Magna Carta celebrations in a lawless land

With straight faces, royalty, government and officials have taken part in a string of celebrations marking the 800^th anniversary of Magna Carta.

“No freeman shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land”.

The old barons forced the rule of law upon King John – their protection against the arbitrariness of the monarch. Eight centuries on, Prime Minister Cameron vowed with patriotic energy to “restore the reputation” of the charter’s values with a new British Bill of Rights.

I’m not sure I would say that the reputation of the Carta’s values has been tainted (although the Home Office has been trying very hard to discredit its ideals), but it is certainly the case that the reputation of those duty-bound to uphold the ‘justice for all’ principle lies in tatters. Today’s barons don’t like the hassle of due process when it is a lot easier to get what you want by might.

Cameron’s British Bill of Rights – aimed at supplanting the Human Rights Act – may do away with our right to be free from torture and thus give the State the power to chastise us with iron rods and scorpions, but it will proudly assert the supremacy of the UK courts over Strasbourg. Nothing has yet transpired as to what that Bill will contain, but I can see that many are sceptical about it – after all, who can trust the protections of a Bill of Rights drafted by this generation of lawmakers?

“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right”

Yet, as we know only to well, the Magna Carta celebrants are in the business of doing exactly the opposite.

The Friends of Ethical Writing

“The Communist Party will be the only master of the minds and thoughts, the spokesman, leader and organiser of people in their entire struggle for communism.” Pravda, 7 July 1956 

How clever John Adams was to say that all democracies end up in suicide. The British democracy has been trying to top itself off for while, but as the recent Leveson report has concluded with a demand for a new regulator for the press, the signs are that its end is very near now. 

An independent body, ultimately validated by the State, to regulate the ethics of the press has been recommended – paradoxically - in order to ensure that the press is really free. Free not to embarrass public figures with revelations of their misconduct, while, at the same time, the onerous libel laws in Britain make us the destination of international crooks and London the capital of reputation laundering? But no judge would speak out against this state of affairs, for this is what keeps them in clover. 

Furthermore, who, on earth, would be independent enough to oversee such an important wielder of power as the media, and who is independent enough to appoint the independents? Essentially, what you will get is the politicians in charge of those supposed to bring them to task. 

This impetus for tougher regulation betrays, in fact, a very pessimistic view on the capacity of the British public to meditate on what they read and to control the media themselves through their own free choice and demand. A free press - no matter its derelictions - trains the people’s power of reason. Why should we fear intrusion by the media? This is what keeps a more frightful kind of intrusion – that carried out by the State itself - in check. 

We already have a plethora of statutes and powers that can be used to deal with abuses by the media; the fact that these were not used by the past Labour administration in the historical cases heard by Leveson is a far more serious matter. 

Do not be fooled by the vociferous ‘public’ outrage and the cant of those now putting pressure on the government to conceive new laws for the press - those virtuous citizens and victims of press indiscretions are simply actors in a play scripted by politically motivated higher powers, powers who simply wish to grab more control over us. 

Ill-advised creatures, signing petitions, may not realise that they could usher in a regime similar to that described in Orwell’s 1984 or in Mercier’s utopian novel, The Year 2440, where most books are destroyed and where ‘dangerous sceptics’, authors of literary works deemed bad for the people’s minds, are rounded up and interrogated until they are willing to admit to their errors. 

Intrusion by press does not destroy lives – it may temporarily upset them – but, in the end, freedom provides the necessary self-redressing mechanisms that an authoritarian State does not possess. What can destroy lives, however, are the gags imposed on the media, journalistic cowardice and the lack of ability to make your mind and your own choice. 

We hope that the Prime Minister will think carefully, as he said he would, and will not be swept away by this flurry of pre-meditated madness.

The rule of derision

We heard that John Prescott is considering standing for the post of elected Police Commissioner and that he also had a go at becoming a chanteuse. Splendiferous! It reminds us of that movie scene with a group of yobs breaking in a luxury fashion store and trying on various fineries, one after the other, madly exhilarated by the fun of seeing themselves in incredible guises.

But this is nothing unusual, for we have already seen entertainers posing as revolutionaries or statesmen – depending on what fitted best their haircut and mirror-reflected physique - and politicians constantly acting as impersonators - for nothing most of them say nowadays betrays any conviction.

When all things turn belly up, it is only natural that Mr Prescott should dispense law and order in Hull. (With the summer coming, it may be getting too hot for the lordly ermine.) Just imagine his heavy fist cracking down on gambling and vice, and the admiration he would command in his brand new uniform, epaulettes and Brasso-polished badges, and the benefits of a short-skirted sergeant in tow.

The reality as seen on the ground or as reported in the press is just tragedy and derision. Delinquent and joyous is today’s legendary figure. But this hero is not the tough highway robber or the fearless outlaw celebrated by folklore, but the well-connected, risk-averse, confidence man. Being a scoundrel has never been safer or more entertaining.

There is only one comfort that we can derive from the present state of affairs, and that is that, compared to other places on earth, ours still looks pretty sane.

