Archives for posts with tag: common law

pink-floyd-wallpapers

Whether I am given a parking fine, a court summons for not paying my council tax and imprisoned, made bankrupt or homeless as a punishment, fallen behind in my rent because I have too low an income to cover the market rent and am forced to choose between eating and rent, sanctioned and deprived of all income for being a minute late for a Jobcentre appointment, in fact, name the countless ways in which we can be punished for financial want, these are paper crimes. There is no motive of harm or wilful hurt caused to another and, excepting the very few who defraud for personal financial gain, these are what I would call crimes of innocence.

In Britain we have two types of law, as best as I can understand it, Common Law and Civil Law.

Common Law is set by precedent and is also known as Case Law and Natural Law, evolved and developed over time by the court system and comprises what we know as natural justice.

Civil Law or Statute Law, is set by parliament and whatever passes in parliament goes on what we know as the statute books. The definition of Statute Book is the: “Chronological collection of the statutes approved by the legislative body of a country and forming its legal code.”

Britain is a confusing mixture of both these forms of law.

Readers may remember when I attempted to bring charges against Iain Duncan Smith and (Lord) David Freud under the Human Rights Act for depriving people of the means of survival and therefore infringing their right to life. What I unwittingly came up against was a conflict between two statutory laws and was informed by the Police that in order to challenge the sanctions regime I would have to bring a civil case, which is a ‘legal dispute between two or more parties’. It was, and still remains, my right as a citizen to do this, if I could afford it. As the police informed me, it wasn’t a criminal case because Iain Duncan Smith wasn’t breaking the law, sanctions have been around since the National Insurance Act 1911, my case, if I had one, was to pursue a conflict in statute law in which a judge would adjudicate.

Which roundabout route brings me back to crimes of innocence and why outrage is both entirely right and appropriate and yet hobbled. What we are up against is that most hideous of creatures, the Jobsworth, who obeys the letter of the law absent of any common sense, decency or rationality and who positively enjoys penalising people for no good reason. I give you, the Tory government, who are experts in achieving illegitimate ends by legitimate means: i.e. they have the legitimate means to deprive people of the means of survival through sanctions, the end is that people die either through penury or through suicide, and the government claim they’ve done nothing wrong in their twisted, perverse thuggery. Worse, they ladle the blame on us, who, were they to vanish in a moment (I wish), would carry on with our lives free of their vile perfidy and constant threat.

I recently quoted from ‘Britannia Unchained’, a book co-written by Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss, who castigate ‘the “baby boomer” generation for seeking to raise taxes for young workers to pay for their lavish pension pots’. In so doing they promote a lie and generate discord and hate for a crime of innocence, where pensioners have paid into their pension pot in good faith, over their working life times, to receive on retirement a state pension which is anything but lavish.

This stuff is as infuriating as it is teeth grindingly irritating, from self serving politicians making political capital out of our lives and a presumption of guilt for no crime we’ve committed either wilfully or in error.

And they know exactly what they are doing. It is enraging to watch their smirking faces when they are challenged in parliament and the lies with which they justify themselves and wilfully avoid any accountability whatsoever.

This country is ruled by the unjust and the innocent die. They have weaponised poverty and made of it a crime of innocence, for which the penalty is death by sanction in Britain’s filthy secret penal system, the Department for Work and Pensions.

Conditionality – obedience or death.

KOG. 11 April 2017

https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/common-law-vs-civil-law/

http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/regime-change-sanctions-and-law-claimants

Benefit Sanctions and the Rule of Law

Advertisements

02_july_2016

A letter a day to number 10. No 1,481

Saturday 02 July 2016.

Dear Mr Cameron,

If the referendum has taught me anything it’s that it’s extraordinary how many people know everything after the event and aren’t afraid to rip apart those who they think didn’t know better before the event. As a political writer I am blown away by how many political pundits have been lurking away in the background waiting for their big hindsight moment.

Over 4 million people have signed a petition calling for a 2nd EU Referendum. The petition was set up on 23 May 2016 by someone apparently fearful of the Remain vote winning the referendum. The poor chap is seemingly not very happy that the petition has since been dominated by Remain voters and those terrified that they made a mistake in voting for Brexit. Therein lies the issue at the heart of democracy, you never know which way it’s going to go, although vast amounts of money are spent trying to predict outcomes, or even manipulate them if one is criminally inclined.

Writing in the Guardian, Geoffrey Robertson has an interesting take on democracy, he writes, “Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob…”

Given that the 2015 General Election was won by 24% of those eligible to vote, giving you an unrepresentative majority in government, that hardly represents the tyranny of the mob, rather the tyranny of the few, a tyranny you have exploited ever since. And if we really want to talk about the tyranny of the few, let’s talk about a government that is privatising our NHS with no mandate to do any such thing.

The turnout for the 2015 General Election was 66.1% and you secured a majority from just 37% of those who bothered to turn out. The turnout for the EU referendum was 71.8% of which 52% voted to leave the EU. I’ll leave it to you to work out which was the more representative vote of the will of the people.

Calling democracy or even representative democracy mob rule, Geoffrey Robertson doesn’t really have anything to say about democracy, but rather the sneering disdain and contempt that elitists have for ordinary people. Robertson writes, “Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.” None of which applies to you and your government, so he’s really not paying attention to reality at all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-petition-second-eu-referendum-latest-news-vote-leave-a7104076.html

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215.json

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-01/tory-electoral-fraud-claims-what-you-need-to-know/

http://www.votenone.org.uk/uk-unheard-third.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/len-mccluskey/nhs-ttip-tuc-conference_b_5791300.html

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887