unstuck.
Here I must get down to technicalities. The Parliament Acts consist of the original Act of 1911 and the amending Act of 1949. The former Act said that, in relation to a Bill introduced into the Commons, that House would prevail against Lords disagreement, and the Bill would become law, if it were passed three times by the Commons. The 1949 Act substituted two times. At the time the Lords disagreed with this change, so the 1911 Act in its unamended form was used to effect it Accepting a literal construction, the 1911 Act permitted the 1949 amendment, but in constitutional law "a literal construction of a statute may well be rejected, if to accept it would conflict with the statute's purpose".
Monday, January 24, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Letter from Australia
I am taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to two matters which are of concern to people here in Australia as well as to those in all of Her Majesty's other Realms.
The first matter relates to the proposed Ten Minute Rule Motion by Mr Jonathan Sayeed M. P. on the issue of the retirement of the Sovereign and the choosing of Her Majesty's successor by the House of Commons. Very few people, particularly in the Realms, are aware that few Motions of this nature ever proceed further and will undoubtedly be unduly influenced by the media sensationalising of this particular subject. May I emphasise that The Crown belongs to all sixteen Commonwealth Realms and whatever the House of Commons may debate, let alone legislate, will affect all of Her Majesty's subjects outside the Kingdom. It is for this purpose that the Statute of Westminster requires: "that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
The second matter of concern is with regard to voting in the proposed Referendum on the European Constitution. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of British citizens who reside outside of the United Kingdom will be affected by the decision of the Referendum and we ask whether consideration is being given to allowing ALL British citizens a vote wherever residing in Britain or not?
Philip Benwell MBE
The Australian Monarchist League
P O Box 1068
Double Bay NSW 1360
Saturday, January 22, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Shyster lawyers and charlatans
Good work Anne, it's a pity the Baroness Scotland couldn't make a public apology, but hopefully by publishing this letter we can show this inept bunch of politicians up for what they are. Shyster lawyers and charlatans.
This is a copy of a letter from the Home Office dated 20.1.2005.
Dear Ms Palmer,
Thank you for your letters of 22nd November to Baroness Scotland about her answer to a recent parliamentary question from Lord Tebbit concerning treason legislation. This has been passed to the criminal Law Policy Unit of the home Office, which has responsibility for such legislation, and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in doing so.
As you rightly say, the answer given to Lord Tebbit’s question was incorrect because it sated that the Treason act 1795 was still in force when it was in fact repealed by the Crime and disorder Act 1998. Baroness Scotland has since written to Lord Tebbit correcting the mistake. A copy of her letter of 16 December (Which you will see has been placed in both the house Libraries) is enclosed for your information.
The Crime and disorder Act 1998 substituted a sentence of life imprisonment for the death penalty previous associated with offences of treason. You ask why, in the cases of the Treason acts of 1790, 1q795, 1817 and the Treason by women (Ireland) Act 1796, the whole Act was repealed; and why, in the case of the Treason Felony Act 1848, section 2 was repealed.
We know that the Treason act 1790 and the Treason by Women Act 1796 were repealed in their entirety because they did no more than provide for the death penalty for women convicted of treason; and that the repeals of the 1817 Act and section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 were consequential to the repeal of the 1795 Act. However, I am afraid that, despite an extensive search of our records, we have not been able to ascertain why the 1795 Act was itself repealed at that time. (All officials who worked in this Unit during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act have since moved on so we have not had the benefit of their knowledge).
The 1795 Act outlawed plots to kill, maim, imprison etc the Sovereign, his heirs and successors. In modern practice, such acts would be covered by conspiracy law which was placed on a statutory footing by the criminal Law Act 1977. The maximum sentence for conspiracy is the same as the offence the defendant conspired to commit. For example, a person convicted of conspiracy to murder or of conspiracy to commit another serious offence for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, could be sentenced to life imprisonment for the conspiracy too.
Finally, you ask which treason Acts, either in part or full, are still in force. These are as follows: the Treason Acts of 1351, 1695, 1702, 1800, 1814, 1842 and 1945; and the treason Felony Act 1848. The most important of these is the treason Act 1351 which defines the main circumstances in which high treason is committed
The European Commission is currently preparing its proposal for the future Community Action Programme to promote active citizenship that will take over as of 1st January 2007. The online consultation is the first step in the consultation process. The consultation period began on 15th December 2004 and ends formally on 15th February 2005.