The main word in the political dictionary

As a result of our attempts to resolve by legal process the matters resulting from our disclosures about the Gaul, we have now become all too familiar with the awe and apprehension with which formal undertakings on this subject are met. The shocking failures of impartiality and the blatant violations of the rules have, individually, various and complex circumstances (details of which we reserve for another day), but they can all be reduced to a simple reason, which is to do with one’s unwillingness to risk one’s skin.

Although the terrified silence over the shameful aspects of our recent maritime history – coerced via various threats and legalistic snares - is, to a large extent, inspired from outside the government’s field of forces (that is above and beyond the grubbiness of internal politics), the duty of taking responsibility in this matter and putting things right still rests with the incumbent administration. But there is too much fear amongst the senior figures.

Yes, “fear” is, today, the main word in the political dictionary - a fear almost religious in nature, which inhibits any sense of reason, duty and decency. It is a fear bred by the knowledge that the road to success in a public office is not a competition on merit – but a contest in offering tributes of subservience to extraneous powers, paid higher and higher above of what is necessarily due.

(More to come at the right moment)

Privacy or the latest protection racket

"Have you ever wished that something in your life had never happened, just call 0800 …today, and we can help you" - this is the kind of advert that we could expect the High Court of Justice to place in the national press any day now.

Confusing privacy, perhaps, with clandestinity, our High Court judges now offer tailor-made injunctions that can conceal the misbehaviour of any celebrity or other well-heeled public figure, who has the wherewithal to pay for this privilege.
Reminiscent of the medieval church practice of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, our courts are now providing much more than mere pardons for human transgressions, they are erasing their very existence - by self-ordained powers, which places members of the judiciary on an equal footing with God.

Recently, our judges have even devised tools that will gag you so effectively that you will not be even able to say that you have been gagged. So, upon having been granted a super-injunction, the supplicant, sporting a cloak of invisibility whenever it suits, will be able to maintain his respectable status as if nothing had happened, while the rest of society will be kept in blissful ignorance of its role models’ real credentials. And, when they have enough finance to pay for the enhanced, premium service – a super- contra mundum injunction, that will rival the ubiquity of God’s powers, can ensure that no one will ever be able criticise them in English or in any other language on Earth.

The sad fact, however, is that our courts are not protecting the privacy of the solitary, the vulnerable or the wrongfully maligned; they are just making the law with a view to protecting the elite from the public exposure that would make it difficult for the law enforcement authorities to keep their eyes closed. (I remember one senior Met officer once telling me, in respect of our complaint, "If the newspapers don’t write about it, it cannot be true".)

The right to freedom of speech and the principle of open justice in Britain seem to come second to the rights of some to sweep their faults under the carpet. The long-term consequences of this state of affairs cannot be yet fully appraised, nor is anybody able to tell when it was that we first started to allow our justice system to go so madly astray.

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.

League of villains extraordinaire

After many years of rampant extravaganza, our voracious politicians – once upon a time thought to be our betters –have, finally, been exposed.
Enthralled, day-by-day, we read of new revelations in the MPs’ expenses scandal and witness the unseemly squirming of those caught with their hands in the till.

The fact that many of our representatives possess a guilty conscience has created a bond of solidarity across the political divides - a unity against the voters …a league of villains extraordinaire.

In such circumstances, of course, one cannot demand justice, because justice pleases neither side.

Overly preoccupied with their personal welfare, our representatives have no time for the electorate, and, incapable of grasping what is true and just, they cannot deliberate and act in the best interests of the nation.

As in many other instances of recently uncovered transgressions, when taken to account, the culprits blame the system - a system which, in fact, they have themselves designed, but which has now, allegedly, acquired a will of its own and - just like HAL 9000, the supercomputer on board the spaceship Discovery – has taken control of Parliament.

Yet, just changing the system is not going to solve our problems. No system, however secure and cleverly conceived, can protect us from the greed of our politicians, unless we, as a society, vigorously demand that only those able to act decently out of conviction should be given the chance to represent us.

To tighten the system without improving the quality of our legislators would be to act like in those lunatic asylums of the past, where they used to tie up their patients without ever treating their illnesses.

Only a moral society is capable of opposing a crooked regime, and, if we are still a moral society, then we must demand some serious changes. Just making a noise, naming and shaming, is not going to be enough.

Brazen but not brave

After 5 months of delays and prevarication, the Metropolitan Police felt finally able to release a copy of the document requested by us under the provisions of the FOI Act.

And this is how the released copy looks like:

The Met’s contention that obliterating most of the text in their ‘investigation report’ was necessary in order to protect ‘personal data’ is so absurd and so blatantly insincere that makes you wonder whether their response was meant to be, in fact, some sort of joke or mockery.

Anyhow, we took them seriously and sent another request, disproving their arguments and urging them to reconsider...

... although we have serious doubts as to their willingness and ability to serve the public interest in this matter.

Can the people of this country still trust the police force to offer them any protection against the criminal ‘elite’, or have the police, nowadays, been turned into a different species - something between the rogue army of a failed state and the timorous functionaries of a conquered nation?

The Grey Zone

The Grey Zone was defined by Primo Levi as the zone of the privileged prisoner - the area of “ethical uncertainty and collaboration with evil”.

