The Supreme Court was a requirement of the EU. Blair and Lord Irvine then rewrote the conditions for becoming a judge ( down to magistrates) in such a way as to ensure the only Left Wing activist lawyers could become judges. It also secured effective immunity for politicians from the law. The Tory Party has not repealed this since being power in power so must be in agreement with it.
The consequence is that we have judges who lean towards criminals rather than the victims and police?
We do not have judges now. We have extreme leftwing activists masquerading as unbiased judges instead. Their remit is to follow the Frankfurt School of Marxism see http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2012-025-the-frankfurt-school-to-destroy-western-civilisation/
- The Supreme Court is a creature of Tony Blair and the EU.
- It consists of lawyers selected for their extremist Left wing Globalist opinions and EU sympathy. They do not represent British democracy. They are unelected and they have crossed the line between administering the law and making law. As such they are usurping the role of our elected politicians.
- This was tweeted by Elinor Dashwood@ElinorEusceptic ‘Just read this comment in the Law Gazette. Is it verifiable?’ – ‘Nine out of the eleven justices receive stipends of £175,000.00+ from the EU & the Supreme Court itself is a member of the network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU’.
- I phoned the editor of Law Gazette to confirm. His curious response was that it was yes it was in Law Gazette but nothing to do with the Gazette. ??? He said it was complete rubbish but he had published it but it as now been removed. When asked how many of the UK Supreme Court judges were Common Purpose alumni he slammed the phone down. However there certainly is a network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU and the UK Supreme Court is a member. Their loyalty is to the EU not the UK.
- To become a judge you have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen as representative of the people of the UK. As a Supreme Court judge, a member of the EU’s President’s Supreme Judicial Courts and to get the £175000 cash you have the swear to the EU. Surely massive conflict of interest?
- It is of interest to know why 9 get the £175,000 and two do not. 10 are pro EU and one is not. That information seems to be exempt from the Freedom of Information.
- For you to decide for yourself whether it is rubbish or not.
People are being arrested and imprisoned despite not breaking any law while others who blatantly flout the law are either ignored by the police or then have their crimes are dismissed in court.
- The ECJ ruled in the Kadi-Barakaat case that the EU should ignore the UN Charter (the highest source of international law) if it conflicted with the EU’s internal constitutional order.
The purpose of the creation of the ‘Supreme Court’ was to entrench Blairism into the Constitution. This also applies to all judges and Magistrates.
It is important to understand that the remits of the European Court Human Rights and Europan Court of Justice are not to administer justice but to make judgements the further ever closer union.
By Mick Greenhough contact on home page
The following is by Robin Tilbrook
So now we have had the decision of the “Supreme Court” on Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament. In which, on very thin grounds, the Supreme Court has dismissed one of the key provisions in our Constitution.
This is Article 9 in the Bill of Rights which says as follows (the significant bits of which I have underlined):-
“Bill of Rights1688 CHAPTER 2 1 William and Mary Session 2:-
“…..That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament….”
To understand why the “Supreme Court” has ruled in this way it is necessary to consider its purpose.
The purpose behind the creation of both the Judicial Appointments Commission & the Supreme Court was to entrench Blairism into the UK’s Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court are of course also appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which was specifically and openly set up by Tony Blair and his friend Lord Irvine, his Lord Chancellor, to, as Lord Irvine, put it to “ensure that nobody with Reactionary Views ( a euphism for any judge not left wing) can be appointed or promoted” as a Judge.
In order to achieve this, the Judicial Appointments Commission has made it clear that, in order to get appointed or promoted as a Judge, you must “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”. This of course means that every appointment is likely to be of a very Left-wing, Multiculturalist, Internationalist, Europhile.
It was as part of this drive that the now Lord Justice Hickinbottom when he was the “Judicial Lead for Diversity” gleefully told the solicitors Law Society Gazette that he suggested “Creating a judicial career fast-track (to) help improve diversity on the bench”
Ever since 2004 the Judicial Appointments Commission has continued to appoint and to promote wherever possible only those who are multi-culturalist activists.
The effect of this can easily be seen if you look at the backgrounds of the eleven Supreme Court “Justices”, as reported in The Slog, as follows:-
“Lady Brenda Hale (Chair) is a lifetime academic and former Law Professor who went straight into being a Judge with no history in commercial law at all. She is a feminist, a great believer in diversity, and a lifelong liberal. I would be amazed if she voted any other way than Remain.
Lord Robert Reed (Deputy) is a Scot who also sits on the EU’s European Court of Human Rights. He was an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe Joint Initiative with Turkey. No prizes for guessing where Rabbie’s sympathies lie.
Lord Brian Kerr is the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the first Catholic ever appointed to that post. In 2014, he had this to say in a lengthy interview:
“The Law has changed enormously since the enactment of the Human Rights Act. The central point about the Act is that it has given judges free access to the rich vein of jurisprudence that is provided by the Strasbourg Court…..we now have the ability to draw on jurisprudence from all over the Council of Europe on matters that critically affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state and I think that that can only be a good thing.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Lord Nicholas Wilson is left of centre and on the record as saying, ““In pursuit of its economic policy, the UK government has recently felt the need to dismantle much of our welfare state, namely social security and the National Health Service.” He is a passionate supporter of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The activist site Divorce & the City is currently preparing to impeach Lord Wilson for alleged corruption and ‘pro State’ bias. He is, reputedly, not a fan of Boris Johnson or Brexit.