Why not take a visit and let them know what you think, better still, inform your friends, family, acquaintances and other blog's to do the same.
Friday, January 21, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Eric Arthur Blair
Eric Arthur Blair, certainly left his mark on our linguistic and literal history 'Orwellian' 'Big Brother' etc. On this day 55 years ago, the writer,George Orwell, died after a three-year battle against tuberculosis Today the ancient disease, once referred to as the white plague, is killing more people today than ever before, and it is on the rise in London. The number of cases in the capital has been rising since the mid-1980s. Of all the cases diagnosed in England and Wales, over 40 per cent are in the capital.
The Fight Against The White Plague
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Thursday, January 20, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
EU Propaganda Ministry
.....In general, I prefer a tough but knowledgeable journalist to a "kind" but ignorant one… And I have also learnt to respect the work of photographers = to give them some time and be patient when asked to look "natural" holding some boring document while smiling and shaking hands with the lobbyist of the day…...
Well, blow me again...... in her first message she tells us 2004 sucks and now she agrees with what we all know, the EU produces 'boring documents' I am afraid if I read much more of this trite trash, I will join the misogynist league
By the way, should we ban the viewing of foxes with Husbands?
"rite of passage"
Reported in the Telegraph 'Coming of age' day for 18-year-olds Under proposals published by the Home Office yesterday, they could be asked to take part in events to recognise the point at which they gain the right to vote and achieve greater independence from their parents.
Fiona Mactaggart, a Home Office minister, said: "This is about a rite of passage. It might increase voting among young people, for example, and increase their interest in contributing to society." She thought that October was appropriate for a citizenship day "because it is already Black History Month''
Ok lets look at some BLACK HISTORY (here)
A rite of passage Ceremony The District Leader in Dortmund, party comrade Hesseldieck, gives us the following valuable ideas:
The totality of education in the schools is not to be separated from the worldview education that became the party's responsibility after the seizure of power. We must claim and influence the totality of education. That requires our involvement at the critical transition points of the youth. As the youth leave school and assume their obligations to fight and work for the German people, the party must be involved, which means it becomes the duty of the respective political leader, the district leader or the local group leader.
For these reasons, I decided to hold school leaving ceremonies in the name of the party for all boys and girls finishing school. I delegated this responsibility for obvious reasons to the National Socialist Teacher's Federation. (The NS Teacher's Federation made all the preparations, and the ceremonies were conducted by the party's political leaders. The Editors.) The center of each ceremony, the pledge by the boys and girls, was entirely the responsibility of the political leader. All those completing middle, upper and advanced schools were gathered on one day. The ceremony took place in the large Dortmund film theater, the "Capitol." About 1800 youth participated. I myself led the pledge for the boys and girls. In other local groups, the ceremony was held in similar ways, led by the respective local group leader. In many cases, the youth received a picture of the Führer along with a quotation of National Socialist thought, or else the book Remember that you are a German.(could even be a copy of the EU constitution)
These ceremonies had a powerful effect on everyone, particularly on the youth. We also impressed the opponents of our worldview. That proves to me that this is the right way.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Early Day Motion (EDM 506)
The EDM reads "That this House believes that the decision to deploy British armed forces in conflict is of the most serious nature possible; notes that this is a decision to be taken by Ministers via the Royal Prerogative and that Parliament has no right to decide on the matter or even to be consulted; notes that the Public Administration Select Committee has recommended in its report of 4th March 2004 that this situation should be ended and that Parliament should have the right to decide this matter in advance, or in cases of emergency retrospectively, commends the Armed Forces (Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict) Bill introduced by the Honourable Member for Walthamstow, and supported by Honourable Members from other Parties, and urges the Government to provide time for this Bill to be debated, and to support the Bill."
