EU comedy and humour

The text published at this link offers all the ingredients of a good comic piece of writing: 

http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Resolution_Judicial_Ethics_ENG.pdf

As a famous novelist once claimed, humour is the justice that the law never is. 

Further details will be posted soon.

ECHR

Selections from our recent complaint to the European Court of Human Rights:

48. Following suggestions received from different quarters, including from the most creditable sources (i.e. most kindly, from within the Royal Family*) – suggestions validated to some extent by the Applicant’s personal experience – the Applicant was given to understand that the UK government has been placed under pressure by the US administration to obstruct any legal process that could make the abuses complained of by the Applicant and details of his disclosures public and proven in a court of law. What is more painfully apparent is that the Applicant and his family have been placed, in their turn, under tremendous pressure (duress) with the aim of preventing the Applicant from pursuing his claims further. The Applicant became aware that there were fears that details of his complaints of harassment suffered outwith the workplace (especially the events which took place during his secondment in Brussels and in which foreign nationals/agencies were implicated ) might be aired in public, and names and affiliations publicly disclosed. As it is understood that some of the Applicant’s former work colleagues had links to the intelligence services, there were also fears that identities, methods and embarrassing details about the conduct of those services could emerge. What was more, the Applicant’s disclosures, if dealt with, would have also tainted/incriminated a number of senior political figures and high-ranking officials from within the British Establishment.

49. It has been also implied that the UK, for the sake of some unspecified political interests, could not contemplate defying the US’s calls for secrecy. When faced with the difficult quandary of deciding how to reconcile the US administration’s demands with the obligation of having regard to due process and the rule of law, the UK, it seems, has chosen to comply with the former, while giving only the appearance of following the latter – to the effect that the Applicant was deprived of a fair hearing of his claim.

We have also complained about the UK government monitoring and interfering with our mail, telephone and electronic communications while we were preparing our case for the UK courts and the ECHR. These actions placed us at a disadvantage in relation to our opponents (i.e. the UK government) by allowing the latter foreknowledge of matters concerning evidence, legal strategy, search for witnesses etc. and the possibility to interfere with these matters. This was another serious breach of the principle of equality of arms and hence of the right to a fair trial.

The complaint also provided evidence of the UK courts' used of blatant falsehoods, legalistic quibbling and disregard for the law in order to avoid hearing our complaints related to the fraudulent public inquiries referred to on this blog.

More details will follow...

_____________________

* That was when the Tory PM did not appear as vulnerable politically

Brussels Underground

The governed have a right to know what their governments are capable of and serious abuses of power should not remain unreported or be condoned, as has been the case with the cover-up in the trawler Gaul public inquiry. For, if ignored, such acts will continue to be perpetrated and the erosion of democracy and the rule of law will become irreversible.

It is for this reason that we are now going to recount one of the more recent episodes in the Gaul saga, one which was played in the picturesque city of Brussels and in which, either willingly or unwillingly, several EU bodies played a part.

Between 2000 and 2006 a notable shift took place at the heart of Europe: the EU power elite gradually became aware of the fact that the federal Superstate, which they had long dreamed of and aspired to, had become an achievable prospect. The world was changing, power was shifting and the argument that a single European entity could be bigger and stronger than the sum of its member states was starting to make some kind of sense to more people. For a long time opposition from Britain, the national interests and the ‘vive la difference’ attitude of others had undermined the federalists’ expansionist aims. However, things were now looking different, new alliances were being forged between Europe’s new leaders, and Tony Blair was identified by the EU power brokers as the man who could deliver British assent to the new order – at a price [1].

In 2005, when it was feared that the truth about the FV Gaul inquiry could emerge, Britain’s Tony Blair was approaching a critical stage in his mission to deliver an emasculated Britain to the EU. A high-level and wide-ranging scandal, which would have exposed the state of moral dissolution within the echelons of Britain’s New-Labour establishment would have embarrassed and compromised the credibility of Prime Minister Blair, and thus his ability to fulfil the EU power elite’s agenda and his personal ambitions of grandeur. Such a mishap could not be countenanced. Anything to prevent this from happening was to be done, and this was all too easily possible.

