The judges lose the plot (again)

dave

you cant blame the judges over this Melaine, all they are doing is interpreting the law according to the will of Parliament

if the judges get it wrong, its up to the parliament to legislate again

one can only presume, it is the will of Parliament that terrorist scumbags walk free in our country

Dee Ranged

Melanie -

We are indebted to you for your penitrating observations on the current situation regarding Islamoficism and the wretched decisions of our Judicial masters.

Is there not someone in authority who can put this right?

We don't yet realise it, but we are already looking into the abyss which eventually will overwhelm our society.

Keep hammering away.

Jack Tomas

I'm very glad that you have spelt out so clearly what Ms. Lyrical was convicted of.
It seems that this case is about to pass into folklore as a "crime against artistic expression". In fact, I imagine it already has. Plainly that needs challenging vigorously but I suspect that any lucid explanations will fall on deaf ears. She's "a victim". She can do no wrong. Expect to hear her recitations at council sponsored festivals against racism across London before the summer is out.

Rob-NY

The US Supreme Court is not much better considering their recent decision regarding Gitmo detainees.

Robin

According to a Cabinet OFfice paper, we - the public - "feel cut off from the justice system". Crime and communities adviser Louise Casey, who carried out the review, says the justice system is perceived as "distant, unaccountable and unanswerable".

Now, there's a surprise. I thought it was me, lacking sensitivity and understanding and thinking that Ghengis Khan was probably a Guardian-reading, liberal pinko.

Dave says below that the judges are only interpreting the law according to the will of Parliament. That may be true, but it certainly is true that under this Government, a great number of badly drafted laws have been put on the statute book. I can see why so many lawyers have become MPs - they'd never have stayed in businessas lawyers.

TomTom

LCJ Phillips is not of this world having such ethereal perspectives. The judicial system is a Mad Hatter's Tea Party and held is even less regard than the House of Bishops

Pete

Parliament decide on the laws, and guidance, that judges implement.

Who has had control of Parliament for the past 11 years - Labour!

Who signed up to the Human Rights thing - Labour!

The reason these guys are going to be free to walk the streets is because we have a Labour Government that is more interested in spying and prying on innocent people of this country than limiting the liberties and human rights of these nutters!

I really do think the political commentariat are missing a slowly grumbling public mood that resents and distrusts the way they are being governed.

Public opinion is flirtive and volatile, but there comes a point when public opinion starts to coagulate into something more solid and when it does everybody should pay attention.

I believe that a shift has taken place in a way that David Davis picked up and has responded instinctively. Allbeit in a calculated manner.

The public are not soft on terror, ask them and they will say lock em up and chuck away the key.

Ask if it's fair that someone that is a victim of identity theft or credit card fraud should be locked away while things are sorted out and the answer is completely different.

Our democracy is being challenged, not from terrorists or the Taliban, but from our very own Government.

Who else has the power to remove our liberties?

Thinkster

I was just telling a friend that while it may sound implausible (and even outrageous to supporters of this forum), if we can bring to mind the expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", consider that certain members of our government may actually empathise with these recently released people. They are by their actions giving an excuse to those who desire a society regulated by CCTV, bin scales, DNA databases and other aspects of on the spot fines powered by the surveilance state. Think about where this is all headed. The people threatened by all this are the law abiding common sense powered middle class. And once they are gone, well, roll on distopia. Terrifying!

mike mckee

I think the intelligentsia In the UK want to become Dhimmis.

Verity

Once again - these are not mistakes make in good faith. It is the deliberate undermining of our Anglo-Saxon law and a deliberate assault on the mores that have applied in Britain for the last 1,000 years and thus an assault on the British people.

You must wake up to this. All these judges and politicians are not blundering idiots. They had a plan and they've implemented it because the British were too fearful - and blind and, worst of all, dismissive - to stop them.

If it were just a few moronic mistakes and misjudgements, as Melanie appears to suggest, the government would otherwise have performed rationally. But it has not. Every major thing it has been done has been weighted against Britain and the British. With malice.

Herbert Thornton

Well said Melanie. The judiciary have been biased in favour of political correctness for years.