What can YOU do? Ask your MP to go to the Table Office in the House of Commons to sign the EDM 506
Straight Banana Republic
The EU site Get your facts straight has a link to what they describe as BENDY BANANA Myth. Having read it, I note they don't deny it. Well, it would be a little difficult to deny, as a quick GOOGLE reveals Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 which says : Sizing is determined by: - the length of the edible pulp of the fruit, expressed in centimetres and measured along the convex face from the blossom end to the base of the peduncle, - the grade, i.e. the measurement, in millimetres, of the thickness of a transverse section of the fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis. Etc etc
The EU a Straight Banana Republic
If you think I am fixated with the straight Banana, just take look at the myriad of EU BANANA regulations and amendments HERE EU Banana Regime And if that isnt bad enough, the House of lords is going Bananas too HoL Banana Regime
Sunday, January 16, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
The UK judiciary, not being content in upholding the Law and the British Constitution, are now assisting other Countries to destroy their Common Law legal systems
Reported in the Sunday Times of Malta today
UK judge for training course
Judge William Rose, Senior Circuit Judge at Wandsworth County Court, arrives in Malta today to run a training course on Ex-Tempore Judgments for Malta's Judiciary. The course takes place at the Corinthia San Gorg Hotel and is supported by the British High Commission.
The event is the culmination of a two-year project, Support For Malta's Judicial System - Adapting To Change, and follows two conferences held in Malta last year to exchange views between the British and the Maltese judiciary and lawyers on applying EU law.
The project is designed to strengthen the capacity of the Maltese judiciary to meet the requirements of the EU acquis through exchanges of expertise, comparison of work methodology and specialised training.
Europe to ban the fylfot
But surely that would be a breach of Article's 9 and 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights. The swastika (fylfot) is an ancient religious symbol of luck and prosperity with a remarkably diverse history. Its name comes from the Sanskrit "svasti," meaning well-being. It dates back over 3,000 years, and has adorned Indian textiles, Buddhist temples, Native American clothing, and coins from the ancient Greek city of Troy. For Buddhists and Hindus, the swastika is a very religious symbol that is commonly used.
The ubiquity of the swastika before its appropriation by the Nazis seems jarring today. At the turn of the century, it was used by Coca Cola and the Boy Scouts. During World War I, it could be found on the patches of the American 45th Air Division.
And on symbols and insignia, just take a look at the new EUROPOL website. The logo is very reminiscent of the Schutzstaffel, bolts of lightning
If any foul emblem should be banned, then it is the symbol of servitude and subjugation to the European Union. The follicular flag. The ring of Golden Mullet's
One Down 26 to go
Robert Jackson was born on September 24th 1946. He was educated at Falcon College, Rhodesia, St Edmunds Hall and All Souls College, Oxford, where he obtained an MA. He was President of the Oxford Union in 1967.
Married to Caroline Frances, MEP for Wiltshire North and Bath, and daughter of Geoffrey Harvey, they have one son - deceased.
Publications of his include, "South Asian Crisis, Pakistan, Bangladesh", "The European Parliament: a guide for Direct Elections", and "The Round Table: the Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs". He is past editor of "International Affairs".
Robert recreational activities include walking, gardening and singing.
In 1974 Robert contested Manchester Central, but it was not until 1979 that he became MEP for Upper Thames. Previously, he had been political advisor to the Secretary of State (1973-74), to the Rt Hon. Sir Christopher Soames (1974-76), and to Chef de Cabinet to Basil de Ferranti, MEP (1977-78). He has also been political advisor to the Governor of Rhodesia (1980).
Wordsh of Mash Desheption
A consultation document by Blair's strategy unit was redrafted to remove evidence of a link between drink and 19,000 sex assaults a year and the 'adverse' effect 24-hour opening might have on local residents
Tough on Crime and tough on the causes of crime eh!
Saturday, January 15, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Well, what did he expect, George Bush has already secured his next term of office and its not surprising that he is treating his traitorous poodle with the contempt he deserves. The leader in today's Telegraph Britain sells out for the sake of China's market may explain why Georgie wishes to align himself with another Pacific Rim power and set aside his 'Old Europe' pall.
I wont even attempt to explain the intricacies, as they have been summed up by Dr Richard North on his EU Referendum blog He has turned in the wrong direction
'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.
Friday, January 14, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Well, blow me--- 2004 sucked!
