Hi and wow, over 2000 hits!
It's been nearly 2 yrs since I've posted on this site but I see it's still getting hits! I've received really nice emails through this blog - many many thanks for those.
I won't be posting here any longer like I have told some of you, but, I have moved to a new site, and will be posting new material there from October 14! Some requests for follow ups on the Luke Mitchell case.. Well.. I've recently moved to Edinburgh, and have local access to the courts and peoples involved, so yes, I'll be following up the newer developments and in time for the appeal. Also, some Very interesting theories on what actually happened are surprisingly prevalent among the locals here- shocked me anyway, but more of that in a couple of weeks.
The new site 'Pedestrian' can be found @ khalidsmythe.wordpress.com , Or by clicking the orange 'I've Moved' link top of the post!
Best Wishes,
ks.
Veritas claim that on the latest figures they are hypothetically next in line for government. Can you work out how they did it?
"The Daily Mail are running a poll in which the question is:
'Would you vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk's Veritas party?'
Currently the findings are that 32 % say that they would vote for Veritas.
The latest yougov Poll on voting intentions is as follows:
Labour 42%
Conservative 30%
Lib. Dems. 21%
Others 7%
Assuming that Veritas were to take it's votes equally from all parties then Veritas would top the polls!
The revised figures would be:
Veritas 32%
Labour 28.56%
Conervatives 20.4%
Lib. Dems. 14.28%
Others 4.76%"
I'll post the answer in a couple of days.
A fresh chat up line everydayish.
refute
1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.
Lancaster will be challenging his expulsion by WS&G
David Lancaster a former stipendary magistrate and defence lawyer has been expelled as a partner for helping an undercover BBC reporter posing as a cocaine dealer. Lancaster 54 showed the 'cocaine dealer' how to persuade a witness not to give evidence against him, as well as providing various explanations for why fingerprints may be found on bank notes and cocaine wrapping. Lancaster's former firm have referred the matter to the Law Society for a 'clear breach of his duties as a solicitor and officer of the court'.
Lancaster claimed he was 'exploring every possible option' with the Inside Out reporter. The programme aired last night on BBC 1.
On the unconstitutional detention of terror suspects
The words constitutional crisis have rang through the papers the past few months, and for good reason. The Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force October 2000, with the aim of guaranteeing UK residents the freedoms and rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. These rights are then balanced proportionately against national interests, and, in some circumstances, a putting aside of human rights can be understood when for the greater, necessary good. So what went wrong with the terror detainees held at Belmarsh?
The Terrorism Act (TA) is a prime example of when the HRA can work against the state in protecting it's citizens - Art 6, the right to a fair trial can lead to sensitive information being diclosed in open court; Art 10, freedom of expression can lead to the press publishing sensitive information that could then jeapordise our intelligence agencies. The Home Secretary can reccommend that a terror suspect be held under the TA; which Blunkett when in power did with at least 11 men.
Charles Clarke, on taking Blunkett's position was defeated by a verdict of 8-1 by the House of Lords when they ruled that the suspects were deprived of their rights to a fair trial, that they were discriminated against under Art 14 as the TA only applied to foreign nationals, and that they should no longer be detained at Belmarsh. Yet some of the men are still there today. One suspect, known only as G has been released on house arrest, and last week Charles Clarke took him before the Special Immigrations Appeal Court in a secret hearing to have him returned to Belmarsh. The defence was not allowed to hear the evidence and was only able to speculate as to what the evidence was and then formulate a defence around that assumption. G rightly won his case, as the Home Secretary could not show that he had breached his house arrest with the unknown intelligence against him.
Other detainees have declined to be released on house arrest as they argue, as have Amnesty International, that it is merely replacing one detention without a fair trial for another. Several detainees are in the process of putting together their case before the European Court of Human Rights, however Charles Clarke has retaliated saying that he will be studying the HoL judgement carefully and will be recommending modified legislation on the matter.
Clarke's position is clearly to give the executive power to detain suspects regardless of the HoL's postition, and the entrenched human rights legislation. It is this tug of war between the executive and judiciary that troubles constitutional purists, and the public alike. The judiciary are trained and paid to judge, indeed that is their role. The executive's political tampering not only usurps the judiciary but leaves the public feeling helpless to a secretive executive playing power games for reasons that only they know of, and aren't prepared to divulge.
The Lord Chancellor speaking last Tuesday at a committee renewed faith in a UK supreme court, dismissing the cost on grounds of benefit; and it is here, that the benefit would be seen most. A supreme court with truly independant judiciary would be free from political tampering and would have the power to disapply primary legislation such as that Charles Clarke is hoping to pass in the lower chamber.
Veritas party spoof site launched last night for our amusement. Can be found by clicking on the orange link above.
Kilroy failed to take control of UKIP
Robert Kilroy Silk has gone on to form Veritas which he promises will 'not lie or engage in deceit, evasions or spin for political ends. We shall only ever tell the truth, however unpalatable.' With only around 200 members so far it's safe to say they won't be putting their manifesto into policy any time soon.
An awful name, for a, well, see for yourself. Veritas website can be found by clicking on the orange title above.
![BBCi: Javascript is not available
on this browser](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/bsp/hi/services/htmlsyndication/img/synd_js_error_js-inactive.gif")
.
