Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to an interesting development found in the news, the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.Curious it all is but then here are the details as here
synopsed from the Daily Mail, found specifically at........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005079/Student-TV-file-sharer-facing-extradition-U-S-arrest-running-site-providing-pirated-films-TV-shows.html?ITO=1490
Student TV file sharer facing extradition to U.S. after arrest for 'running site providing links to pirated films and TV shows'
Undergraduate faces U.S. trial for copyright offences
By Daily Mail Reporter
Facing extradition: Student Richard O'Dwyer ran the TVShack website
A British university student faces being extradited to the United States for hosting a website which provided links to downloadable pirated films and TV shows.Undergraduate Richard O'Dwyer, a student at Sheffield Hallam University, was arrested late last month and is accused of criminal copyright infringement by U.S authorities.The 23-year-old could now be extradited to America to face trial there............Mr O'Dwyer, who lives in student accommodation in Sheffield city centre, was first visited by U.S. officials last year when he ran the site TVShack.The website, which he has since shut down, provided links to other sites where users could download pirated films and TV shows like The Hangover and Lost.The student appeared before Westminster Magistrates Court this week for a preliminary hearing into the planned extradition, which he is strongly contesting.Still studying: Mr O'Dwyer is currently reading computer science at Sheffield Hallam University ,Jailed: The 23-year-old was made to stay overnight at Wandsworth Prison until his family could answer the £3,000 bail.His mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, said the case was 'beyond belief' and the possibility of extradition was 'madness.'.................She said: 'The first we knew about it was this visit from the police and the American officials in November.....
'But then in May he had to spend the night in Wandsworth Prison as the court was too slow for us to sort out his passport and bail.'Mr O'Dwyer spend the night in jail and was only released after his mother paid a £3,000 bail fee...........Mrs O'Dwyer, a nurse, added: 'Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright.'Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.'...................The UK's 2003 extradition agreement with the USA, is thought to be at the centre of the latest row.The law currently contains no proviion for 'forum', a legal term referring to judges being allowed to consider whether a case is heard in the UK or abroad.Mr O'Dwyer's family have argued that since the student has not been to America since he was a child and he did not have any copyright material on his website, the case should be heard in the UK.His barrister, Ben Cooper, told the preliminary hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on Tuesday: 'The computer server was not based in the U.S. at all.'Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyright material on his website; he simply provided a link.
(Squirrel's note: The site is a search engine locating whatever etc. and providing download links to the sites which do house the whatever material,it does not site, nor house the material itself,quite similarly as I have provided the link herein to the Daily Mail which holds the informational material on the case in question.)
'The contention is that the correct forum for this trial is here in Britain, where he was at all times.'
Legal fight: Mr O'Dwyers lawyers argued that the student should not be extradited the the U.S. as his site was not hosted no American servers.The student's legal team will argue that he should not face extradition as the site he ran was not hosted on U.S. servers.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the web address TVShack.net last July. Mr O’Dwyer moved it to TVShack.cc, but that was also seized later last year.Julia O'Dwyer said her son shut down the site after being contacted by police.
Here ends the Daily Mail synopsed article.
The is also yet more informationally to be found at.....
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/725/288/TVShack_Brit_Richard_O_Dwyer_Facing_Extradition_To_U.S._Over_Copyright_Infringement.html
TVShack Brit Richard O’Dwyer Facing Extradition To U.S. Over Copyright Infringement
Originally published on WebTVWire.com - a TV Technology
blog.(http://www.webtvwire.com/tvshack-brit-richard-odwyer-facing-extradition-to-u-s-over-copyright-infringement/)
Lock and ChainRichard O’Dwyer is facing going to prison in the United States for being the man behind the TVShack website. But the case against him and the extradition proceedings being sought are questionable.TVShack was a website linking to files hosted elsewhere on the Web which enabled the streaming on movies and television shows. Copyrighted movies and television shows which neither TVShack or the sites it linked to had permission to stream.The guy, a 23-year-old student by the name of Richard O’Dwyer, was arrested last November and is now facing charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Although O’Dwyer didn’t charge people to use the site he made money from advertisements on the site.The U.S. wants O’Dwyer tried in its court system, and if this happens he could face five years in prison.
The Legal Questions
There is an interesting legal debate to be had here for various reasons.
Firstly, O’Dwyer is a British citizen who was present in the U.K. all the while he was running TVShack.
Secondly, the TVShack server wasn’t based in the U.S.
Thirdly, TVShack merely linked to copyrighted material rather than hosting it.You could argue that the first two points don’t matter because the Internet is worldwide and the content being infringed upon was owned by companies mainly based in the States. But the third point is important.
It has consistently been shown that in Europe it isn’t illegal to link to copyrighted material or those who are hosting it.
In the U.S. things are a little more muddied. So whether O’Dwyer is tried in the U.K. or the U.S. could make a vast difference to his defense.
Conclusions
I cannot fathom how extraditing O’Dwyer makes any sort of sense. So I hope the case against him is heard in a British court of law. (Britain’s extradition treaty with the U.S. is already under review in light of the Gary McKinnon case, but that will not be concluded in time to help O’Dwyer.)
and here ends the Daily Mail/Webtvwire.com communal informational.
Well this pretty much states the case rather against the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.He is in no way shape nor form and American citizen, therefor he is subject only to the laws of the UK while in the UK, and American laws whilst in America, yet he has never been to America, nor doing what
he did, and/or does, in America.His internet server isn't based in the United States, and there have been cases tried where the argument that said server etc wasn't within the sol called offended country has held true,legally true, according to the justice systems,and, most importantly, he was running what is a search engine, he did not himself host on his servers any
illegal material of any kind whatsoever, violating NOT British,nor America, nor anybody else's laws at all.He ran a search engine, which happened to point to and locate material sought,or indexed to be found,much as, face it, Google,Bing,Yahoo and any other search engine does. Indeed, I myself, as in above, pointed to and referenced existing sites of the Daily Mail, and
Webtvwire.com,in similar fashion as would/did/does, any particular search engine. In all things everything the Mr. O'Dwyer did is open,above board, and not against the law,not even yet American law else Google,Bing, Yahoo et all of their search engines are also in violation,yet they aren't,nor are they prosecuted,persecuted. The British law is also free and clear,yet Mr. O'Dwyer is subject to a massive amount, not of inconvenience,prejudicial behaviour, but also direct harassment,abuse, and judicial impropriety, costing him personal monies in defense against same. Obviously on failure, as it should fail, of the extradition processes,he should be monetarily compensated for all expenses and inconveniences and even yet receive additional monies to compensate him for the improper occurrence. Who should pay? Well, that is between the British government and the American government,in the very least the British government should compensate him, and thence attempt to recover said expenses for the improper judicial proceedings from the American government, rather than force him to directly sue the American government himself in Britain,for the conduct it directed against an obviously judicially innocent Briton,British subject, passport holding British citizen.
But here's much yet more to this. What must also now be considered is the ridiculous Extradition Treaty between Britain, and America, as it was arranged by one Tony Blair, a rather smarmy,negligent, and obviously easily influence politician of dubious nature, who at the time of the treaty negotiation, was the Labor Prime Minister Of Britain,sad and sorry to say.What is occurring already, in advance of this,though this is a prime example of the inequality,inequity,iniquity involved in the treaty such that this incident is and has been allowed to have occurred in the first instance,there is a movement to demand the treaty. Let us here study matter with respect to this yet further..here consider at..
http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1933719-repeal-us-uk-extradition-treaty-ban-extradition?ref=title
Repeal US-UK Extradition Treaty, & Ban Extradition without Contestable Prima Facie Evidence
The US-UK extradition treaty (signed secretly under Queen's prerogative) and the Extradition Act (2003) effectively remove all protection from UK citizens against unjust extradition. Despite being denounced as an anathema to justice by Liberty, the ACLU and eminent legal consensus in the UK, and despite a series of resulting high-profile injustices, the Treaty & the Act are currently undergoing very expensive 'review' by the government to decide whether this blatantly unfair legislation is fair or not. The law as it stands means that anyone can be extradited to the USA and the recently publicized brutality of its prison system without a shred of contestable evidence - you don't need to have committed a crime to be extradited.
here ends the epistle from 38degrees.uservoice.com
The government is not there to allow foreigners to play with the lives of Britons, nor disrupt them in any way.........who will pay for the lawyers, the defense against the accusation false, and or improper,will the US government pay, and how much will it pay?Is it just,no.Is it justice?No. Not in either case at all.Can the US government be allowed to apply it's laws against Britons in Britain?No, it should not be so. If the lad had committed a crime in Britain, then he would be tried in Britain against British laws, but it seems this cannot be so, hence he has not.But then why allow him to be extradited to the US to face trial since they believe their laws were violated by a
lad in Britain who is not subjected to them while in Britain? Curious is it not, but that is what it amounts to. The disruption to his life is massive, they will not even yet try him in the UK for what they claim to be violation of their laws,while he's in the UK and a UK citizen to boot...quite literally as that is what is occurring to him, what the British government,itself in view of extradition being in their domain, allowing. The lad has no judicial problems in the UK with UK laws else he'd be tried in the UK against those laws.......no correct? Clearly there is much amiss here.....much injustice, inequity,iniquity,inequality, judicial and governmental impropriety, and it is the UK government allowing it.Quite clearly this must not come about.
Criticism of the treaty abounds in the United Kingdom on the basis that it is both unfair and unjust to UK citizens on the basis that the requirements needed to extradite a UK citizen to the United States are far easier to meet than those needed in order to extradite a United States citizen to the United Kingdom.This imbalance has come about as a result of two completely
separate issues which have combined to create what is largely regarded by informed commentators as one of the most one-sided, politically manipulative and unjust pieces of British legislation ever to make its way onto the Statute Book of the British Parliament.
So let us ponder here what has been said at
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=213253338695914
It is perhaps no coincidence therefore that the Extradition Act of 2003 was steered through Parliament by the same man who introduced the now notorious IPP sentence, former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.At the time this act of Parliament was introduced, both Tony Blair and Blunkett were keen to ingratiate themselves with the administration of the then US President,
George W. Bush. As it happens, they were both wasting their time for history shows that in the end, Bush didn’t care for either of them.One should not be tempted however to think that this criticism of the extradition treaty between the United States and the UK is anything new. It most certainly is not.
Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. Considered by some to be one-sided because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offenses committed against US law, even though the alleged offense may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (for example the
NatWest Three) and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.
Among other provisions in Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause – and although not exactly the same as reasonable suspicion, they are more equal than the 1870 Act and are about as equal as can be, given the differences in the two legal systems and without violating the US Constitution. .There is also concern at the loss of entitlement of UK citizens to legal aid for maintaining an adequate defense to criminal
charges once they are extradited to US jurisdiction where costs are largely met by the defendant’s private means. This has been a cause of controversy in cases where it has been perceived that the UK has suitable legislation for prosecuting offenses domestically.The manner of its implementation also caused concern because of alleged secrecy and minimal parliamentary scrutiny, a trait some believe to be associated with much of the legislation introduced by David Blunkett.
Indeed, the treaty is typical of the Blair government’s legislation as is the aforementioned IPP sentence which was equally controversial and which has caused enormous problems for the UK Prison Service and the Justice system as a whole and which also received very little parliamentary scrutiny. Now, just as the IPP sentence is under review, so there are of calls for an
equally robust examination of the 2003 extradition treaty.In essence, the problem with the treaty is that it does not treat UK citizens as fairly as it treats those from the United States.
One would expect under normal circumstances that the treaty would be reciprocal to both countries; that is, what applies in one country should apply in the other. The fact is however that the American constitution, which unlike the British constitution is actually written down, simply does not allow for a reciprocal arrangement of this type.Unlike the British constitution which is designed primarily to protect the organs of the state, the American Constitution is designed to protect the interests of the citizen. This fundamental difference means that American citizens cannot be pushed around and subjugated by the law in the same way that British citizens can.