Lord Robert Carnwath is an unknown quantity who appears never to have expressed an opinion about anything, except he sits on the advisory council of the English School in Poland.
Lord Patrick Hodge is another Scot. He was a civil servant in the 1970s, and then Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996. Ergo, chummy with the unelected State, 99.99% of whom are anti-Brexit. I’d imagine he’s also a wow at parties.
Lady Jill Black is unique in the Supreme Court in not having been to Oxbridge. You can see from this just how inclusive the Court is, and thus totally out of touch with the average person.
Lord David Lloyd-Jones is another scholar who wound up a judge. He was a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge from 1975 to 1991. From 1999 to 2005, he was a visiting professor at City University, London, and was then put onto The Bench. He has always specialised in international and EU law. Only two months ago, in a Supreme Court hearing involving Kuoni Travel, Lloyd-Jones ruled that EU Law had primacy in the case. He gave the judgement in Welsh, which was a first. Highly unlikely to have voted to leave a Union in whose law he specialises, one could reasonably argue.
Lady Mary Arden became a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2011, and sits as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg blah blah yawn etc. In 2015 she published a book about the impact of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the domestic law of the UK. In his preface to the book, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales noted:
Not a Leaver then, we suspect. This is all getting terribly predictable, isn’t it?
Lord David Kitchin coxed the team that won the 1975 Boat Race for Cambridge. More pertinently, he has for many years been a strong advocate of more harmonisation of the Law between EU jurisdictions. In May this year, he gave an interview offering the following opinion in relation to patent law, in which he is a specialist:
“The situation is improving and that is because there is now much more discussion and communication between judges in different countries. Judges now meet regularly to discuss these and other difficult issues. We consider each other’s judgments; all of us attach importance to the decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Convention….there might not be jurisdiction to make references to the EU Court of Justice in these cases, or any cases after Brexit.”
And so this would be a bad thing, wouldn’t i? Get real: Lord Kitchin is a Good European who lectures about legal alignment in the EU.
Lord Philip Sales really is a case of leaving the best until last. Sales has had something of a meteoric rise: he is the youngest of the Supreme Court judges, and was a practising barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk – according to The Guardian ‘a network of old boys and cronies’ that enabled him to be appointed First Counsel at the Treasury…a department of State with a long and grubby history of undying support for the EU. The recommendation that he be appointed came from Lord Irvine and Tony Blair’s old chambers.
Philip Sales is New Labour through and through. In 2016, he was a member of the Court of Appeal which ruled that 130,000 Labour members who joined the party after 12 January 2016 would not be able to vote in the leadership contest. This overruled the previous High Court decision to allow the 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election. In short, it was a bid by the Blairites to keep Corbyn out.
Finally, he was one of the three judges forming the High Court in proceedings concerning the use of the royal prerogative for the issue of notification in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. His role in this judgment meant that he appeared in an infamous front-cover of the Daily Mail – Enemies of the People – as a solid-gold Remainer.”
(The original of this useful article can be found here >>> https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/ )
It is also being said that many of the 11 “Justices” are in receipt of salaries from the EU. If true then this is a very serious scandal!
I have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Conservatives are grumbling about the decision of the Supreme Court, but they have only their own Party to blame!
It’s no use Conservative MPs now complaining about the same europhile multiculturalists whom their Party had appointed to the Supreme Court making Europhile Multiculturalist decisions.
The Conservatives have had nearly 10 years in power to change the Judicial Appointments system but they have chosen not to do so!
We suspect the Parole Board and Prison Service are similar.
The European Court of Human Rights
Europe has had a long history of abuse of Human Rights from the Feudal System, the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic code to Hitler’s NSDAP and Stalin’s Soviet Eastern European states.
The European Court of Human Rights was started after WWII from an initiative by Eleanor Roosevelt because of the appalling abuse of Human Rights in Europe during the Nazi era. This was before the appalling behaviour of Stalin became exposed as very similar to the behaviour of the Nazi party.
It initially consisted of 12 very respected and experienced judges.
Now the ECHR consists of 47 judges, many of whom are appointed more for their political opinions than their legal expertise. Many were also complicit in the legal system of East European countries in their communist past.
Initially the ECHR was a stand alone court before the EU was established. Since then it is being slowly hi-jacked by the EU. In theory the ECHR and the EU are quite separate institutions. The ECHR is strictly under the Council of Europe (CoE). However they both fly the same flag (actually not really a flag but a banner*) and if a country is in the CoE then they required to ‘voluntarily’ sign up to the ECHR. In practice the ECHR is inextricably linked with the EU and the CoE and is steadily becoming an agent of the European Commission.
Very few of the new breed of judges have any knowledge of English Common Law and those who do wish to see it replaced with the EU Napoleonic Corpus Juris.
In Corpus Juris you can be arrested without evidence, held in custody for perhaps years without charge and you are deemed guilty until you can prove your innocence. If you are in prison that is almost impossible. There is no Habeas Corpus, right of silence or onus on the prosecution to prove your guilt.
The (unelected) European Commission intend that there should be a common legal system across the EU. That system will be Corpus Juris and English Common Law is to be replaced by CJ.
* It is only States that have flags. As the EU is not a state it cannot have a flag; it is a banner.
However some years ago, people objected to the flying of the EU flag and said it
required planning permission because it was not a national flag and therefore an “advertisement” .
Mr Prescott (or a friend of his) it had it reclassified as a bona fide flag. However changing the name does not change its nature. Calling a duck a chicken does not make it a chicken.