The case involving General Pinochet is a well known example. After Lord Hoffmann had been outed as a member of Amnesty International, the remainder of the judges were evenly divided. This would normally mean that the decision of the lower court would stand.

However, not only did Lord Hoffmann not have the decency to resign, but the Lords, instead of leaving the lower court decision to stand, as they ought to have done, actually re-constituted the court with different judges altogether and held a new hearing - which raises the very strong suspicion that was a determination that the lower court's decision must be overturned. It was scandalous. It shattered even the appearance of impartiality.

ian mckenna

We don't know what inducements were offered to the lady. Perhaps she had a lot more information to give the security services than anyone is prepared to admit. And I don't think that should be public knowledge anyway.

I am certainly not an uncritical admirer of MI5 or 6, but you have to admit they seem to be doing a pretty good job so far. As the IRA once said, we have to get it right every time. They, (muslim terror this time) only have to get it right once.

Alcuin

I blame Jack Straw, for his Human Rights Act, yet another bleeding heart law of unintended consequences. But I cannot imagine a French judge behaving like ours, they always seem to find a common sense way to fudge their legislation, while ours have to stick to the letter.

Did you notice the disconnect between our politically correct multi-culti view that Jordan's culture is merely "different" from ours, while refusing extradition on the grounds that their justice system is barbarous?

David Lindsay

It is high time to disapply in the United Kingdom any ruling of the European Court of Justice by resolution of the House of Commons, and any ruling under either the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights unless and until ratified by such a resolution.

The American doctrine of the separation of powers has nothing whatever to do with this country, where Ministers exercise numerous quasi-judicial powers and the judges make the whole of the Common Law.

SimonB

"Her conviction was quashed because -- as the Telegraph's excellent legal editor* tells us -- the Appeal Court had decided earlier this year to narrow the definition in this offence of ‘useful’ to ‘providing practical assistance’ to a would-be terrorist. And yesterday the Court headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips (no relation!)..."
What's this, Melanie: a touch of light-heartedness? Have you been at the Palwin No. 4 again?
Keep Fighting the Good Fight.

oliver

As I wish to participate in our democracy, I wonder if any kind readers can help. Is there:

a/ An email address I can send a protest about the Abu Qatada decision

b/ an email I can write to protest about the quashing of the 'lyrical terrorists' sentence

and finally

c/ an email address for the employment tribunal that ordered the London hairdresser to give the hijab-clad woman £4K for the 'hurt feelings' she had after not being given a job in the hairdressing salon.

Many thanks

S. Harvey

One could speculate, but the best way to find out why would be to ask the people who made these key decisions. Are the names of those responsible at the DPP and the Appeal Court in the public domain?

Geoff Miller

I'm sorry Melanie but I coudln't get past the first paragraph.

Its so depressing to see what a bunch of Quislings we have running the country.

Don't expect the Government to do anything - they are only going through the motions to fool the public that they actually care. They are in cahoots with the Islamists, having invited many of their footsoldiers into influential positions.

Wind back 70 years and imagine what it would have been like with this shower in power on the run up to WW2. Nazis would be roaming the streets - perhaps millions invited over from a Germany, then suffering an economic depression, and given housing, heathcare and "education". They would be invited into government and pandered to for their votes.

They could preach their creed and get away with it. Their own country, which may have had a clearer view of the nature of the threat would not be allowed to have troublemakers returned. Nazism would have flourished and eventually won - using our country as a safe haven.

And our stupid politicians would have looked on amazed and uncomprehendingly as Europe was covered in darkness.

Now - wind forward again and imagine Europe in 30 years time!

Unfortunately it won't be Europeans writing that history !

Frank Pulley

oliver

"...as I wish to participate in democracy ..."

First, emigrate. Whither? FK!!

Jon_Boy

Dave oh Dave. The law is not a set of scientific lawss which have a right or wrong answer.

They are completely subjective and therefore completely open to interpretation and thus suffer all the political and social bias of those charged with interpreting them.

This is why there is now such a democratic deficit in much of Western Europe. Many years ago when judges on the whole were extremely conservative our societies were dominated by the very conservative views of our judiciaries. Today the judiciaries are full with chamapgne socialist ideologues who openly pursue their political and social agendas for us all and seek to impose them on society.