There is however another element which must be considered when considering why it is that the British seem to be very much on the wrong end of this agreement and once again TheOpinionSite.org must make the point that the British government seems willing to do almost anything in order to please its American masters for fear of being criticized for not doing so.
As usual, and perhaps not surprisingly as the coalition is nominally led by a Conservative Prime Minister, the British government is more than willing to give in to the Americans to preserve the so-called “special relationship” which actually is no longer that special anyway. Ask any Prime Minister or head of state from any European country and they will tell you that they too have a “special relationship” with the United States.Despite being bad law in the first place, it seems
unlikely that the extradition treaty will be changed in any significant way, principally because to do so might upset our American cousins.
The fact that because of it some British citizens could end up spending the rest of their life in an American jail when in this country they would probably serve less than six years does not seem to be a problem for either Cameron or Clegg.When and if the 2003 Act is actually amended or changed, any modifications are likely to be insignificant and largely cosmetic. To do anything else would, as far as the British government is concerned, invite criticism that it does not take
terrorism, serious crime or other threats to the nation and the world seriously. This is of course total nonsense but the British government are quite willing to go along with it in order to save face with the Americans.The British Home Secretary, Theresa May has managed to hold up the extradition of Gary McKinnon, largely due to the public opposition to his extradition to the United States. Waiting in the wings however is another potential threat to the “special relationship”…That threat is of course the attempt by the United States government to extradite Julian Assange, the founder and leader of Wikileaks.
Although nothing official has yet been said and although Mr Assange is successfully using his lawyers to delay any extradition proceedings, it is likely that the United States administration is waiting to pounce on the Swedish authorities so that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, he can then be transferred to face charges in the United States.The cases of McKinnon and Assange have together instilled great distrust in the workings of the 2003 Extradition Treaty, at least from the point of view of the British public. Whether or not the British government is prepared to look again at the treaty however is a completely different matter.
TheOpinionSite.org believes that if the treaty is reviewed and possibly amended or modified, any changes that will be made are likely to be insignificant, largely irrelevant and unlikely to help those affected by what is accepted by most to be both an unjust and unfair piece of British legislation drawn up by a former Home Secretary whose only objective was to suck up to the US administration of the time in an attempt to benefit his own circumstances.
Here ends the epistle.
There is yet more comment at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308478/David-Blunketts-startling-admission-UK-US-extradition-treaty.html
David Blunkett, the Cabinet minister who signed Labor's controversial Extradition Act, admitted yesterday that he may have 'given too much away' to the Americans.'I gave too much away': David Blunkett's startling admission on UK-U.S. extradition treaty .Critics say the Act is lopsided because British citizens are not given the same legal protection as their American
counterparts.If the U.S. government wants to extradite a UK citizen it needs only to outline the alleged offense, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect.But to extradite an American from the States, Britain must prove that the wanted individual has probably committed a crime, a much harder test.......................
The admission could make it easier for the Coalition to change the Act. Ministers will be able to point out that even its own architect is now having misgivings.Speaking to the Mail, Mr Blunkett-also called for a debate over trying people in the UK if that is where most of their crimes were committed...........'This has left British citizens especially vulnerable and the treaty is all too often being used frivolously and not for the serious crimes we were led to believe it was intended for............None must..hope the review of the one-sided Act, a focus of the Mail's Affront to British Justice campaign, will unravel the mess created by Labor.UK courts are approving 89 per cent of U.S. extradition requests. By comparison, only seven in ten requests to the Americans by the British authorities are granted, according to analysis by the Liberal Democrats.
The Daily Telegraph has also commented on the treaty......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5912435/Home-Office-warned-six-years-ago-about-unfair-extradition-treaty.html
MPs told then Home Office minister Caroline Flint that it "could not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens" by signing the treaty.The warning came from MPs on a standing committee which was set up to examine the detail of the treaty in December 2003, days before it was due to come into force in early 2004.The treaty was created to prevent terrorism suspects dragging cases out for years, but as disclosed in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, has only seen one terrorism suspect extradited since the September 11 attacks in 2001.However, 56 other people have been extradited to America..........David Heath, a senior Liberal Democrat MP, told the minister during a committee hearing: "The treaty is extraordinarily asymmetric. In fact, many of us feel that a Secretary of State signing a treaty under duress could
not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens. Mr Heath complained that MPs were not given enough time to study the treaty. It was only released to MPs on 21 May 2003, nearly two months after it was signed and the day before MPs went on their Whitsun holiday.Mr Heath continued: "That text stated that the treaty was intended to
'modernise and simplify the UK's extradition arrangements with the USA'."There is modernisation and there is simplification. Minor tidying-up arrangements are sometimes proposed, but the proposals seem to change fundamentally the relationship between the UK and the US, replacing the old treaty of 1972 and the additional protocol of 1986.
"Anything that carries a sentence of more than 12 months in American or Britain now becomes an extraditable offence without a prima facie case being necessary.
"I do not think that it is a good thing. It is not a good thing when British citizens - or those in the United Kingdom and under our judicial protection-are not given a fair crack of the whip. That is an important matter."Yesterday, Mr Heath, who is now the LibDems' shadow leader of the House, told The Daily Telegraph that he was saddened he had failed to prevent the treaty becoming law.He said: "We have been proved right. But it was obvious to me and [LibDem MP] Sir
Menzies Campbell at the time. I find it upsetting that we did not get the issue out into the open at the first time of asking."
Here ends the epistle from The Daily Mail.
To continue in a moral and ethical fashion,there is the question of the Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves,but you cannot hold a trial for a person breaking a foreign law in his own country where his own country see no violation of it's laws............it amounts to a British citizen speeding along legally at say 60 km while the law in America is 55km .he obviously is not violating US law in Britain, but is IF he would be in America, but yet isn't, however, Britain extraditing him to face trial in the US on exactly that charge, proven true or,thence not as the case may be.All democratic nations have the obligation to protect the rights of their citizens and uphold their national sovereignty.
According to The Independent.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sophie-kemp--and-jill-lorimer-double-standards-shame-our-treaty-with-america-1765883.html
Last year, Heritage published a study of the treaty that concluded that, extradition from Britain was too easy, it was because the Labor government of Tony Blair wanted to make it easy to extradite individuals from Britain. Blair’s government therefore created low standards for extradition and applied them to many countries, including the U.S.it is less easy to
obtain justice in the US. Disparity of sentence – excessive pressure to take a plea – use of the evidence of convicted felons in return for a reduced sentence – pre-trial incarceration – no legal aid – inhumane prison conditions – privatized prisons – official acceptance of torture (waterboarding) – a death penalty mentality. The list is endless.According to a freedom of
information request to the home office – as of June 2010 only THREE individuals with American nationality (or dual nationality ) were extradited to the UK, while TWENTY-EIGHT British citizens were extradited to the US despite the fact that the US has more than five times the population. Which means that (per capita) FIFTY TIMES AS MANY BRITS ARE EXTRADITED THAN
AMERICANS!!!British people,themselves,irregardless of the idiocy and personal smarmyness of one Tony Blair, the miscreant responsible for the inequitable extradition treaty, have a strong sense of Justice which is why this extradition is just simply wrong and the extradition treaty as it stands is a betrayal of British people.the UK-US extradition treaty has been loudly denounced for many years by civil rights groups in both the US and UK (ACLU and Liberty respectively) on the grounds that it is one-sidedly counter to the interests of justice, by virtue of the fact that it removes all safeguards from UK citizens. Never mind ‘sovereignty’, the removal of the requirement for an extraditing country to present contestable evidence for their allegations is an assault on the notion of justice itself. Even a brief perusal of the reasons given by Liberty and ACLU for objecting to the treaty makes it clear that these are not idle or erroneous objections, but have a strong and valid basis.On the face of it, it appears that the US authorities need provide little more than the name of the accused person and a brief outline of the facts of the case.It is easy to understand the commonly held view that the US can demand the surrender of a UK citizen on a whim, while its own citizens are afforded a much higher degree of protection.However for a British judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person sought by the US, section 71 of the Extradition Act
2003 does require "evidence that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of the offense". In other words, the judge is expected to apply the same standards as he or she would in respect of a person suspected of committing an offense in the UK. So there is no requirement to back up a request with any evidence. Perhaps the real issue is whether a British citizen should be extradited to stand trial in any foreign country without evidence first being presented to a British court to show there is a case to answer. The stress and expense of defending potentially unfounded criminal allegations in a foreign jurisdiction is a daunting prospect.....
(But this does not mean that the person has committed a crime in the UK applicable to UK laws, BUT a foreign government can acquire him to try it because they say he broke their law.while not being in America.)
David Cameron himself has said:
“The Extradition Act was put in place to ensure terrorists didn’t escape justice." However, not on his side of things as we can further see here.......at The Foundry.........
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=56809
Presumably too, the author is aware that Baroness Scotland herself(Patricia Scotland,Baroness Scotland of Asthal) (now disgraced,for employing an illegal immigrant) who was instrumental in negotiating the treaty, acknowledged at the time that these new extradition arrangements with the US were imbalanced, and that the bar to extradition from the UK was set very low – far lower than that in the opposite direction. As far as making extradition easier is concerned, I presume the author is aware of the somewhat immoral assurances (in letters disclosed under FOI) that B.Scotland gave to US Senator Feingold and others that the treaty would not be used to pursue suspected IRA terrorists who have sought (and found) safe harbour in the USA.
Here ends the epistle,
But to continue in this vein, and offer direct evidence,there is such a letter stating this and it can in fact be read here supporting fully the claim..............
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5BPw-qqEV28ZDU3OTRjYTMtMzAzMi00ZTI5LWEzYTctMzg2MWI3ZDlhYjI5&hl=en
Let’s be honest here: the treaty may have been about extraditing suspected terrorists from the UK to the US (though in 7 years it hasn’t resulted in a single extradition in such circles), but it was explicitly about NOT extraditing suspected terrorists from the US to Britain.
Squirrel concludes,indeed in all fairness one must push for the present Coalition Parliament to effectively and equitably renegotiate the extradition treaty with America, and failing America's willingness to do so, to simply declare the treaty to be nullified,ended,retracted,withdrawn,non existent and then force the Americans to the table to renegotiate it such that there is equity,equality,fairness,justice for all, citizens of both countries, and also to put an end to such improprieties allowing Britons to seemingly be innocent of crime in Britain, yet be so accused of and extradited to the USA for any such trial and travails.Secret Squirrel sees the need for justice for all,especially for those in Britain, and Squirrel also says no Briton must be made subject to any foreign law in his own land.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On Donald Trump's Bullying Tactics Used On Scots
Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to a range war in Scotland, developing between some Scottish landowners,and one very belligerent and bullying American, one Donald Trump,of questionable financial accumen and practices.He has, you
know,filed for bankruptcy twice and still come out at the top of the heap,since in both instances, Trump's corporations have filed,not he himself,and his investors have lost,not he himself,in short he's a form of legal Madoff, the investors loose,the monies gone,but who knows where(Madoff at least knew where the money was, and is, but wasn't and isn't talking),he has no idea himself. So Donald Trump,still personally an impossibly rich person with a somewhat disagreeable reputation,neighbour to one Scottish citizen,British subject,British citizen,British passport holding,David Milne,whose home at Hermit Point on the Menie estate is near Donald Trump's planned golf resort site, is trying to stick a Scottish neighbour with an expensive bill for a fence, and a rather poor one at that, a fence of the slat like variety one puts up about trees, or uses as a windbreak in winter,one of those varieties,that rolls up and rolls out, a run of the mill variety.Without warning, Trump's contractors erected the new boundary and planted dozens of trees then sent an invoice for £2820 - half of the total bill.David Milne,the neighbour Trump is at odds with,said: "I could not believe it when the bill arrived. I priced the materials and I could put up the whole fence on my own for about £800,that'd be a £400 on Donald's side which Donald would be sure not to pay.The health and safety adviser said Trump's demand was "ridiculous" and that he would not pay a penny towards the fence.