The eloquent closing words from Euro Totty Margot Wallström's new, publicly financed blog. The Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, informs us, that she has discovered a new word to add to her vocabulary. I guess she will get plenty of practice using it over her lunches that last three or four or even more hours from now on.
Be careful how you use that new word Margot, a Tsunami of tiramisu will make you look fat in that new job Watch yourself change
Wednesday, January 12, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Carlisle is an ancient city at the confluence of the rivers Eden, Caldew, and Petteril. Up to 80 per cent of the traditional wetlands upriver on the Eden and its tributaries have been lost since the 1950s. These areas, use to absorb heavy rainfall before slowly releasing it into rivers, they were drained to improve grazing.
The main electricity sub station which flooded, hindering the communications systems of the emergency services and caused the loss of power to over a 100,000 households for over 48 hrs, is built right next to the river. The surrounding flood plain has been developed into the Willowholm trading estate.
The city's police station, fire station and civic centre were all swamped by up to 8ft of water, well what a surprise. The main roundabout, 'Hardwick Circus' is actualy built on the site of the 'old priestbeck bridge' and the "Sands Centre' and it's car park are built upon the now filled in Priestbeck. Guess where the above buildings are located, YEP, in the old preistbeck flood plain.
Extensive building has taken place close to the Eden since 1968, when floods last struck the city, some of it on the flood plain itself. Floods at the weekend were more than 3ft higher than those 37 years ago, producing much more damage
In physics, the principle that the weight of the liquid displaced by an object is equal to the weight of the object. The principle is often stated in the form: 'an object totally or partially submerged in a fluid displaces a volume of fluid that weighs the same as the apparent loss in weight of the object.
Monday, January 10, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Dear Lord Dobs,
With reference to your Private Members Bill to make provision about succession to the Crown and about Royal Marriages.
I write to convey my great concern and objection to any alteration or repeal of any part of our Common Law Constitution. You site the Act of Settlement, which is of course what it says it is, an important ‘act of settlement’ and one which makes quite clear is “forever”. Any alteration or repeal would also affect fifteen Commonwealth Countries.
I am aware that the present Pope wanted (the Catholic) religion included in the European Constitution and note that he is also Head of the Catholic Church and Head of State. Whereas our Constitution applies to this country, the Papacy as I understand it, considers itself not only a political institution, it would claim universal authority. It does not however have jurisdiction here in this Realm of the United Kingdom. It should remain ever thus. (See also Hansard 19th December 2001 Column 322 re religious discrimination)
I am aware of Lord Gray’s case on the abolition of the Hereditary Peers that he thought ultra vires, and I am aware of the out-come of that case. (There were no life Peers in 1706/7). The Act of Union is a Treaty between two sovereign states, the Country of England (and Wales) and the Country of Scotland. It is also a Treaty that was ratified. Alteration or repeal of such an ancient document would put that Treaty in jeopardy, and therefore the United Kingdom as a whole in jeopardy. The Treaty upon the Act of Union is also very clear about religion and succession and Article 11 of the Treaty of Union embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement. The repeal of that Treaty would bring about two separate Countries once more.
The Bill of Rights is about the security of this nation and the security and rights of the people. Although ‘today’s’ Politicians appear to believe that they can do exactly what they like, (they appear to rely on their interpretation of Dicey, yet neither he nor Lord Denning could have envisaged that any British Government would have gone so far as to contemplate accepting an EU constitution that would take preference above our own). What our Parliamentarians seem to forget is that most of our Common Law Constitution is a contract/compact made between the Crown and the people of this Country and to which Parliament has agreed. (See Denning in his quote from Sir Thomas Fuller) It is the people’s Bill of Rights and is part of the settlement of what became known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 into which the whole of the Declaration of Rights was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
“For the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the TRUE, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesty’s and their successors according to the same in all times to come”.
None of it could be clearer. The Government and the people are bound by Oath (and so by law) to the Crown. It is part of the Settlement of one of the most successful revolutions in history, at least up until recent years. For example, under the present and recent situation, if a subject of Her Majesty is arrested and charged by a foreign national, recruited into the British Police Service quite deliberately, then the people might become alerted to the destruction of their rights. The Act of Settlement and Magna Carta are quite clear that British nationals only should be recruited and the Bill of Rights lays down the Oaths of Allegiance. These were all built into our Common Law Constitution even all those long years ago for the SECURITY of this country and the people and, as part of our Constitution it applies today. (I am aware of the ‘nationality’ clause in the EU Constitution, but SECURITY of our country and our own Constitution must take precedence, and especially before ‘deeper and more meaningful’ integration into the European Union.