Promptly, out of the woodwork, came all sorts of creatures who, zombie-like, would openly stalk us on the streets, in restaurants and cafes, public transport, shops and at the workplace - to pry, physically intimidate and proffer threats – on a continuous basis.

In public places, no matter where we sat, individuals would tag along, and sit themselves closely around us, conspicuously staring at us all the time. They would tail our car or follow us on public transport, in a manner designed to let us know they were there. We were bumped and jostled on the platforms of underground stations in such a way so as to give the impression that they were going to push us in front of the incoming train.

Thugs, haggard looking and bedraggled, like illegal immigrants after a long and rough journey to the West or ex-convicts recently released from jail, would walk past us on the street and abruptly turn around to proffer insults and threats - warning that we would soon be homeless, jobless, disabled or dead.
Various individuals loitered outside our Brussels home; flashlights were shone at our windows at night.
On returning home after outings there was sometimes a feeling that someone had been there in our absence and, on a number of occasions, we found that objects inside our house had inexplicably been broken or displaced.

Sometimes what we discussed inside (or outside) our house, no matter how personal, certain ‘work colleagues’ would also discuss the next day. They would repeat, almost word for word, fragments of the conversations we had exchanged in the privacy of our home, and even poke fun at some of our topics and at the surprise that their ‘telepathic qualities’ aroused. Details of our car journeys, including deviations from the route or halts taken would also be mentioned or hinted at, in passing.

Personal biographies were uncovered and thrashed out without courtesy or discretion by the same individuals. Smears were circulated in the background. Being conspicuous and offensive must have been, we reckon, a key part of their role.

Our car was tampered with, and only by a stroke of luck unpleasant consequences were averted.
Our communications were crudely monitored, as we ourselves could hear, and, in some instances, our phone calls and mail were diverted.

Our acquaintances, friends and family were also intruded upon and, at work, we were placed within a buffer of chosen and 'trusted friends’, while the rest of our work colleagues somehow knew they had to keep their distance, as if we had been under strict quarantine for some highly contagious disease.

Some of the locally hired domestic help and service contractors, after gaining access to our home, took the opportunity to snoop around and, on a few occasions, attempted to openly bully or intimidate us.
Even some of our friends were made to deliver thinly veiled warnings so as to convince us to remain silent.

All of a sudden, food poisoning became a frequent occurrence; medical tests would start to go wrong and be unnecessarily painful, we would be more often mistakenly overcharged for the cost of services and utilities, and every little enterprise we were engaged in would become ever more difficult and stressful.

A well-coordinated campaign of harassment by work associates, public bodies and various others was conducted with - though in some rare laudable cases without - zeal. “Everybody can be bought”, one insider intimated referring to what was going on.
We wondered how much this charade was costing and who was able to sponsor such an extensive operation; “Zee Inglish pay”, another insider jovially informed us.

Eventually, we discovered that these measures had not merely been sanctioned, but were instigated from within the highest levels of the British administration.
We considered making appeal to the law, but that was not going to be easy. Conversations with our solicitor were also crudely monitored, and then, one day, he decided abruptly to drop us as clients.

Lawyers, independent organisations and even some of the journalists whom we had eventually managed to contact for assistance admitted more or less openly that there was little they could do or had the courage to try, while, as someone explained, “they can do anything, just like in the X and Y cases”.

Occasionally, temptations would be laid before us, bribes and sweeteners discreetly offered, and the prospect of a carefree and comfortable existence subtly promised in return for our capitulation.
I myself have received thousands of pounds on a government contract, which, as it later turned out, did not actually make it possible or require me to deliver anything, but just to relax and get paid.
When the bribery did not work, hostilities were resumed and our professional careers were wrecked.

“This is not going to last forever, the right-minded majority will not tolerate such regime for very much longer“, we thought at the time; “Don’t underestimate the voters’ credulity and the ruthlessness of the system” a cynic commented.