He said: "I'm just ignoring the demand. There is no way I'm going to pay it."As far as I'm concerned it's just another attempt to intimidate and bully me. But it's not going to work. I'm not paying any attention to it at all. "It's made from the cheapest stuff available but that's the kind of standard we've come to expect from Mr Trump and his organization."Now his neighbour,David Milne, a Health And Safety Advisor,has happily lived there for 20 years, happily ,till the arrival of the American, Donald Trump, who intends to build a golf course round and about the property.Mr Milne has accused the tycoon of trying to harass and bully him by doing things like piling a huge mound of earth behind his property.Trump had decided that the demarcation of Mr Milne’s property was wrong and needed to be corrected.
Here you can see the fence for yourself.....
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3617771/Cheeky-Donald-Trump-erects-fence-and-bills-protester.html
Quite simply the house, with it's road access, is in his way, his line of way,line of sight, or what ever, but whom now has the right of way? Well, the American has permission to create two championship courses, a clubhouse, a hotel and 950
houses.And he's decided he also needs adjoining land and has applied for planning permission for properties he doesn't own.Seems quite sure all things will go his way, and Milne will go away, for the 15% (imagine 15%,only) over cost of property he's offered to buy.But the sticking point is Milne doesn't go for the Americans bullying and strong arm tactics, quite simply, Trump isn't in America,and he's encountered some very obstinate thistle arsed Scots. BUT he does have heavy support from the Scottish (in this case pronounced Sottish if you please) Government,and has bragged heavily to that extend when he revealed he'd plans for the golf courses,etc, and had worries that he said the Scottish government easily alleviated for him, as they didn't want to stand in the way of the American,after all what are a few happy Scottish landowners to they, or they
to he.To quote the Donald on his plans, all of his plans,Government told me I'd win' DONALD Trump made the "explosive admission" that the Scottish Government called him after his golf course plan was rejected by councilors to urge him to press on, assuring him "you'll win".And he did too, and it seems, will continue to win?Trump's
claim that the Scottish Government offered him its support following the rejection is significant as it is supposed to remain impartial.What an incredible revelation we see, the SNP going against the democratic process when it suits them,we see the
SNP doing favours for Donald Trump an American. Milne is one of four homeowners at Menie who had been living with the threat of being evicted from their homes until Mr Trump announced earlier this year that he had ruled out compulsory purchase orders to help build his massive golf development.The Donald has in the past described the home as “ugly” and said he wants to flatten it,as with respect to the other three homes which are in his view, but Mr Milne will not sell,nor the other landowners at present.
Yes, the Donald can get what he wants, with full Scottish Government support, and the Scots be damned for living and being there, by all, including their own cherished government.But the American has also applied for planning permission for
adjoining land, on which Mr Milne's home at Hermit Point stands,and the others as well,you just can't stand in the way of Donald Trump nor the Scottish government,they will get their way.
Look here at......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394484/Donald-Trump-puts-barrier-trees-Scottish-neighbours-home.html
and you will get a better overview of things as they are and are going to be.
Fence laws originated with disputes over livestock, which may wander off their owner's land and cause damage. Judges and legislators have developed three different schemes for allocating the costs of restraining animals. Countries or states with "fence-in" systems require ranchers to build and pay for fences to keep their cattle on their land. "Fence-out" regimes allow livestock to go where they please, and impose the cost of fencing on neighbors who don't want animals on their property. Lastly, a few Solomonic legislatures have split the difference, forcing neighbors to share the cost of a fence, even if one of them doesn't want it. But don't be alarmed, suburbanites. Most states restrict their fence-out and cost-sharing rules to less populated regions or to those who own livestock, so your neighbor probably can't stick you with a bill for the cost of his white picket fence.However, there are no cows present, at the time of the building of the fence by either,so the argument directly is no cows,livestock or what ever, have you, they don't ,either of'em, hence no direct necessity for the fence, as the law states...even as it states, there must be necessity. In future, should Trump decide to add livestock to the fields, he would still be stuck for any fence or improvement of said fence since the cows were not, as now, present in the first place in the first erection of the unnecessary livestock fence, hence, The Donald can have his fence, as he wishes, but entirely at his own cost and expense,according to the letter of the law,but what with there already being severe Scottish government
interference in the matter,things may not exactly follow the letter of the law,but rather the dictates of the SNP. There is,however much opposition developing against both The Donald Trump, and as a consequence concerning the developments,the SNP, as well, and support for the four Scottish landowners has emerged....
here view an article from The Scotsman.....
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Donald-Trump-fights-back-over.6783261.jp
Here commences a synopsis of an epistle from The Scotsman....
Herein Donald Trump fights back over 'Menie: The Movie'A BITTER war of words has broken out ahead of the Scottish premiere of a film about Donald Trump's controversial golf course project in Aberdeenshire.You've Been Trumped was made by a two-man team who spent a year following the story and questions the decision to back the proposed "best golf course in the world".Director Anthony Baxter yesterday said residents fighting the plans claim they have been "bullied" and "victimized" and the development would sabotage a sensitive environment.The film will be seen for the first time in Scotland next Friday in Aberdeen.Mr Antrhony Baxter,The Director, from Montrose, described the film as an "environmental parable for our celebrity-driven times".The film-maker, along with producer Richard Phinney, was detained by police following a complaint of breach of the peace.On the arrest of Mr Baxter, Grampian Police said officers were called to the Menie Estate regarding a complaint of breach of the peace on 30 July last year. "As the allegations were corroborated by independent witnesses, two men were detained by officers and subsequently, after careful consideration of the facts, given formal adult warnings in connection with the incident."(This is interesting in light of the view that the estate they were on is surrounded by docile farmland as viewed above in the mentioned overview).He said: "I hope (the film] will change attitudes as for the first time the public will be getting the truth about the way the police have been policing the development and the fact that Trump is bullying residents."He added: "The people there feel victimized, bullied and feel a landscape that they know and feel very passionate about as an environmentally sensitive and important piece of ground has been bulldozed and sabotaged for the sake of precious little."He is also seeking an apology from Grampian Police after being detained following an incident while making the film.
Here ends my synopsis of the epistle found in The Scotsman...
There's more of course to it all..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487384/Billionaire-Donald-Trump-faces-kilted-curmudgeon-opposing-Scottish-golf-resort-plans.html
And here commences a synopsis from The Daily Mail..........
Mike Forbes Is another who stands in the way of plans of Donald Trump to build a resort on his land.For the problem is that Mike, Molly and Mike's 60-year-old wife, Sheila ? currently hard at work in the fish factory down the road live slap bang in
the middle of Trump's site.So far, he has rejected offers of £350,000 and more recently £375,000. Trump, meanwhile, insists that unless Mike and Molly sell up, he'll simply build around them.So Molly will be able to wave at the golfers from her
window in Paradise and will be a mere hop and a skip from the five-star hotel, spa and the majestic Tarmacadam sweep of the £1billion resort's main access route, Trump Boulevard.It's not difficult to see why Trump is keen to get them out.The dispute mirrors the plot of Local Hero, the 1983 cult film by Bill Forsyth in which an American oil tycoon tries to buy a tiny Scottish Village ? actually filmed in Pennan, just a few miles up the coast and turn it into an oil refinery, but changes his mind when he comes to visit and sees how gorgeous the place is.Except for The Donald,of course, it's the reverse,such is the benevolence and friendship of the American,Donald Trump, in reality.Mike is furious and insists the tractors are used to
drag his fishing nets and their frames in from the sea, while the oil cans are homemade braziers for burning rubbish."Of course I was offended. I wasn't against the golf course from the start.""I was helping him out, repairing their roads and
things and then they just went mental because I wouldn't sell.""They said they would make my life a misery and suddenly it's all got a bit personal. I don't say personal things about him...though there's a lot I could say."Such as?
"Well . . . his hair looks like a dead squirrel, for starters."
So has he been bullied?
"Put it this way, in the last few months I've had visits from animal cruelty, the RSPCA, environmental health and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.Oh, and a couple of weeks ago I had the police round saying I had a shotgun with no
license. I don't even have a shotgun.It all seems a bit coincidental, don't you think?"He's also withdrawn access rights from my land down to the beach ? I need a tractor to drag the nets, so without it, I can't fish."He has also had lawyers' letters accusing him of damaging Mr Trump's property, which he denies."Well, I always said that when I retired I'd sell everything and go on a world cruise, but I know one thing, I'll never sell to Donald Trump. Never ever."
And here ends the synopsis from The Daily Mail.
No in all fairness and equity to all Scots,to all Scottish citizens,citizens of Britain et all.......the government may not care, but it is clear from Mister Trump's own admission that the impartiality of the system is most severely compromised with
the Scottish National Party's Mister Salmond in charge.The nationalists think that the machinery of government is there to be
used and abused, and that they are not subject to the law of the land.The Scots are entitled to fair dealing from the government, and it is plain that Mister Trump believes that he was given fair passage in advance of the process. Scots who
believed that they would get a fair hearing have been deceived.Any permissions given to Mister Trump must be suspended immediately, and a new process begun, under judicial supervision.Separately, a parliamentary inquiry must be begun. The Lord Advocate must commence an inquiry alongside the police to see if corrupt practices have been used.
know,filed for bankruptcy twice and still come out at the top of the heap,since in both instances, Trump's corporations have filed,not he himself,and his investors have lost,not he himself,in short he's a form of legal Madoff, the investors loose,the monies gone,but who knows where(Madoff at least knew where the money was, and is, but wasn't and isn't talking),he has no idea himself. So Donald Trump,still personally an impossibly rich person with a somewhat disagreeable reputation,neighbour to one Scottish citizen,British subject,British citizen,British passport holding,David Milne,whose home at Hermit Point on the Menie estate is near Donald Trump's planned golf resort site, is trying to stick a Scottish neighbour with an expensive bill for a fence, and a rather poor one at that, a fence of the slat like variety one puts up about trees, or uses as a windbreak in winter,one of those varieties,that rolls up and rolls out, a run of the mill variety.Without warning, Trump's contractors erected the new boundary and planted dozens of trees then sent an invoice for £2820 - half of the total bill.David Milne,the neighbour Trump is at odds with,said: "I could not believe it when the bill arrived. I priced the materials and I could put up the whole fence on my own for about £800,that'd be a £400 on Donald's side which Donald would be sure not to pay.The health and safety adviser said Trump's demand was "ridiculous" and that he would not pay a penny towards the fence.
He said: "I'm just ignoring the demand. There is no way I'm going to pay it."As far as I'm concerned it's just another attempt to intimidate and bully me. But it's not going to work. I'm not paying any attention to it at all. "It's made from the cheapest stuff available but that's the kind of standard we've come to expect from Mr Trump and his organization."Now his neighbour,David Milne, a Health And Safety Advisor,has happily lived there for 20 years, happily ,till the arrival of the American, Donald Trump, who intends to build a golf course round and about the property.Mr Milne has accused the tycoon of trying to harass and bully him by doing things like piling a huge mound of earth behind his property.Trump had decided that the demarcation of Mr Milne’s property was wrong and needed to be corrected.
Here you can see the fence for yourself.....
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3617771/Cheeky-Donald-Trump-erects-fence-and-bills-protester.html
Quite simply the house, with it's road access, is in his way, his line of way,line of sight, or what ever, but whom now has the right of way? Well, the American has permission to create two championship courses, a clubhouse, a hotel and 950
houses.And he's decided he also needs adjoining land and has applied for planning permission for properties he doesn't own.Seems quite sure all things will go his way, and Milne will go away, for the 15% (imagine 15%,only) over cost of property he's offered to buy.But the sticking point is Milne doesn't go for the Americans bullying and strong arm tactics, quite simply, Trump isn't in America,and he's encountered some very obstinate thistle arsed Scots. BUT he does have heavy support from the Scottish (in this case pronounced Sottish if you please) Government,and has bragged heavily to that extend when he revealed he'd plans for the golf courses,etc, and had worries that he said the Scottish government easily alleviated for him, as they didn't want to stand in the way of the American,after all what are a few happy Scottish landowners to they, or they
to he.To quote the Donald on his plans, all of his plans,Government told me I'd win' DONALD Trump made the "explosive admission" that the Scottish Government called him after his golf course plan was rejected by councilors to urge him to press on, assuring him "you'll win".And he did too, and it seems, will continue to win?Trump's
claim that the Scottish Government offered him its support following the rejection is significant as it is supposed to remain impartial.What an incredible revelation we see, the SNP going against the democratic process when it suits them,we see the
SNP doing favours for Donald Trump an American. Milne is one of four homeowners at Menie who had been living with the threat of being evicted from their homes until Mr Trump announced earlier this year that he had ruled out compulsory purchase orders to help build his massive golf development.The Donald has in the past described the home as “ugly” and said he wants to flatten it,as with respect to the other three homes which are in his view, but Mr Milne will not sell,nor the other landowners at present.