The incorporation into our legislation of the Convention on Human Rights went ahead in the full knowledge that it was incompatible with our Constitution. A Constitution is like the foundations of a house; our Constitution is the very foundation of this Country authority. Chip away at the foundations of a house, and it falls down. Chip away at our Constitution and eventually the whole Country may fall. Likewise by incorporating the European Communities Act into our Legislation again knowing that it was incompatible with our Constitution was bound to bring with it a division of the people within this Country. A division, which commenced in 1972, and has become a wide gulf at this present time. It is time for the Convention on Human Rights to be repealed along with the European Communities Act.
It cannot possibly have escaped notice that the people of this Country have become more protective of their country recently, perhaps more patriotic than they have been for some considerable time. So many died fighting in two world wars so that we should not be governed forever by other than our own. I realise more than ever that our own constitution has to be protected and must not be allowed to be slowly ‘chipped away’. I am fearful, very fearful of what may happen in the future, especially when the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Treaty for the Union” is being mooted as “just another treaty”. It is most definitely NOT. I pray that it does not bring forth another glorious revolution if any attempt is made to incorporate it as a Constitution for this country. Or one Constitution for the whole of the European Union with us still ‘in’ the Union.
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II is bound by the Oaths she made at Her Coronation as we too are so bound by our oaths of allegiance. I respectfully ask you to withdraw your Bill. I remain a loyal and true subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Copy to the Lord Chancellor.
As this is about our Constitution, it is an open letter.
Saturday, January 08, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Australia attempts to save British Constitution
The proposer of the Bill is Lord Dubs, a working Labour Peer and a member of the Executive of the Fabian Society.
Is it not the height of arrogance for the British Parliament to debate these matters without any regard for the consequences to the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms?
Despite the horrific cost, the National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, Philip Benwell MBE has written individually to Members of the House of Lords to remind their Lordships that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 requires: "that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent AS WELL OF THE PARLIAMENTS OF ALL THE DOMINIONS as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
Mr Benwell's letter is given below. He will be addressing a few meetings in the United Kingdom during a short stay from the 19th to the end of April 2005.
LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
4th January 2005
The Australian Monarchist League, a totally voluntary organisation, has fought long and hard to maintain our Constitutional Monarchy under which we believe our freedom and democracy is best protected. A belief which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the People of Australia in the 1999 Referendum. I am therefore taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to the 'Succession to the Crown Bill (HL)', the Second Reading of which is scheduled for the 14th January 2005, as this Bill has direct consequences for the Monarchy in Australia and that of our fellow Commonwealth Realms.
The Bill proposes to amend the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights for the purpose of reforming the Succession to The Crown and removing the prohibition on marriage to a Roman Catholic. The Bill also seeks to repeal the Royal Marriage Act of 1772.
Whilst the remainder of the original Dominions - (now termed Commonwealth Realms) - of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are today sovereign democracies each with their own unique constitutions, precedents and conventions developed to suit our individual environments and peoples, our constitutions nevertheless continue to be inextricably linked to The Crown of the United Kingdom. Under the Australian Constitution this is quite clearly expressed in Clause 2 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900, which states: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".
It was because of this state of affairs, which continues to this day, that the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was enacted to protect the special relationship that each Dominion has directly with The Crown from actions of the British Government and the British Parliament without the approval of the Realms as is explained by the wording of the Statute: "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
Whilst paragraph 6 (2) of the proposed Succession to the Crown Bill (HL states: "This Act extends to the United Kingdom only" I respectfully submit that anything to do with the Succession will, regardless of this clause, affect the other fifteen Commonwealth Realms and that the proposed Bill as it stands is contrary to the terms of the Statute of Westminster and should not, as such, be entertained by the House.