It is of course hard to describe in detail everything we have learned about the tactics of our new masters, what this brief account refers to being just a prelude to our subsequent experiences in Britain, which turned out to be a lot harsher.
We will, of course, continue, as we must, with the sequel and try to reveal a few more details about the Gaul saga and its ever-expanding cover-up.
I am pretty sure, however, that what we came across were only a few manifestations of the abusive power that the system has at its disposal, as I am also sure that we are not the only ones to have experienced them.

It is important to reveal these things to the public because they are not only about a fishing trawler and the betrayal of its victims; they are also about the rest of us and, more importantly, about our democracy, which is now slipping through our fingers, like the precious water of Choaspes.

----------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tony Blair is now set to become the first President of the European Council.

Ireland, where are you going?

Today, Ireland votes again on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty while, with bated breath, we are all waiting to see whether or not theirs will be the final democratic act to take place in Europe.

We are anxious to learn whether the Irish people are now willing to sacrifice their freedoms to the illusion of some borrowed prosperity, or whether, firm in the belief that they meant No when they said No first time around, they will deliver the same answer.

Sadly, the odds are that, this time, Ireland will take the route which leads to super-state, undemocratic, Europe, and into the welcoming arms of President Blair.

The smaller risk

By voting 'No' in the EU treaty referendum, the Irish people have expressed their wish to be free from external political domination and able to decide their own fate.
Despite the Irish veto and the will of the British electorate, our government has however decided to carry on with the ratification process.

According to the EU rules, the treaty does not come into force unless it has been endorsed by all 27 EU countries. This means that when one country does not ratify it, the document is dead letter. Or so it should be.
Our government's pressing ahead with the ratification means that they are either ignoring the Irish vote - a sign of disrespect towards the democratic choice of our neighbours - or they are disregarding the EU unanimity rule, asking us at the same time to entrust our future to a political entity that does not even abide by its own laws.

Hence a petition has been recently lodged on the Downing Street website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon asking the Prime Minister to respect the result of the Irish referendum and abandon the attempt to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. If you subscribe to its statement, please sign it!

Liberty, a philosopher wrote, is not a right but a risk to be run at every moment - on the political plane as well as in our private lives.
We trust that our PM will be strong enough and of good courage to take a 'risk' and accept the people's decision, because - after the treaty - there is the greater risk of neither him nor us having much left to decide upon.

We DO want a referendum

A daring man, Mr Stuart Wheeler, is taking the government to court for having broken their promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and planning to drag us heels first into a complete and self-annihilating union with Europe.

As such legal proceedings can be very expensive, he is now in need of additional funds.

As this is a fight for our collective rights - to sovereignty and democratic rule - I hope that we'll be able to collectively contribute towards the associated costs.

Call it ransom for the captives, tax on freedom or charity - the money that you will donate could be the best money you will have ever spent.

Mr Wheeler's website can be accessed at: http://www.stuartwheeler.co.uk/.

Tony Blair manages to unite the peoples of Europe and beyond

The European Tribune has published an online petition Petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as President of the European Council: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stopblair.html.

Cui Bono

More than two years have passed since a naval architect, working for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, first blew the whistle on the pathetic swindle that had been the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the trawler Gaul.

For more than two years the British authorities have systematically failed to openly acknowledge his disclosures and take the steps prescribed by law to protect the public interest in such circumstances, although, behind the scenes, a lot of energy has been spent both in blocking the information and trying to suppress the whistle-blower.

One should wonder why, in a fishing vessel tragedy, of which there have been many, such huge efforts have been spent in controlling the information, while many other transgressions on the part of the government have already been revealed and - although no corrections were ever applied - publicly condemned. To whose benefit it is to obscure the last chapters in the story of the Gaul?