Yes, the Donald can get what he wants, with full Scottish Government support, and the Scots be damned for living and being there, by all, including their own cherished government.But the American has also applied for planning permission for
adjoining land, on which Mr Milne's home at Hermit Point stands,and the others as well,you just can't stand in the way of Donald Trump nor the Scottish government,they will get their way.
Look here at......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394484/Donald-Trump-puts-barrier-trees-Scottish-neighbours-home.html
and you will get a better overview of things as they are and are going to be.
Fence laws originated with disputes over livestock, which may wander off their owner's land and cause damage. Judges and legislators have developed three different schemes for allocating the costs of restraining animals. Countries or states with "fence-in" systems require ranchers to build and pay for fences to keep their cattle on their land. "Fence-out" regimes allow livestock to go where they please, and impose the cost of fencing on neighbors who don't want animals on their property. Lastly, a few Solomonic legislatures have split the difference, forcing neighbors to share the cost of a fence, even if one of them doesn't want it. But don't be alarmed, suburbanites. Most states restrict their fence-out and cost-sharing rules to less populated regions or to those who own livestock, so your neighbor probably can't stick you with a bill for the cost of his white picket fence.However, there are no cows present, at the time of the building of the fence by either,so the argument directly is no cows,livestock or what ever, have you, they don't ,either of'em, hence no direct necessity for the fence, as the law states...even as it states, there must be necessity. In future, should Trump decide to add livestock to the fields, he would still be stuck for any fence or improvement of said fence since the cows were not, as now, present in the first place in the first erection of the unnecessary livestock fence, hence, The Donald can have his fence, as he wishes, but entirely at his own cost and expense,according to the letter of the law,but what with there already being severe Scottish government
interference in the matter,things may not exactly follow the letter of the law,but rather the dictates of the SNP. There is,however much opposition developing against both The Donald Trump, and as a consequence concerning the developments,the SNP, as well, and support for the four Scottish landowners has emerged....
here view an article from The Scotsman.....
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Donald-Trump-fights-back-over.6783261.jp
Here commences a synopsis of an epistle from The Scotsman....
Herein Donald Trump fights back over 'Menie: The Movie'A BITTER war of words has broken out ahead of the Scottish premiere of a film about Donald Trump's controversial golf course project in Aberdeenshire.You've Been Trumped was made by a two-man team who spent a year following the story and questions the decision to back the proposed "best golf course in the world".Director Anthony Baxter yesterday said residents fighting the plans claim they have been "bullied" and "victimized" and the development would sabotage a sensitive environment.The film will be seen for the first time in Scotland next Friday in Aberdeen.Mr Antrhony Baxter,The Director, from Montrose, described the film as an "environmental parable for our celebrity-driven times".The film-maker, along with producer Richard Phinney, was detained by police following a complaint of breach of the peace.On the arrest of Mr Baxter, Grampian Police said officers were called to the Menie Estate regarding a complaint of breach of the peace on 30 July last year. "As the allegations were corroborated by independent witnesses, two men were detained by officers and subsequently, after careful consideration of the facts, given formal adult warnings in connection with the incident."(This is interesting in light of the view that the estate they were on is surrounded by docile farmland as viewed above in the mentioned overview).He said: "I hope (the film] will change attitudes as for the first time the public will be getting the truth about the way the police have been policing the development and the fact that Trump is bullying residents."He added: "The people there feel victimized, bullied and feel a landscape that they know and feel very passionate about as an environmentally sensitive and important piece of ground has been bulldozed and sabotaged for the sake of precious little."He is also seeking an apology from Grampian Police after being detained following an incident while making the film.
Here ends my synopsis of the epistle found in The Scotsman...
There's more of course to it all..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487384/Billionaire-Donald-Trump-faces-kilted-curmudgeon-opposing-Scottish-golf-resort-plans.html
And here commences a synopsis from The Daily Mail..........
Mike Forbes Is another who stands in the way of plans of Donald Trump to build a resort on his land.For the problem is that Mike, Molly and Mike's 60-year-old wife, Sheila ? currently hard at work in the fish factory down the road live slap bang in
the middle of Trump's site.So far, he has rejected offers of £350,000 and more recently £375,000. Trump, meanwhile, insists that unless Mike and Molly sell up, he'll simply build around them.So Molly will be able to wave at the golfers from her
window in Paradise and will be a mere hop and a skip from the five-star hotel, spa and the majestic Tarmacadam sweep of the £1billion resort's main access route, Trump Boulevard.It's not difficult to see why Trump is keen to get them out.The dispute mirrors the plot of Local Hero, the 1983 cult film by Bill Forsyth in which an American oil tycoon tries to buy a tiny Scottish Village ? actually filmed in Pennan, just a few miles up the coast and turn it into an oil refinery, but changes his mind when he comes to visit and sees how gorgeous the place is.Except for The Donald,of course, it's the reverse,such is the benevolence and friendship of the American,Donald Trump, in reality.Mike is furious and insists the tractors are used to
drag his fishing nets and their frames in from the sea, while the oil cans are homemade braziers for burning rubbish."Of course I was offended. I wasn't against the golf course from the start.""I was helping him out, repairing their roads and
things and then they just went mental because I wouldn't sell.""They said they would make my life a misery and suddenly it's all got a bit personal. I don't say personal things about him...though there's a lot I could say."Such as?
"Well . . . his hair looks like a dead squirrel, for starters."
So has he been bullied?
"Put it this way, in the last few months I've had visits from animal cruelty, the RSPCA, environmental health and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.Oh, and a couple of weeks ago I had the police round saying I had a shotgun with no
license. I don't even have a shotgun.It all seems a bit coincidental, don't you think?"He's also withdrawn access rights from my land down to the beach ? I need a tractor to drag the nets, so without it, I can't fish."He has also had lawyers' letters accusing him of damaging Mr Trump's property, which he denies."Well, I always said that when I retired I'd sell everything and go on a world cruise, but I know one thing, I'll never sell to Donald Trump. Never ever."
And here ends the synopsis from The Daily Mail.
No in all fairness and equity to all Scots,to all Scottish citizens,citizens of Britain et all.......the government may not care, but it is clear from Mister Trump's own admission that the impartiality of the system is most severely compromised with
the Scottish National Party's Mister Salmond in charge.The nationalists think that the machinery of government is there to be
used and abused, and that they are not subject to the law of the land.The Scots are entitled to fair dealing from the government, and it is plain that Mister Trump believes that he was given fair passage in advance of the process. Scots who
believed that they would get a fair hearing have been deceived.Any permissions given to Mister Trump must be suspended immediately, and a new process begun, under judicial supervision.Separately, a parliamentary inquiry must be begun. The Lord Advocate must commence an inquiry alongside the police to see if corrupt practices have been used.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Secret Squirrel On America's Senatorial Weiner Sex Scandal
Secret Squirrel has looked on, with amusement, yet another American Government sex scandal,and in his infinite wisdom has decided to analyze and comment on the events of the day, which happen each and every day.Let's start by considering that earlier this year, Rep. Chris Lee, a married Republican from New York, resigned within hours after it was revealed he had sent a topless photograph of himself to a woman he met on Craigslist.Hmmmm topless,were they absolutely huge man boobs (moobs or whatever they're called),fantastic hooters, huge gazongas,enormous zoomers,or what ever.I wonder, but mind I run about topless too, very provocative in the country environment I'm presently in,and so too do others,and its exceptionally daring in a city like Montreal where female cops have threatened to take in men going topless. So the Republican lad resigned at a snap of the fingers......hmmmmmmm.........so Republican.Democrats don't resign, even Clinton allowed himself to be impeached and didn't resign(why should he, none of his own Democrats would vote to kick him out,and none did).But zounds and zooks, the
very air abounds with political sex scandals over the years,massive amounts of them.According to Newsweek, there were,since 1976,27 Democrat ones,and since 1980,26 Republican ones,in 35 years, 53 total...to 2010,thereabouts,roundabouts in major government(and probably more yet as well). Of course there is no lack out of The House as it were,face it State,local etc etc etc.
So now Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York,Weiner,the central subject of Weinergate, admits he lied about his sexual conduct, but it is his private sexual conduct, embarrassing yes, a revealtion which, in marriage, may lead to divorce as grounds for that would have been achieved,but it is his private life.He has also lied about sexting (and what ever else) on government time........it is a lie about his personal life, but the issue, if anything,for The Senate Ethics Committee, is whether he used government resources to do so on the taxpayers time, and money...there is the issue,the issue on which they could remove him should it prove true, but his private personal life is an issue only with himself and with the electorate.
According to The Atlantic Wire...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/weiner-rehab-resign/38740/
His wife wants him to remain in office. Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, with her close relationship to the Clintons, is a powerful figure politically. She is also pregnant, and appears to be standing by him. He may think that she can clean up after him. As the Times reported, Weiner repeatedly told Pelosi that he could not resign now because his wife, Huma Abedin, was traveling abroad with her boss, Hillary Clinton -- "an assertion they viewed as an unpersuasive pretext." The Wall Street Journal also reports that Weiner has been privately telling colleagues that his wife wants him to remain in office.But Andrew Breitbart thinks even Abedin's influence with the Clintons won't be enough. On Fox & Friends Saturday morning, Breitbart said an “impeccable source” had told him that “Obama and Clinton spoke to him yesterday and said ‘Get the hell out of here,’”
Of course, that's his decision to make,though others would like to make it for him,for example the Senate Ethics Committee.But what of morals?Morals aren't ethics,and Senate Ethics Committee,in the American Senate deals with money issues,things like misspending,misappropriating,abusing,public funds,the money of the taxpayer for personal misuses.Face it their private life is their own, albeit highly disordered and amusing,looking at Schwartzenegger,Woods,James, et all and lets look at the MANY politicians who have had many of these interesting sex scandals, lads who had to bring in hookers by train, by plane, lads who even yet had to fly out of the country to meet their whores,errr mistresses, err girlfriends, lads who had problems getting their wives to provide free sex in marriage or whatever version of it,or lack of it ,they evidently hadn't any,or were refused it,denied it.........yes, and then there's the President,Clinton who had an amazing time.Hey, would we have known what else we could do with cigars without him? I must admit I have spent some of my time encouraging my girlfriend to take up cigar smoking,I even yet offered her a Tiparillo from time to time.If you try enough times they will take up smoking cigars to please you(I'm not a politician and that pleases her).
This one Weiner sends naked pictures of himself and various parts of his anatomy to women.It could've been worse in the school of public opinion, could've been men,and or both as in underaged, as in Senate pages.We've even yet had political,scandals as they're called,of politicians having affairs with underage pages,male and female,which leaned to the interesting side as they were the ones who came up with and enacted and exacted legislation and laws which have imprisoned the common ordinary citizen for doing the very same thing.What we have in reality,in American government, is one huge orgy open to the exclusivity of the politicians.It has been noted that politicians are above the laws for the greater part, whilst they are in government, in trouble when they fall out of government, and it has been noted that in America companies have
fired, or let go,laid off and what not, employees who have had extra marital affairs or variously distinguished themselves in the field of rentals of various women, and men.But government doesn't presently do this,so very not. But it IS their private
lives,the private lives of anybody, you know. The Senate ethics committee is interested only on the financial side of things, what they term to be abuse of funds, of government funds, of the peoples money,you,the citizen, who entrusted them with it all. It does not deal with morals,morality,or behaviour in the bedroom,theirs or others.......or in the backseats of cars, or the beaches or the forests and alleyways of America et all.