Today, many of us complain about widespread corruption and the decay of democracy, laying the blame for these ills solely upon the political elite and their corporate handlers.
In fact, as recent events have clearly shown, through complicity or inaction, the rest of us are just as responsible for what’s going wrong. For it is always a combination of the perversity of the system and the feebleness of the human character that causes the problem.
Greed, selfishness, duplicity, defeatism and fear are useful human weaknesses, exploitable by any fraudulent regime, weaknesses from which repressive states have always drawn their power and even a certain degree of legitimacy.

It is of course understandable that, with increasing deprivation, collaboration with a corrupt authority can appear logical and unavoidable - after all, the state can hold the key to every little need and comfort in our lives. Most often, however, it is not necessity, but the self-centred human desire to be given a shortcut to undeserved privilege and power that buys our collaboration, turns us against one another, and, in the process, makes us all more vulnerable and easily subdued.

Although history should have taught us how to defend ourselves when confronted with similar trials, we have been drawn, once again, within the boundaries of the ‘Grey Zone’- that “murky space of moral ambiguity and compromise” – which, for as long as it prospers, gives us little chance of ridding ourselves of authoritarianism and corruption, and returning to normal.

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/.

The Government's Reform Agenda

A number of critical observations on the Professional Skills Competency Framework - a strategic element of the government's Reform Agenda have been published at: http://www.xanga.com/Amilcarre

Seen as a new lever in the appropriation of the Civil Service by the political power, the plan could grant politicised senior management undue discretionary control over professional staff within the Service.

The leaders we deserve

"Leadership is no place for men and women who hesitate to take a stand on critical issues; who look to see who is smiling at them or who is frowning at them before they cast their vote. Someone once said that we have the best leadership that money can buy. There is more truth than humor in that statement." P.Graham

The Great Firewall of gov.uk

"He, whose long wall the wand'ring Tartar bounds..."Alexander Pope, The Dunciad

Employees of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have recently discovered that they no longer had access to our blog, which, we would like to think, is quite pleasant and informative.

Yet, the fretful nannies in the MCA/DfT have decided that our website has become inappropriate for the readership of these institutions and filtered it out of reach.

Now I remember that, some time ago, the Treasury Solicitor himself advised that he also had had difficulties in accessing our site, which had probably been rated as unsuitable for the innocent eyes at the TSol.

Has our enlightened government somehow perceived the materials published on our blog as containing strong language, nudity or violence? Are we to assume that the government’s Cyber Patrols only allow access to web content labelled with “ Fun for ages 3 to 6” or classed as “Suitable to all ages, without the accompaniment of a parent or legal guardian”?

Or could they have decided, like the old Beotians, to ban all reasons for contrariety?

Update

It now appears that our site was not the only one to have been banned from the MCA/DfT desktops.
The MCA advises that it does not permit access to websites categorised as ‘social networking’, in general. That is their employees cannot access any blogspot sites.
(Anyway, it seems that our other web page: www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen has, so far, escaped the ideological purge and is still accessible to the MCA.)

Now I wonder: if you don’t want your staff to network with those dangerous reactionaries in the Blogger community, wouldn’t it be enough to simply tell them so?

Io, Saturnalia

For more than a year we’ve tried to bring repairs to the flaws of the 2004 Gaul Investigation. For more than a year we’ve been confronted with the insincerity, ineptitude and indifference of those called to sort out the case.

A typical manifestation of the Blair era, the final chapter in the Gaul saga was turned from Greek tragedy into a Roman farce.

Io, Saturnalia, said the Romans, to greet the Solstice festival. For seven days a year, they would reverse the social order; revel in lawlessness and mockery. It was a time when gods were scorned and gambling in public was permitted. The jester wore the emperor’s toga and his orders were obeyed no matter how bizarre. This reversal of roles was, however, only temporary and symbolic – the jester was not free to make any binding decisions, and, at the end of the festival, anything he decreed would be revoked.

When Saturnalia ended, the tomfoolery stopped, everybody returned to their long-established values, and the accustomed order was restored.

Can we likewise expect a come back to normality at the end of our ten years long Saturnalia?

I hope so, but I wouldn’t lay a wager on that.

Rule 42*

There is that nagging question regarding the elusive evidence of a design defect on the Gaul, that does not go away.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Dr Stephen Ladyman, has twice been quizzed about this evidence through written Parliamentary Questions (PQ).
It was to no avail. The first time he managed to prevaricate and, the second time, he referred us to his previous answer.
We believe that, the second time round, he would have had a harder time fending off the issue, had not the question been changed in transit.

When asked why they had altered the query, the Parliamentary table office advised: “the question as drafted conveyed information tantamount to the advancing of argument”, that is: “it sought to convey information and make an argument” and, therefore, contravened the PQ rules. Besides, a question cannot be asked twice; we were explained, “even if introducing greater levels of detail”.

......................................................................................

* “Rule Forty-two […] that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now” said Alice.
“It’s the oldest rule in the book,” said the King.
“Then it ought to be Number One,” said Alice.
(Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)