The explanation, we consider, may lie in the fact that, in the Gaul case, things have gone a bit too far – certainly further than many would find it pleasant to think about.
The events that have taken place can show a dangerous pattern in the New Labour government’s conduct and allow links to be made with other more infamous and still unresolved affairs.
It is also feared that the story could somehow cast doubt on the integrity of the ex-Attorney General, on whose legal advice and authority this country was taken to war. But most of all, it is feared that, if publicly acknowledged, the Gaul story could spin out of control and lead to direct accusations against the ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his shady network of allies.

As John Prescott oversaw the Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation and its aftermath, it was only natural that abuses of power should have marked the course of events.
In 2006, John Prescott was still Deputy Prime Minister, his physical presence as second in command was vital to Tony Blair, shielding his shaky premiership from the surging political tempests. A total ban on the disclosures, by any means, was therefore necessary at the time and, surprisingly, all too easily applied.

More outrageous, however, is that, in order to put a lid on the leaks, the Blair government decided to use, not only the state’s repressive machine, but also foreign bodies. These abuses compounded the problem and increased the number of those with a vested interest in concealing the truth.

When Tony Blair finally left office, a short period of uncertainty followed. Soon, however, the new PM appeared to take over from where his predecessor had left off.
The reasons why the present government decided to continue perpetrating the injustice are, to us, still rather unclear.
It may be that, aware of the general political fall out with New Labour, which could ensue, should all the facts come to the surface, the new administration is unwilling to take appropriate action. It may be that our new PM is bound to protect the future political career of his predecessor.

It may be, moreover, imperative to prevent any related additional disclosures that may touch upon the EU power structures and those foreign agencies whose acts and identity many do not wish to see revealed.

Meanwhile, in our lawless land, the Gaul culprits continue to spread the blood around, confident in the knowledge that, when too few are left with a clear conscience, their wrongs can no longer be condemned.

Problems

“I think people know that when a problem arises we will deal with it” said our Prime Minister on a recent occasion.

Turbulence in the provinces, abuses and debauchery at the centre, enemies pushing at the gates, his personal fears and indecision on top of that, have, unfortunately, so far prevented the head of our government to deal with many sensitive and controversial problems.

History teaches us what to expect from our leaders. It tells us about Alexander the Great who solved his problem by a bold stroke of sword instead of wasting his time unpicking the knot. He did not claim the puzzle was unsolvable, nor was he indecisive in battle.It tells us about many other prominent statesmen who fought to defend the rule of law and the public order that the nation had entrusted to them.

History also supplies us with other, less providential, examples: the story of Pierro de Medici, also called the ‘Unfortunate’, who gave in to Charles VIII of France’s invading army, offering everything he demanded, without any attempt to negotiate better terms.
Or the case of the Carl Severing, the Prussian Minister of the Interior, who accepted to be, literally, driven out of office, declaring simply:’ I surrender to a mightier force’, and thus helped establish the Nazi regime in Europe. He believed he was being realistic, bowing before the unavoidable. Everything would be in vain, he thought. His social democrats didn’t even try to oppose the Nazis, justifying their passivity with the same “it’s useless” sort of resignation. Would it have really been useless?

As a theologian once said, each of our actions sets in motion a new series of possibilities, and, since their timing and probability cannot be perfectly predicted, we have to give the unforeseeable a chance. Especially when worse problems may otherwise arise.

Commentless

------------------------------
* image based on a cartoon by Dan Perjovski

The goon squads
(A few more words in addition to an earlier POST)

What has the story of a fishing trawler got to do with the EU? I wondered.

Well, the answer could lie in the fact that the disclosure of one of the more fragrant skeletons in the UK government’s cupboard - an EU insider (a foreign national), in a fit of honesty, explained to me – might harm some very highly placed persons and, in a short chain reaction, blight the very top of the Blair administration.

As Tony Blair was so fervently pro-EU, the EU heartland turned passionately pro-Blair.

Like soldier bees defending their queen against incomers who don’t have the correct hive odour, the EU goon squads (oh yes, they do exist) set out to defend the Cause and remove the threat to those chosen by destiny to lead them to the Promised Land.

The Gaul scandal was, therefore, contained. But only for a while…