I myself am considerably amused to hear what becomes written in to the political Book Of Revelations, and also in seeing the women they had affairs with, basically as to their taste in things, in other words, was their taste in women on the side of what can only be termed fat or dumpy, and/or coyote ugly?
Ultimately it is for the electorate to decide.They,his fellow politicians, can try force them to resign, if they find various forms of dirt on him, his party,the Democrats, can evict him, yes, but he would remain as a Representative still yet, Independent or not sitting as whatever he labels himself, but for re-election attempts he would be on his own. Or the party can keep him, and take a chance on the broad scale electorate turning a blind eye to things, and you know, with respect to the electorate, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.
very air abounds with political sex scandals over the years,massive amounts of them.According to Newsweek, there were,since 1976,27 Democrat ones,and since 1980,26 Republican ones,in 35 years, 53 total...to 2010,thereabouts,roundabouts in major government(and probably more yet as well). Of course there is no lack out of The House as it were,face it State,local etc etc etc.
So now Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York,Weiner,the central subject of Weinergate, admits he lied about his sexual conduct, but it is his private sexual conduct, embarrassing yes, a revealtion which, in marriage, may lead to divorce as grounds for that would have been achieved,but it is his private life.He has also lied about sexting (and what ever else) on government time........it is a lie about his personal life, but the issue, if anything,for The Senate Ethics Committee, is whether he used government resources to do so on the taxpayers time, and money...there is the issue,the issue on which they could remove him should it prove true, but his private personal life is an issue only with himself and with the electorate.
According to The Atlantic Wire...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/weiner-rehab-resign/38740/
His wife wants him to remain in office. Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, with her close relationship to the Clintons, is a powerful figure politically. She is also pregnant, and appears to be standing by him. He may think that she can clean up after him. As the Times reported, Weiner repeatedly told Pelosi that he could not resign now because his wife, Huma Abedin, was traveling abroad with her boss, Hillary Clinton -- "an assertion they viewed as an unpersuasive pretext." The Wall Street Journal also reports that Weiner has been privately telling colleagues that his wife wants him to remain in office.But Andrew Breitbart thinks even Abedin's influence with the Clintons won't be enough. On Fox & Friends Saturday morning, Breitbart said an “impeccable source” had told him that “Obama and Clinton spoke to him yesterday and said ‘Get the hell out of here,’”
Of course, that's his decision to make,though others would like to make it for him,for example the Senate Ethics Committee.But what of morals?Morals aren't ethics,and Senate Ethics Committee,in the American Senate deals with money issues,things like misspending,misappropriating,abusing,public funds,the money of the taxpayer for personal misuses.Face it their private life is their own, albeit highly disordered and amusing,looking at Schwartzenegger,Woods,James, et all and lets look at the MANY politicians who have had many of these interesting sex scandals, lads who had to bring in hookers by train, by plane, lads who even yet had to fly out of the country to meet their whores,errr mistresses, err girlfriends, lads who had problems getting their wives to provide free sex in marriage or whatever version of it,or lack of it ,they evidently hadn't any,or were refused it,denied it.........yes, and then there's the President,Clinton who had an amazing time.Hey, would we have known what else we could do with cigars without him? I must admit I have spent some of my time encouraging my girlfriend to take up cigar smoking,I even yet offered her a Tiparillo from time to time.If you try enough times they will take up smoking cigars to please you(I'm not a politician and that pleases her).
This one Weiner sends naked pictures of himself and various parts of his anatomy to women.It could've been worse in the school of public opinion, could've been men,and or both as in underaged, as in Senate pages.We've even yet had political,scandals as they're called,of politicians having affairs with underage pages,male and female,which leaned to the interesting side as they were the ones who came up with and enacted and exacted legislation and laws which have imprisoned the common ordinary citizen for doing the very same thing.What we have in reality,in American government, is one huge orgy open to the exclusivity of the politicians.It has been noted that politicians are above the laws for the greater part, whilst they are in government, in trouble when they fall out of government, and it has been noted that in America companies have
fired, or let go,laid off and what not, employees who have had extra marital affairs or variously distinguished themselves in the field of rentals of various women, and men.But government doesn't presently do this,so very not. But it IS their private
lives,the private lives of anybody, you know. The Senate ethics committee is interested only on the financial side of things, what they term to be abuse of funds, of government funds, of the peoples money,you,the citizen, who entrusted them with it all. It does not deal with morals,morality,or behaviour in the bedroom,theirs or others.......or in the backseats of cars, or the beaches or the forests and alleyways of America et all.
I myself am considerably amused to hear what becomes written in to the political Book Of Revelations, and also in seeing the women they had affairs with, basically as to their taste in things, in other words, was their taste in women on the side of what can only be termed fat or dumpy, and/or coyote ugly?
Ultimately it is for the electorate to decide.They,his fellow politicians, can try force them to resign, if they find various forms of dirt on him, his party,the Democrats, can evict him, yes, but he would remain as a Representative still yet, Independent or not sitting as whatever he labels himself, but for re-election attempts he would be on his own. Or the party can keep him, and take a chance on the broad scale electorate turning a blind eye to things, and you know, with respect to the electorate, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Secret Squirrel Comments On NHL Disciplinary Inequities
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to events that have taken place in the Canadian sport of Ice Hockey,in the NHL,and Squirrel has happened to see certain events transpire,between players,of a rather dubious nature, involving penalties of a rather strange nature for interference coupled with a match penalty(player ejected from the game for same),on two occasions,both resulting in serious injury to one of the other, and yet has seen a different outcome, not in there refereeing, but in the after punishments meated out by the NHL itself.This perplexes Squirrel,and, needless to say, displeases Squirrel.Now,let us consider that violence,of various sorts, has been a part of ice hockey since at least the early 1900s.More modern examples of violence include brawls, fan involvement, physical abuse of officials, and deliberately injuring opponents,even yet biting opponents(do they taste like chicken?). Violent actions, such as kicking, hitting from behind, and prohibited stickwork(they have hit each other over the head with their ice hockey sticks), are penalized with suspensions or fines,and in some cases local policing actions. Fighting, or fisticuffs, is also penalized but is considered by many hockey enthusiasts, particularly in North America, to be quite distinct from stick-swinging or other violent acts,but again, not to the local constabularies which have been noted to press aussault charges.The referees are there to meat out the punishments, and they do,and in some cases, the courts have too(particularly those in the Canadian City Of Toronto).
But afterwards,after the referees award their penalities for the said misconduct, for the more violent acts, the league,the NHL, must meet in the boardroom to discuss the incidents,investigate, and meat out more punishment as necessary, in all equity and fairness,consisting of fines,suspensions, and sometimes fines and suspensions. However, one sees flaws in league function with regards to punishments in certain incidents,one sees inequity,inequality in the decisions meated out.Hardly fairness,equality, justice for all, no indeed. Perhaps it is time for the lawyers to enter in to the fray,and take the NHL to court for certain incidents,to secure compensation for their then clients, and punishment for the most severe miscreants in the NHL,since the NHL seems to have a perplexing inequality with respect to said after the fact punishments it meats out.The
NHL has staretd to exhibit an inability to fairly judge events which occur on the frozen ice surface,within it's boardroom and perhaps it is time to make the NHL legally accountable.
The league has acted grandly in some cases, such as Dale Hunter given one of the NHL's longest suspension records: 21 games for delivering a late hit to Pierre Turgeon from behind.Late in the deciding Game 6 of the 1993 Patrick Division Semifinals between the Capitals and New York Islanders, Turgeon stole the puck from Hunter and scored, putting the game out of reach. Hunter, who was trailing Turgeon on the play, checked Turgeon well after the goal as he started to celebrate. Turgeon sustained a separated shoulder from the hit, causing him to miss all but Game 7 against the Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round, as well as most of the series against the Montreal Canadiens in the conference finals. New NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, who had earlier promised to crack down on violence, suspended Hunter for the first 21 games of the 1993–94 season—at the time, the longest suspension in league history for an on-ice incident (in terms of games missed).However,Bettman's still
present,but the league has fallen considerably off the wagon in terms of league punishments for violent incidents.
Let's have a serious look at Boston Bruins defenceman,Zdeno Chara, and an atrocity committed on Montreal Canadiens player Max Pacioretty.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdkPZrGL21I
Here we see Zdeno Chara's late hit on Max Pacioretty in Boston's 4-1 loss on 08/03/2011.
Pacioretty suffered a severe concussion and a broken vertebra in his neck on the hit.Like many of you, I saw the video. Then I saw the other pictures, images clearly showing that Chara not only knew what he was doing and where he was on the ice, but also that he intentionally pushed Pacioretty on the turnbuckle, driving his head towards it with his left arm.Chara received a penalty for interference and a match penalty as well.
The NHL rendered the decision,the league’s decision, to not suspend Zdeno Chara for his hit on Max Pacioretty , not even yet a fine, reasoned that there was no malicious intent,but on seeing the video for yourself you have to question things grandly,also take a look at this image of the hit,
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-No-suspension-no-fine-for-Zdeno-Chara-on-P?urn=nhl-331961
and at
http://habsterix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/charapacioretty.jpg
One has to question the league on their "no malicious intent" reasoning,the image is quite plain, the truth,the plain truth, speaks for itself, speaks of all things to do with the term malicious,pre meditated,planned, a conscious act and yet there is
the strange ruling of the league,and there is the picture,the image of the act, the intent,...
Now we see a hit on a Boston player, late, rendering him semi-consious, concussion,and we find the league, et all, rendering a 4 game suspension on the Vancouver player,unhesitatingly.So we have a conflict, Montreal-Boston, Boston-Vancouver,and an outcome in one, yet not in the other.
There seemed to be no malicious intent on the hit Vancouver's Aaron Rome levelled on rendered on the Boston player Nathan Horton,it was at center ice, no post to run the lad's head in to, and quite clean as a matter of fact, just a touch late,the hit by the Boston Player Chara on Pacioretty was also a tuch late, but with the added flare of running Pacioretty's head in to a post...."Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," the NHL's representative said in a news release "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck and it caused a significant injury." Well the hit on Pacioretty was late, rendered an interference penalty, and quite clearly he ran the lad's head in to a post yet the NHL's decision there was..........to do nothing at all, no suspension, no fine.
Curious.
Lets look at the Rome Horton video,for which Rome also got a interference major and a match penalty...........
http://guyism.com/sports/video-aaron-rome-knocks-out-nathan-horton.html
We see a late hit,and the lads head runs in to a solid, shoulder, not a post, but hey what's the difference between a
shoulder and a post.The NHL seems to think so, but not many others do.The Boston player had a severe concussion, the Montreal player ,on his hit by a Boston player, had a severe concussion and fractured vertabrae........more.Fascinating are the league's differing decisions.No the league must be taken to task over its operations, operations which are not in the least satisfactory,nor can one say fair and equitable, but as to a punishment for such misconduct, yes, that's grand,with respect to the Boston Vancouver incident(the Horton incident) but when one looks at the lack of league action with respect to the Pichorretty incident(Montreal Boston), one must soundly and roundly condemn the league, and wonder if it is wise that it is to be left to it's own devices in policing the league.The policies and politics of hockey in the NHL leave one seeing inequity, iniquity,inequality, not with respect to the refereeing but with respect to league diciplines hidden in the board
room.Secret Squirrel is displeased.