Philip Benwell MBE
Australian Monarchist League
Tuesday, January 04, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Stunned into silence
"After the natural disaster that has affected south-east Asia and some regions of east Africa, the Luxembourg Presidency calls for three minutes of mourning in silence throughout the European Union, to be observed at noon on 5 January 2005. Flags will fly at half-mast"
At noon tomorrow 05/01/05 why not send an e-mail to the EU presidency with the follow text.
'You cant save life with silence'
EU CONTACT LINK HERE
least we forget
“Shock, horror! The list of Tony Blair's dinner guests at Chequers has now been revealed. Between June 2001 and April 2003, the prime minister entertained 51 such heavyweights of the political world as Geri Halliwell, Ken Hom and Des O'Connor. I have no objection to the people on the prime minister's list, but how about the idea of suggesting 51 people that should be invited, and why?”
Jonathan, here is my list. Slightly more than 51, least we forget
Private Pita Tukutukuwaqa of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Sergeant Stuart Robert Tennant Gray of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Private Paul Aitken Lowe of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Private Scott William McArdle of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Private Kevin Thomas McHale of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Corporal Marc Taylor 27, Corps of Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Gunner David Lawrence 25, 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery,
Fusilier Stephen Jones 22, 1st Battalion, The Royal Welch Fusiliers
Lance Corporal Paul David Trevor Thomas 29 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry
Private Marc Ferns 21, 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Private Lee Martin O'Callaghan 20, 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment Private Christopher Rayment 22, 1st The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment
Flight Lieutenant Kristian Michel Alexander Gover 30, RAF Basrah Airport
Fusilier Gordon Campbell Gentle 19, 1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers
Corporal Richard Thomas David Ivell 29, Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Sapper Robert Thomson 22, 35 Engineer Regiment
Rifleman Vincent Calvin Windsor 23, 2nd Battalion The Royal Green Jackets
Lance Corporal Andrew James Craw, 21,1st Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders
Major James Stenner, 30, Welsh Guards
Sergeant Norman Patterson, 28, Cheshire Regiment
Pvt. Ryan Lloyd Thomas 18, 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales
Cpl. Ian Plank 31, Royal Marines,
Sgt. John Nightingale 32,Royal Logistic Corps, Territorial Army
Fusilier Russell Beeston 26, 52nd Lowland Regiment (Volunteers),
Warrant Officer Colin Wall 34, Royal Military Police
Maj. Matthew Titchener 32, Royal Military Police
Cpl.Dewi Pritchard 35, Royal Military Police, Territorial Army
Capt. David Jones 29, 1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment
Pvt. Jason Smith 32, 52nd Lowland Regiment, Territorial Army
Capt. James Linton 43, 40 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery
Cpl. Simon Miller 21, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Lance Cpl. Benjamin John Hyde 23, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Chief Warrant Cpl. Russell Aston 30, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Sgt. Simon Alexander Hamilton-Jewell 41, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Cpl. Paul Graham Long 24, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Lance Cpl. Thomas Richard Keys 20, 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
Leonard Harvey, 55, civilian firefighter with the Defense Fire Service
Corporal David Shepherd - An RAF Policeman died in Kuwait.
Gunner Duncan Geoffrey Pritchard, 22, Royal Air Force Regiment,
Private Andrew Kelly, 18, from Tavistock, of 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment.
Lance Corporal James McCue, 27, Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Lieutenant Alexander Tweedie, The Blues & Royals, Household Cavalry Regiment.
Fusilier Kelan John Turrington, 18, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers,
Lance Corporal Ian Keith Malone, 28, 1st Battalion, Irish Guards.
Piper Christopher Mazvuru, 21, 1st Battalion, Irish Guards
Lance Corporal Karl Shearer, Household Cavalry Regiment
Marine Christopher R. Maddison, 539 Assault Squadron, Royal Marines. T
Lance Corporal Shaun Andrew Brierley, 212 Signal Squadron 1 (UK) Armoured Division.
Major Steve Ballard, 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines
Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, The Blues and Royals,
Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33 The Blues and Royals,
Corporal Stephen John Allbutt, 35, Queens Royal Lancers.
Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, 19, Queens Royal Lancers.