In Israel and Europe too the judiciary is brazenly open in its arragance and desire to impose their own views and wishes on the masses.

This is why we must surely introduce a system where we are all vote for our judiciary instead of having them appointed for us. Only in this way can we begin to bring some form of democratic accountablility to these bunch of social elites who feel that they are entitled to rule this country as they see fit.

Let them know that if they seek to go on politically motivated social crusades that their electorate better agree with it.

It would be alot healthier all round if we stopped kidding ourselves that law is made by parliaments and then simply interpreted by judges, who would all come to the same conclusions no mattetr what their own political and social beliefs. that is why I say we should have elections for judges!

James

What was also astonishing at the time of Samina Malik's conviction was the way the bulk of the media defended her.

Not everyone was fooled, though:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-500183/Lyrical-terrorist-Joan-Arc.html

Roy

Now we know what motivates forward thinkers like the employers of Guy Fawkes.

karl

Laurence Auster improves on the article:

The whole thing is mad beyond belief; but the root of the problem was Britain's decision to admit Muslim immigrants into the country, an immigration that started in the 1950s and has been accelerating ever since. Given the fact that Islam is incompatible with any non-Muslim society, given the command to wage jihad against non-Muslims that is at the core of the Islamic religion, and given the extreme notions of equality and tolerance prevalent in Britain, it was inevitable that once Muslims were present in Britain in significant numbers, two results would follow: (1) Britain would find itself with a domestic jihadist population consisting of an activist core and a large periphery of sympathizers opposed to the very existence of Britain and seeking its destruction; and (2) the British state and society would be helpless to do anything about this.

Jonny Mac

Dave - I agree.

Dee - "someone in authority to put it right". Hmm. Someone in the Executive to quash a judicial decision you mean? That way fascism lies. the answer is to change the legislation.

Robin - don't blame the Government lawyers. Parliamentary Counsel are as good as ever. The problem lies with the poor instructions being given to them by Ministers.

Verity - you're positing a conspiracy by all senior politicians and members of the judiciary. With respect, that's paranoid drooling. This is all just the law of unintended consequences.

I'm depressed by the number of people who are attacking the judiciary here. It is not their fault. They are doing their job of interpreting the legislation bound by ECHR precedent. The problem lies not with them but with the legislation. Oliver, don't waste you're time telling senior judges they got the law wrong. Write instead to your MP.

Typo Man

Farnk Pulley:
"First, emigrate. Whither? FK!!"

The Falkland Islands? After you!

No, hang on, forget 42 days, ship 'em out to FK Where not only will they be free from persecution but Gen. Ricochet would never dare attempt another invasion.

michael

Its the same laws that protect Muslims that protect Jews.

Race hate, inequality and racism are endemic traits in a multi culural society.

Human rights laws are for all. If you erode them, we all suffer.

Black, Muslim and Jew.

Verity

Johnny Mac writes dismissively of my post: "Verity - you're positing a conspiracy by all senior politicians and members of the judiciary. With respect, that's paranoid drooling. This is all just the law of unintended consequences."

With respect, your post is submissive drooling. If you do not understand that there has been a long march through the institutions that is now reaching the drear uplands of total dictatorship, I don't know why you're here.

Certainly, I think at first, a few Muslim immigrants seemed like a good idea (it wasn't)as Britain, apparently, needed labour. But then the socialists seized on it as a means of deconstructing our formerly cohesive society and our mores and pumped up the action. The floodgates were opened, while the government claimed not to know how many "immigrants" had pored in. Why on earth not? America, a far bigger country geographically and populationwise, maintains an extremely tight grip on who gets in and who is told at the originating departure gate that they won't be admitted so don't bother getting on the plane.

What was the first thing the revolting Tony Blair did after 7/7? He went on TV not to offer sympathy to Britain and the victims and their families on this awful event. No! He went on TV to hector the British into not retaliating. (As though that is our way. It was either a studied insult or the man is truly disconnected from his own countrymen.)