But afterwards,after the referees award their penalities for the said misconduct, for the more violent acts, the league,the NHL, must meet in the boardroom to discuss the incidents,investigate, and meat out more punishment as necessary, in all equity and fairness,consisting of fines,suspensions, and sometimes fines and suspensions. However, one sees flaws in league function with regards to punishments in certain incidents,one sees inequity,inequality in the decisions meated out.Hardly fairness,equality, justice for all, no indeed. Perhaps it is time for the lawyers to enter in to the fray,and take the NHL to court for certain incidents,to secure compensation for their then clients, and punishment for the most severe miscreants in the NHL,since the NHL seems to have a perplexing inequality with respect to said after the fact punishments it meats out.The
NHL has staretd to exhibit an inability to fairly judge events which occur on the frozen ice surface,within it's boardroom and perhaps it is time to make the NHL legally accountable.
The league has acted grandly in some cases, such as Dale Hunter given one of the NHL's longest suspension records: 21 games for delivering a late hit to Pierre Turgeon from behind.Late in the deciding Game 6 of the 1993 Patrick Division Semifinals between the Capitals and New York Islanders, Turgeon stole the puck from Hunter and scored, putting the game out of reach. Hunter, who was trailing Turgeon on the play, checked Turgeon well after the goal as he started to celebrate. Turgeon sustained a separated shoulder from the hit, causing him to miss all but Game 7 against the Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round, as well as most of the series against the Montreal Canadiens in the conference finals. New NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman, who had earlier promised to crack down on violence, suspended Hunter for the first 21 games of the 1993–94 season—at the time, the longest suspension in league history for an on-ice incident (in terms of games missed).However,Bettman's still
present,but the league has fallen considerably off the wagon in terms of league punishments for violent incidents.
Let's have a serious look at Boston Bruins defenceman,Zdeno Chara, and an atrocity committed on Montreal Canadiens player Max Pacioretty.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdkPZrGL21I
Here we see Zdeno Chara's late hit on Max Pacioretty in Boston's 4-1 loss on 08/03/2011.
Pacioretty suffered a severe concussion and a broken vertebra in his neck on the hit.Like many of you, I saw the video. Then I saw the other pictures, images clearly showing that Chara not only knew what he was doing and where he was on the ice, but also that he intentionally pushed Pacioretty on the turnbuckle, driving his head towards it with his left arm.Chara received a penalty for interference and a match penalty as well.
The NHL rendered the decision,the league’s decision, to not suspend Zdeno Chara for his hit on Max Pacioretty , not even yet a fine, reasoned that there was no malicious intent,but on seeing the video for yourself you have to question things grandly,also take a look at this image of the hit,
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-No-suspension-no-fine-for-Zdeno-Chara-on-P?urn=nhl-331961
and at
http://habsterix.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/charapacioretty.jpg
One has to question the league on their "no malicious intent" reasoning,the image is quite plain, the truth,the plain truth, speaks for itself, speaks of all things to do with the term malicious,pre meditated,planned, a conscious act and yet there is
the strange ruling of the league,and there is the picture,the image of the act, the intent,...
Now we see a hit on a Boston player, late, rendering him semi-consious, concussion,and we find the league, et all, rendering a 4 game suspension on the Vancouver player,unhesitatingly.So we have a conflict, Montreal-Boston, Boston-Vancouver,and an outcome in one, yet not in the other.
There seemed to be no malicious intent on the hit Vancouver's Aaron Rome levelled on rendered on the Boston player Nathan Horton,it was at center ice, no post to run the lad's head in to, and quite clean as a matter of fact, just a touch late,the hit by the Boston Player Chara on Pacioretty was also a tuch late, but with the added flare of running Pacioretty's head in to a post...."Two factors were considered in reaching this decision," the NHL's representative said in a news release "The hit by Rome was clearly beyond what is acceptable in terms of how late it was delivered after Horton had released the puck and it caused a significant injury." Well the hit on Pacioretty was late, rendered an interference penalty, and quite clearly he ran the lad's head in to a post yet the NHL's decision there was..........to do nothing at all, no suspension, no fine.
Curious.
Lets look at the Rome Horton video,for which Rome also got a interference major and a match penalty...........
http://guyism.com/sports/video-aaron-rome-knocks-out-nathan-horton.html
We see a late hit,and the lads head runs in to a solid, shoulder, not a post, but hey what's the difference between a
shoulder and a post.The NHL seems to think so, but not many others do.The Boston player had a severe concussion, the Montreal player ,on his hit by a Boston player, had a severe concussion and fractured vertabrae........more.Fascinating are the league's differing decisions.No the league must be taken to task over its operations, operations which are not in the least satisfactory,nor can one say fair and equitable, but as to a punishment for such misconduct, yes, that's grand,with respect to the Boston Vancouver incident(the Horton incident) but when one looks at the lack of league action with respect to the Pichorretty incident(Montreal Boston), one must soundly and roundly condemn the league, and wonder if it is wise that it is to be left to it's own devices in policing the league.The policies and politics of hockey in the NHL leave one seeing inequity, iniquity,inequality, not with respect to the refereeing but with respect to league diciplines hidden in the board
room.Secret Squirrel is displeased.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Needed Electoral Reform For Britain.
Secret Squirrel has noticed that there are many grave irregularities in British elections,elections which lack proportional representation,representation by population,in British election results ,and Squirrel sees that there is grave need of electoral reform, of having constituency borders redrawn to bring about a fair and equitable electoral system for Britain, fair and equitable for all around, a system of representation by proportion, representation by population,a just,true, and fair system of elections.To continue,"The time has come," I,Squirrel said,"To talk of many things:Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--And whether pigs have wings.",and why a British Prime Minister can be elected, according to calculations, by having as low a popular vote as 25%, this according to the present Prime Minister himself,consider, the First Past The Post enabled Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair to win landslide majorities based on popular votes of only 35% to 44%,Democracy: we’ve never had it so bad.This democratic deficit is a direct result of the first-past-the-post system, which allows the election of MPs and governments with minority support.This is not democracy. It echoes the gerrymandering and ballot-rigging of two centuries ago, which galvanized the Chartists to campaign for a democratic, representative parliament.Not since the rotten boroughs of the eighteenth century have elections been so legally corrupt.With proportional representation , neither Thatcher and Major nor Blair and Brown would have been able to form governments without the support of other parties. Supported by only a minority of voters and with only a minority of seats, they would have had to form coalitions, which would have almost certainly prevented policy excesses, such as the poll tax and the Iraq war,if we switch to proportional representation Labor might never again win a majority of seats and form a government in its own right. If a party cannot persuade a majority of the voters, it doesn’t deserve to form a government (ditto the Tories). Democracy is supposed to be about the will of the majority. It cannot be reconciled with a voting system that persistently allows parties with minority support to form governments with often huge majorities. Under proportional representation,in the last four elections, there would have been Green MPs and more Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. Also the actual Prime Ministerial elections would have been reversed with respect to the two main parties, Conservatives, and Labor.A democracy requires a parliament that reflects the people’s will; where the proportion of seats won corresponds to the proportion of votes cast. Let's look at some of the strange British election results.........
In the 1992 election, the results were Conservatives 336 seats,41.9%, Labor 271 seats,34.4%, and Liberal Democrats 20 seats,with 17.8% of the popular vote.
In the general election of 1997, for example, 13.5 million people voted for the Labour Party led by Tony Blairfor 418 seats, but at 43.2% populator vote,; 9.6 million for the Conservative Party, led by John Major,for 165 seats, at 30.7% of popular vote,the previous Prime Minister; and, 5.2 million for the Liberal Democrat Party led by Paddy Ashdown,for 46 seats,16.8% popular vote.
In 2001,Labor had 403 seats,62.38% of the total seats,yet only 40.7% of the votes. Conservatives 165 seats,25.54% of the seats, yet 31.7% of the votes ,liberal democrats had 51 seats for 7.89% of the votes, and 18.3% of actual population percentage votes.
The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005 to elect 646 members to the British House of Commons. The Labor Party under Tony Blair won its third consecutive victory, but with a majority of 66, reduced from 160. Tony Blair was returned as Prime Minister, with Labor holding 355 MPs but with a popular vote of 35.2%, the lowest of any majority government in British history. The Conservatives managed to return 198 MPs, 33 more than they had previously and managed to win the popular vote in England. The Liberal Democrats saw their popular vote increase by 3.7% and won the most seats for any third party since 1923, in the form of 62 MPs.The system is so broken ,in 2005, if you total all the votes cast for the main parties, it took an average 26,906 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44,373 to elect a Tory MP and 96,539 votes to elect a Lib Dem MP.That gave labour 413 seats, 40.7% conservatives 166 seats, 31.7% liberl democrats 52 seats, 18.3%.
In 2011,Consevratives 307 seats 36.1%of vote share,labor 258 seats 29%of popular vote ,liberal democrats 57 seats, 23%of the vote.
This is hardly equitable, this is hardly proportional, this is hardly representation by population, it's still a system of rotten burroughs.In the last two elections, studying the color maps of the elections, we see that the largest effect on the electoral voting change which tipped and concentrated the balance of power, was in the East and West Midlands area of Britain, sparsely populated as compared with the denser ares of Britain where the Conservatives have the greater voter support, but strangely a meagher amount of seats to be garnered there.Inequity, inadequacy,inequality, in the representation of the population, the power of their vote.Looking on a political map of voters the Conservatives carry the greatest amount of voters, but strangely the seats vote do not show proportionality.The labor areas of the maps are few and far between, and small, but the seats per voters percentage are enormous, enormous quantity of seats, for the very least voters....disproportionality, not population by representation. Britain can redraw electoral maps,Ministers say it will lower the "cost of politics" without reducing accountability. No country actually uses representation by population.Almost every nation claims it uses this system; it gives the government legitimacy because it can claim it is expressing the will of the people. Representation by Population refers to the simple idea that every vote should be equal, and therefore every riding should be roughly the same size. Currently, some ridings contain far more voters than others which means that each individual vote is worth less. This is a difficult issue to address because changing a riding boundary will often benefit one party over another. Proportional Representation, on the other hand, is about how the seats in Parliament match with the actual votes that each party gets. If a party gets 20% of the popular vote, then they should get 20% of the seats. Currently, our Parliament is extremely disproportionate, and millions of votes across the country are wasted.our current voting system was invented when people still thought the earth was flat”. Not surprising. In a plurality system whoever gets the most votes in each riding wins, even if the vast majority of voters didn’t want them. This is what the present system is, a system not reflective of the popular vote, the true wish of the vast majority of,we, the people. What this amounts to, representation by population, given the population of Britain as it is, at 61,838,154, and equal division of seats by population, would mean each existing seat as it presently is, would have a population of 95135.6 in it's make up, the voters, all things being equal.
The independent Boundary Commissions of each of the four nations of the UK are responsible for drawing up the political map on which the next general election - expected to take place in 2015 - will be fought.Details of the re-drawn boundaries will only be finalized after a public consultation but must be agreed by 2013 in order to be in place for a 2015 poll.Under proposals announced on Friday, England will see its total number of seats drop from 533 to 502 with all regions set to see their representation fall.But the size the size with respect to what?Area? Or actually population? Britain is fully capable of redrawing such that size of population per seat is equal.Other nations have interesting difficulties in this.But it is stated that all seats will now comprise between This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries...a very great improvement indeed, and one must applaud this,it WILL be a major change, a major improvement, representation by population, proportional population, equal population per a seat..........indeed a major step forwards, should it be achieved, necessarily achieved.ugh Buchanan, secretary of the The present coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is proposing to make a change in the electoral make up of Britain, here specifically in the BBC.......
(Part of the electoral reform, besides redrawing boundaries, involves removal of some seats, a lowering of the amount of sitting MP's in the House of Commons, presented as a fiscal saving policy......)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12650869
Here commences the epistle from the BBC........
Constituency boundaries will also be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.