Lance Corporal. Barry Stephen, 31, 1st Battalion The Black Watch
Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth 36, 33 (EOD) Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers
Sapper Luke Allsopp 24, 33 (EOD) Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers
Sergeant Steve "Buddy" Roberts 2nd Royal Tank Regiment
Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main. RAF Marham - IX (B) Squadron.
Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams, . RAF Marham - IX (B) Squadron.
Lieutenant Tony King, 35,
Lieutenant Philip West, 32,
Lieutenant James Williams, 28,
Lieutenant Philip D Green, 31.
Lieutenant Marc A Lawrence, 26.
Lieutenant Andrew S Wilson, 36.
Royal Marine Captain Philip Guy, 29
Mechanic Second Class Ian Seymour, 29 - 148 Commando Battery, Royal Artillery
Lance Corporal Llywelyn Evans, 24, - 29 Commando Reg, Royal Artillery,
Sergeant Les Hehir, 34 Royal Artillery
Color Sgt. John Cecil, Royal Marine
Sholto Hedenskog, 34 - Pretoria, South Africa Royal Marine
Warrant Officer II Mark Stratford Royal Marine
Major Jason Ward, 34 Royal Marine
Monday, January 03, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Last day of Christmas
Blunkett denies visa 'fast-track' The home secretary has denied helping to fast-track a visa application for his ex-lover's former nanny.
Blunkett quits as home secretary David Blunkett has quit as home secretary after an e-mail emerged showing a visa application for his ex-lover's nanny had been fast-tracked.
Blairs defend private flat rental They were at the centre of the so-called "Cheriegate" affair in 2002.
North East votes 'no' to assembly People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly. The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour.
Europe is 'shutting out UK firms' EU countries discriminate against UK firms in favour of home-based companies when awarding contracts, according to a report commissioned by the Treasury.
Don't mention the fraud EU's new transport commissioner, Jacques Barrot, had been given an eight-month suspended prison sentence in 2000 for his involvement in a French political funding scandal.
EU reveals increase in aid fraud The EU has revealed an increase in cases of serious abuse of its international aid project, losing it 1.5bn euros over the past year.
Hunt ban forced through Commons Commons Speaker Michael Martin has invoked the Parliament Act meaning a ban on fox hunting will be in place by February 2005
Sunday, January 02, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
EU leaders sign new constitution
Heads of state and government took it in turn to sign the text in the same room where the Treaty of Rome was signed to establish the EU in 1957.
Eurocrats leave Wales off EU map A bureaucratic blunder has left Wales off a map of Europe on the cover of a prestigious EU reference book.
Straw withdraws 45 minutes claim
The claim was at the heart of an unprecedented row between the BBC and the government which led to the death of David Kelly and the Hutton inquiry.
Axed intelligence expert defiantIntelligence has been used as a "PR tool" under Tony Blair's government, a former government expert has claimed. John Morrison also said he did not regret speaking out on a BBC programme, even though it cost him his job.
Loss of funds 'could cut police' A budget shortfall could force a cut in the number of police officers on the beat in England and Wales, senior police have warned
Army forced to sell Land Rovers bought for Iraq The Army is having to sell Supacat all-terrain vehicles and converted Land Rovers it had to buy urgently to fight the Iraq war because Gordon Brown will not pay for them.
Saturday, January 01, 2005Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an anoneumouse montage.
Haleg monath ‘waes hael’
Blair 'lacked post-Saddam plan' The Daily Telegraph published leaked papers suggesting the prime minister was warned in 2002 that an invasion could lead to instability.
20,700 pupils in oversize classes Thousands of infant school children in England are in classes of more than 30 pupils - the legal limit. That was up from 16,400 the previous year, a rise of more than 26%.
Unions defeat Labour in rail vote Labour's leadership has been defeated after the party's conference voted to back rail renationalisation.
Blair 'broke IRA pledges' The prime minister has broken his pledges over IRA disarmament, DUP leader Ian Paisley has said.
Air base 'may close' as 500 jobs go Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has confirmed that 500 jobs will go at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (Dara) on the site after losing a key RAF contract for Tornado fighters.
Hunt ban: how your MP voted The Bill to ban hunting with dogs received a third reading on Wednesday by 339 to 155 votes. Here's how MPs voted.