Then he hastily, within days, put together yet one more tricky little quango - a Muslim advisory committee or something, to advise Downing St on how to handle the Muslims with kid gloves. A member of this advisory committee is the former Cat Stevens, who is banned from entering the United States. So an upright citizen of Western civilisation then. He had a few other usual suspects, plus some dingbat Muslim barrister whose chambers are his council flat and who has written a book describing how Jews rule the world.

In other words, this was one hell of a squalid little committee. And it had access to Downing St.

Sorry, Johnny Mac, but if you can't see the import of all this, you are sleepwalking into servitude.

Thinkster

@Geoff Miller: Exactly.

Mike Woodman

Karl:

I completely agree with you. We now have two groups in this country, as defined by Islam. The muslims and the non-muslims. Islam is a simple unyielding belief system. The non-muslim world is complex, fragmented, and prone to compromise. Given the demographic projections and the nature of the two systems, which one will eventually win? Islam.

steve

Karl: Right on! And it's a shame that they let in the Irish before the Muslims because they've been nothing but trouble as well what with their terrorism and their unwillingness to assimilate (with their music and their food and their festivals--don't get me started about St. Patrick's Day).

James

Larry Auster, as quoted by Karl, is perfectly correct. Mass immigration is the direct cause of our problems with Islam. If Japan allowed mass immigration by Muslims, it would be facing the same problems as us. Steve's comparison of Muslims with the Irish is stupid, but does raise this point: Britain has experienced centuries of conflict between Catholics and Protestants over relatively small differences in a broadly similar religion and culture. But we've ignored that lesson from history and allowed a very different religion and culture to establish itself here. The results were entirely predictable.

Simon

Auster's parody can be found here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010854.html

jeff

So after everything you have observed and written about the dangers to UK society from Muslims in Britain (and I am not denying there are many nice individual Muslims), why can't you publicly support a complete halt to their immigration to the UK for an indefinite period?

Your seeming refusal to do so puzzles me.

Frank Pulley

James

>"The results were entirely predictable"<

Indeed so. As for the future from this time onward ... even easier to predict. Ask St Mark of Steyn. His gospel is loud clear and alarmingly prescient. And just consider what happened to him in his native land. And only weeks before he was born the first post war race riots erupted in Britain. Fifty years on and we ain't seen nothin' yet!

Frank Pulley

James

Sorry! A touch of tautology there ("as for future from this time onward") but I'm sure you know where I'm coming from and where we're all going to!

Herbert Worth

"Terrible Lyricist". And Karl: couldn't agree more. 'Twas obvious many years ago.

Jules

I am an Aussie and I have been reading with much interest about the Islamisation of the UK. I shudder to think what the UK and Europe will become in 50 to 100 years time. If the Non-Muslim population of Britain does not stand up and say something soon, you will be in civil wars within the next 50 years. You MUST lobby the Government to STOP immigration of any more Muslims and deport all of the illegal immigrants and trouble makers. You should be taking to the streets in protest to defend your country before it is too late. Many Muslim clerics preach throughout the world blatantly that they want to take over the UK and they are well on their way. And what are you doing about it? Writing blogs, whinging about what the Government is not doing for you. Start fighting back. People writing about it on websites and talking about it with friends is not good enough. Take to the street and protest in the thousands, jump up and down until you are heard. God knows that the Muslims take to the street and protest about things and what do they get in return? Whatever they want!!!

The Muslim population in the UK is only 4-5%, so what are the other 95-96% doing about the situation. Mohammed was the 3rd most popular boys name in Britain in 2007, doesn't this say something to you? Wake UP before your country is taken over forever.

If you vote out the labour Government you had better find out where the other parties stand before voting for them. You need some one with a back bone.

You give the Muslims an inch and they will take a mile.

Christians, Jews and other religions need to debate Islam and what the Koran teaches. They should be using religion to fight religion. They should be using the verses out of the Koran as being offensive and inciting hatred towards them, after all its written in black and white.
Please fight for you country before it's too late. It is not just for Britain's sake, but for the rest of the western world as well.

Verity

Jules - this didn't happen in oversight. It was planned and deliberate. The British were too dim-witted - slowing morphing into dhimmi-witted - to see what was happening.

Some of us saw and were labelled with thought fascist terms like "xenophobic". (By people who didn't even understand the word. But it sounded technical and threatening.)