PROPOSED SEAT ALLOCATIONS
England: 502 (-31)
Scotland: 52 (-7)
Wales: 30 (-10)
Northern Ireland: 16 (-2)
"The new rules put greater emphasis on equal electorates and as a result there may be more constituencies which cross local authority boundaries." Labor said they believed the Boundary Commission would handle the process "openly and impartially" - but they had "serious concerns" about the framework the organization was being asked to deliver. "These rules appear to have been devised with political motives in mind," a spokesman said. "The government have never been able to explain why 600 is the right number for the Commons and 650 is not. They have never explained where that number came from and refused all attempts to conduct an independent assessment. "The rigid rules for drawing seats also threaten to undermine the Boundary Commission's ability to take account of geography, history and local ties when constructing constituencies."The SNP attacked what they said seemed an "completely arbitrary" reduction in seats in Scotland. "There is no science behind this, just rushed reforms by a Tory-government which does not care about the impact this will have on rural areas where MPs are already stretched," said the party's constitutional affairs spokesman Pete Wishart. And Plaid Cymru said the loss of ten seats would mean Wales having less of a voice on issues reserved for Westminster such as tax, defense and welfare. "Decisions on matters which affect the lives of Welsh people are made daily in Westminster and it is worrying to me that it is Welsh representation which will suffer most under these plans," MP Jonathan Edwards said. "Wales needs to be heard. Cuts to our voice in Westminster mean less input into issues on defense, policing and other key issues."
Here ends the epistle from the BBC....
There is a need for change, Wales and Scotland don't like the seat number reduction, but as to necessity, there is a clear necessity for representation by population ,it's long overdue.Polls show that a majority of people want a fairer electoral system. It would benefit all progressive people and parties, shifting the political consensus leftwards.the new government should let the people decide by means of a two-stage referendum: first, on whether people want to change the voting system and second, if they do want change, on what kind of PR system they want.Constituency boundaries will be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries.Let wisdom prevail, let the majority rule,let the popular vote of the people decide,one man,one vote,all constituencies equal in size,proportional representation by population, the fairness,the equity, the equality, of the vote and the voter who will in future elect the government, of we,the people, of the UK.Let the votes fall where they may, and be counted, and a proper right,true and just election elect the government.
In the 1992 election, the results were Conservatives 336 seats,41.9%, Labor 271 seats,34.4%, and Liberal Democrats 20 seats,with 17.8% of the popular vote.
In the general election of 1997, for example, 13.5 million people voted for the Labour Party led by Tony Blairfor 418 seats, but at 43.2% populator vote,; 9.6 million for the Conservative Party, led by John Major,for 165 seats, at 30.7% of popular vote,the previous Prime Minister; and, 5.2 million for the Liberal Democrat Party led by Paddy Ashdown,for 46 seats,16.8% popular vote.
In 2001,Labor had 403 seats,62.38% of the total seats,yet only 40.7% of the votes. Conservatives 165 seats,25.54% of the seats, yet 31.7% of the votes ,liberal democrats had 51 seats for 7.89% of the votes, and 18.3% of actual population percentage votes.
The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005 to elect 646 members to the British House of Commons. The Labor Party under Tony Blair won its third consecutive victory, but with a majority of 66, reduced from 160. Tony Blair was returned as Prime Minister, with Labor holding 355 MPs but with a popular vote of 35.2%, the lowest of any majority government in British history. The Conservatives managed to return 198 MPs, 33 more than they had previously and managed to win the popular vote in England. The Liberal Democrats saw their popular vote increase by 3.7% and won the most seats for any third party since 1923, in the form of 62 MPs.The system is so broken ,in 2005, if you total all the votes cast for the main parties, it took an average 26,906 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44,373 to elect a Tory MP and 96,539 votes to elect a Lib Dem MP.That gave labour 413 seats, 40.7% conservatives 166 seats, 31.7% liberl democrats 52 seats, 18.3%.
In 2011,Consevratives 307 seats 36.1%of vote share,labor 258 seats 29%of popular vote ,liberal democrats 57 seats, 23%of the vote.
This is hardly equitable, this is hardly proportional, this is hardly representation by population, it's still a system of rotten burroughs.In the last two elections, studying the color maps of the elections, we see that the largest effect on the electoral voting change which tipped and concentrated the balance of power, was in the East and West Midlands area of Britain, sparsely populated as compared with the denser ares of Britain where the Conservatives have the greater voter support, but strangely a meagher amount of seats to be garnered there.Inequity, inadequacy,inequality, in the representation of the population, the power of their vote.Looking on a political map of voters the Conservatives carry the greatest amount of voters, but strangely the seats vote do not show proportionality.The labor areas of the maps are few and far between, and small, but the seats per voters percentage are enormous, enormous quantity of seats, for the very least voters....disproportionality, not population by representation. Britain can redraw electoral maps,Ministers say it will lower the "cost of politics" without reducing accountability. No country actually uses representation by population.Almost every nation claims it uses this system; it gives the government legitimacy because it can claim it is expressing the will of the people. Representation by Population refers to the simple idea that every vote should be equal, and therefore every riding should be roughly the same size. Currently, some ridings contain far more voters than others which means that each individual vote is worth less. This is a difficult issue to address because changing a riding boundary will often benefit one party over another. Proportional Representation, on the other hand, is about how the seats in Parliament match with the actual votes that each party gets. If a party gets 20% of the popular vote, then they should get 20% of the seats. Currently, our Parliament is extremely disproportionate, and millions of votes across the country are wasted.our current voting system was invented when people still thought the earth was flat”. Not surprising. In a plurality system whoever gets the most votes in each riding wins, even if the vast majority of voters didn’t want them. This is what the present system is, a system not reflective of the popular vote, the true wish of the vast majority of,we, the people. What this amounts to, representation by population, given the population of Britain as it is, at 61,838,154, and equal division of seats by population, would mean each existing seat as it presently is, would have a population of 95135.6 in it's make up, the voters, all things being equal.
The independent Boundary Commissions of each of the four nations of the UK are responsible for drawing up the political map on which the next general election - expected to take place in 2015 - will be fought.Details of the re-drawn boundaries will only be finalized after a public consultation but must be agreed by 2013 in order to be in place for a 2015 poll.Under proposals announced on Friday, England will see its total number of seats drop from 533 to 502 with all regions set to see their representation fall.But the size the size with respect to what?Area? Or actually population? Britain is fully capable of redrawing such that size of population per seat is equal.Other nations have interesting difficulties in this.But it is stated that all seats will now comprise between This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries...a very great improvement indeed, and one must applaud this,it WILL be a major change, a major improvement, representation by population, proportional population, equal population per a seat..........indeed a major step forwards, should it be achieved, necessarily achieved.ugh Buchanan, secretary of the The present coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is proposing to make a change in the electoral make up of Britain, here specifically in the BBC.......
(Part of the electoral reform, besides redrawing boundaries, involves removal of some seats, a lowering of the amount of sitting MP's in the House of Commons, presented as a fiscal saving policy......)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12650869
Here commences the epistle from the BBC........
Constituency boundaries will also be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.
PROPOSED SEAT ALLOCATIONS
England: 502 (-31)
Scotland: 52 (-7)
Wales: 30 (-10)
Northern Ireland: 16 (-2)
"The new rules put greater emphasis on equal electorates and as a result there may be more constituencies which cross local authority boundaries." Labor said they believed the Boundary Commission would handle the process "openly and impartially" - but they had "serious concerns" about the framework the organization was being asked to deliver. "These rules appear to have been devised with political motives in mind," a spokesman said. "The government have never been able to explain why 600 is the right number for the Commons and 650 is not. They have never explained where that number came from and refused all attempts to conduct an independent assessment. "The rigid rules for drawing seats also threaten to undermine the Boundary Commission's ability to take account of geography, history and local ties when constructing constituencies."The SNP attacked what they said seemed an "completely arbitrary" reduction in seats in Scotland. "There is no science behind this, just rushed reforms by a Tory-government which does not care about the impact this will have on rural areas where MPs are already stretched," said the party's constitutional affairs spokesman Pete Wishart. And Plaid Cymru said the loss of ten seats would mean Wales having less of a voice on issues reserved for Westminster such as tax, defense and welfare. "Decisions on matters which affect the lives of Welsh people are made daily in Westminster and it is worrying to me that it is Welsh representation which will suffer most under these plans," MP Jonathan Edwards said. "Wales needs to be heard. Cuts to our voice in Westminster mean less input into issues on defense, policing and other key issues."
Here ends the epistle from the BBC....
There is a need for change, Wales and Scotland don't like the seat number reduction, but as to necessity, there is a clear necessity for representation by population ,it's long overdue.Polls show that a majority of people want a fairer electoral system. It would benefit all progressive people and parties, shifting the political consensus leftwards.the new government should let the people decide by means of a two-stage referendum: first, on whether people want to change the voting system and second, if they do want change, on what kind of PR system they want.Constituency boundaries will be fundamentally re-drawn to ensure that nearly all seats are roughly the same size.This will require all seats - bar a handful of exceptions - to comprise of between 72,810 and 80,473 voters. No constituencies will cross national borders but critics say the shake-up will create seats spanning traditional county and local boundaries.Let wisdom prevail, let the majority rule,let the popular vote of the people decide,one man,one vote,all constituencies equal in size,proportional representation by population, the fairness,the equity, the equality, of the vote and the voter who will in future elect the government, of we,the people, of the UK.Let the votes fall where they may, and be counted, and a proper right,true and just election elect the government.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Attempts At Altering The House Of Lords
Secret Squirrel here sees that the present coalition government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, that of Clegg and Cameron,is (are), now intent on altering the constitution of The House of Lords, which, all things being considered, neither has actually clearly been mandated by the people to do,at least not according to their plans and intents laid before the electorate at the time of the election, neither having the clear majority to rule, actually.What's to occur now, each having had a different stated plan, will they create some form of aglomerate travesty,will their love child take on the trappings of some child of Chernobyl.Well alter the House of Lords and the days of the voting going not to have Sankrit prayers in public schools,or having that....or,indeed, having school taught in foreign languages so that the immigrants to the UK never have to bother to learn English,will be gone,or upon us,dependent on an absolute unopposed majority.
In it's place, will be.........DICTATORSHIP.........elected DICTATORSHIP, a DICTATORSHIP in which the general people, John Doe Everyman,Joe The Plumber, will be free only for the brief period of casting a ballot, which we all hope will forever at least properly count.And if THEY wish, you'll have Sanskrit prayer in public schools,that and more, at the whim of the thence elected party,in the majority,as they choose.
The elected leader of Britain will be the leader of the party with the most members.....regardless of quality as we have learned under New Labour.The House of Lords was a grand Wall,thorn,hinderance,obstacle ,to the rule of one(and others)Tony Blair. How did it all work,how did and was Tony Blair unable to push through legislation, changes(and change is by no meansgood for the people, dependent,and the Lords in their wisdom knew this and so refused to pass
these at times).But why? Well, his ideas of government,rule,finances legislation, HE wished for the people,being the party head, were seen to be a detriment to the British people,and so were blocked.Of course this stick in the craw of any Prime
Minister, dictation,absolute dictation, cannot be achieved,the absolute ruler, is absolutely overruled.
The House of Lords could not be held to a party whip,to a party leadership DICTATION, nayindeed not. They could vote no,vote against, and so BLOCK a legislation,rejecting it, sending it back ,repeatedly, to the Commons, hoping that the Commons sees the sense in that the bill they're trying to pass is not suitable for the people of Britain, they could also drag out all debates on such bills, delaying even yet longer, in hopes the government of the day sees sanity.
They,themselves, know no party lines, only the lines of the people. Remove the Lords and, yes, Britain would have total DICTATION, by whatever leadership qualities the political parties,New Labour,Tories et all have,rule by the dictating idiocy of the party leader(England does not elect the Prime Minister, he's in on the numerical presence of his party being elected in majority(America votes separately, for the two Houses, AND for the LEADERSHIP).The 'House of Lords' aids democracy! it does have the advantage of allowing the 'Lords' to make decisions individually,not based on party lines, nor party dictates,each individually voting according to their thoughts and beliefs on the matter at hand being in the better interests of the British people, or not.Also consider the role of the House Of Lords,The House of Lords,this second chamber with voting rights on all Government legislation,makes laws, holds the Government to account, investigates policy issues ,and
provides a forum of unbiased,uninfluenced,independent expertise.
Could and would any incumbent DICTATING political party be entrusted to investigate itself?Nay!Can an incumbent party intent on passing legislation then be said to debate itself the value of said legislation handed down by the obviously DICTATING party head?Again Nay,not a chance,unbelievable it would be,inconceivable.Rules? Rules made for the English people.....rules made by a DICTATING party,unfettered,as IT pleased, rules possibly repressive,oppressive,Draconian,unfiltered by the wisdoms of those not toeing party lines.Corruption,sleeze,cash for honors,cash for laws,expenses scandals, have heavily rocked the House Of Commons, the House of Lords relatively untouched by these. Imagine the scenario,implied,on a two House system of party lines,The Prime Minister says "Let's have a free vote today on my policy and rule which you can defeat and makes myself, and you,in all truth, look like utter idiots and burkes so we can have an election in which the people will look at that and think..idiots,out with'em"? "Course the people would have to wait for election time for such a thing as they could'nt be turfed out until such a time as the regular election, no mechanism for removal until then, not at all.
Would the government allow for a public referendum,a free vote,a plebiscite on the issue? No! Why?To abolish the House Of Lords it to pave the way for any government party leader, and it's party, to dictate absolutely,unfettered,unchecked, any law,bill,legislation that it so wishes to introduce and pass,without fail.The attraction of Absolute Power for any Prime Minister,Absolute Rule, Dictation of All Things, is the attraction to them
all,regardless.
You will be told, that's what you elected them for.You will be free only the day of the election, locked in thereafter,taken for a ride wherever the party politics dictates, a one way ride,and that is what will be. Absolute power attracts absolutely, and you will have no vote on the matter. They SHALL abolish the House Of Lords,not with you, but without you, as they do everything, unless the House Of Lords objects for you. Abolish the Lords and an evil will run free throughout the land, unfettered,unhindered.
But what if they change things such as The Lords remain,but in their place an elected Lords as it were,unlike the appointed ones of the day. Well, consider, this could be a grave error for them, the politicians who would do this.And so now why?Well Consider, at present there is The Parliament, made up of The House Of Commons and The House Of Lords.Well now, there's talk of an elected House Of Lords.Interesting,what now if you have an elected House Of Commons, Tories Majority, the the bill goes to the equally elected House Of Lords, Labour Majority................ah what then, a dead bill, deadlocked, tied, stuck, a
tie is a no, just as a no in the Commons would be a no, A yes in the Commons and a No in the Lords would also then be a no.............so.................I wonder if they've pondered that. Would this elected house of lords be a elected cash cow
capon, as impotent as a man with no testicles?
Interesting, Who's to be Prime Minister, a PM party leader with the most elected members, but he can have a majority in the Common's minority in the Lords, or a Majority in the Lords, and minority in the commons?There are 650 MP's.......House of Lords, 738..........But regardless of who's PM when, he may not have control of both houses,a good thing when one ponders the likes of Tony Blair.Britain's political system is broken. The way this country is run means that the Government does not have to listen to the people. One party can gain control of Parliament even if only a quarter of the people support them.Will the Prime minister then be the Party Head of the Majority of those voted in for the Commons, or for the Lords?What of a combination of both?Still there's a problem, control of one House and not the other. Top it all off,they have themselves pointed out, that it is possible, for a Prime Minister to come in to being with only an actual 25% of the popular vote, so on top of everything else, in Britain, there really is not representation by population,but rather the old system of the rotten burrough still is functional in a manner of sorts.
Electing both chambers of the Houses of Parliament would create legitimacy issues because both houses would be able to claim to represent the people;two would and could claim rightly to be Prime Minister,and in any events, popular percentage vote, number of seats in either house, either would and could cancel the other,one being considered to be the Senior Prime Minister of not.Neither house would have a right to superiority over the other as both have a democratic mandate. This would lead to the House of Lords becoming an alternative government entitled to as much power as the House of Commons. British governments tend to find it hard to agree internally – Blair vs. Brown, Cameron vs. Clegg -, do we really trust that they would be able to work with an equally, if not more, valid alternative government operating from the same building? Having two bodies who can claim a mandate would lead to a constitutional crisis and the jamming of the gears of government, reducing the power of not only the Lords, but also the Commons.
Now we dealt with real numbers, but the politicians want reduced but elected numbers for the new House Of Lords.However, even with that, the above mentioned problems still remain.Exactly what are they intent on doing, and why, and how?Consider what was to be found in the Australian Times with respect to the present British government fascination with altering the House Of Lords...............
The Timeshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lords-dig-in-for-trench-warfare/story-e6frg6so-1226066736682
The Times sent questions to each of the 789 peers entitled to sit in the Lords. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. The results revealed that:
80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber, even though the policy was in all three party manifestos and is in the coalition agreement;
74 per cent believe it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act -- a warning to Mr Cameron to think long and hard before triggering a legislative war with the Lords;
81 per cent believe the Lords works well as it is -- a challenge to Mr Clegg, in particular, to explain what is wrong with the system; Mr Clegg's peers are deeply split, 64 per cent believing the Lords works well, 46 per cent opposing a large
elected element and 54 per cent saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.
The results are likely to inflame coalition tensions, emboldening Tory MPs to question whether the goal of an elected Lords is worth a civil war within their party and the legislative gridlock that would follow. It is understood that Tory ministers,
including Home Secretary Theresa May, have voiced concern that other public service reforms risk being sacrificed in the coming session by the anticipated trench warfare over Lords reform.The poll findings offer the first in-depth survey of
opinion in the Lords since Mr Clegg published plans this month to replace its members with a wholly or 80 per cent-elected chamber of about 300. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms. Party leaders in both chambers will soon select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up final proposals by February. It is expected to be chaired by a senior Labour figure.............An overwhelming majority of Britain's upper house believes it would be unconstitutional for the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to create an elected chamber in the face of objections from peers..........Frances D'Souza, convener of the crossbench peers, said legislating for a fully elected upper chamber would in effect be to abolish the Lords. "Then I think the use of the Parliament Act legally would be impossible," she said.
Here ends the Australian Times excerpt.
And so ,then,perhaps taking all things and arguments presented above in to account, then what with all the resultant problems,constitutionally and yet the others mentioned, perhaps it's better,say I,I say, neither either, either neither,
neither, let's call the whole thing off.Permissum quietus cannus recubo(Let sleeping dogs lie).Abolish The House Of Lords?Nay, let's not even yet waste time considering it,beyond it being clearly unthoughtout idiocy.
"I have come to condemn politicians,not to praise them."
-Secret Squirrel
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but a politician can only advise the people to vote for them."
-Secret Squirrel
Secret Squirrel.
In it's place, will be.........DICTATORSHIP.........elected DICTATORSHIP, a DICTATORSHIP in which the general people, John Doe Everyman,Joe The Plumber, will be free only for the brief period of casting a ballot, which we all hope will forever at least properly count.And if THEY wish, you'll have Sanskrit prayer in public schools,that and more, at the whim of the thence elected party,in the majority,as they choose.
The elected leader of Britain will be the leader of the party with the most members.....regardless of quality as we have learned under New Labour.The House of Lords was a grand Wall,thorn,hinderance,obstacle ,to the rule of one(and others)Tony Blair. How did it all work,how did and was Tony Blair unable to push through legislation, changes(and change is by no meansgood for the people, dependent,and the Lords in their wisdom knew this and so refused to pass
these at times).But why? Well, his ideas of government,rule,finances legislation, HE wished for the people,being the party head, were seen to be a detriment to the British people,and so were blocked.Of course this stick in the craw of any Prime
Minister, dictation,absolute dictation, cannot be achieved,the absolute ruler, is absolutely overruled.
The House of Lords could not be held to a party whip,to a party leadership DICTATION, nayindeed not. They could vote no,vote against, and so BLOCK a legislation,rejecting it, sending it back ,repeatedly, to the Commons, hoping that the Commons sees the sense in that the bill they're trying to pass is not suitable for the people of Britain, they could also drag out all debates on such bills, delaying even yet longer, in hopes the government of the day sees sanity.
They,themselves, know no party lines, only the lines of the people. Remove the Lords and, yes, Britain would have total DICTATION, by whatever leadership qualities the political parties,New Labour,Tories et all have,rule by the dictating idiocy of the party leader(England does not elect the Prime Minister, he's in on the numerical presence of his party being elected in majority(America votes separately, for the two Houses, AND for the LEADERSHIP).The 'House of Lords' aids democracy! it does have the advantage of allowing the 'Lords' to make decisions individually,not based on party lines, nor party dictates,each individually voting according to their thoughts and beliefs on the matter at hand being in the better interests of the British people, or not.Also consider the role of the House Of Lords,The House of Lords,this second chamber with voting rights on all Government legislation,makes laws, holds the Government to account, investigates policy issues ,and
provides a forum of unbiased,uninfluenced,independent expertise.
Could and would any incumbent DICTATING political party be entrusted to investigate itself?Nay!Can an incumbent party intent on passing legislation then be said to debate itself the value of said legislation handed down by the obviously DICTATING party head?Again Nay,not a chance,unbelievable it would be,inconceivable.Rules? Rules made for the English people.....rules made by a DICTATING party,unfettered,as IT pleased, rules possibly repressive,oppressive,Draconian,unfiltered by the wisdoms of those not toeing party lines.Corruption,sleeze,cash for honors,cash for laws,expenses scandals, have heavily rocked the House Of Commons, the House of Lords relatively untouched by these. Imagine the scenario,implied,on a two House system of party lines,The Prime Minister says "Let's have a free vote today on my policy and rule which you can defeat and makes myself, and you,in all truth, look like utter idiots and burkes so we can have an election in which the people will look at that and think..idiots,out with'em"? "Course the people would have to wait for election time for such a thing as they could'nt be turfed out until such a time as the regular election, no mechanism for removal until then, not at all.
Would the government allow for a public referendum,a free vote,a plebiscite on the issue? No! Why?To abolish the House Of Lords it to pave the way for any government party leader, and it's party, to dictate absolutely,unfettered,unchecked, any law,bill,legislation that it so wishes to introduce and pass,without fail.The attraction of Absolute Power for any Prime Minister,Absolute Rule, Dictation of All Things, is the attraction to them
all,regardless.
You will be told, that's what you elected them for.You will be free only the day of the election, locked in thereafter,taken for a ride wherever the party politics dictates, a one way ride,and that is what will be. Absolute power attracts absolutely, and you will have no vote on the matter. They SHALL abolish the House Of Lords,not with you, but without you, as they do everything, unless the House Of Lords objects for you. Abolish the Lords and an evil will run free throughout the land, unfettered,unhindered.
But what if they change things such as The Lords remain,but in their place an elected Lords as it were,unlike the appointed ones of the day. Well, consider, this could be a grave error for them, the politicians who would do this.And so now why?Well Consider, at present there is The Parliament, made up of The House Of Commons and The House Of Lords.Well now, there's talk of an elected House Of Lords.Interesting,what now if you have an elected House Of Commons, Tories Majority, the the bill goes to the equally elected House Of Lords, Labour Majority................ah what then, a dead bill, deadlocked, tied, stuck, a
tie is a no, just as a no in the Commons would be a no, A yes in the Commons and a No in the Lords would also then be a no.............so.................I wonder if they've pondered that. Would this elected house of lords be a elected cash cow
capon, as impotent as a man with no testicles?
Interesting, Who's to be Prime Minister, a PM party leader with the most elected members, but he can have a majority in the Common's minority in the Lords, or a Majority in the Lords, and minority in the commons?There are 650 MP's.......House of Lords, 738..........But regardless of who's PM when, he may not have control of both houses,a good thing when one ponders the likes of Tony Blair.Britain's political system is broken. The way this country is run means that the Government does not have to listen to the people. One party can gain control of Parliament even if only a quarter of the people support them.Will the Prime minister then be the Party Head of the Majority of those voted in for the Commons, or for the Lords?What of a combination of both?Still there's a problem, control of one House and not the other. Top it all off,they have themselves pointed out, that it is possible, for a Prime Minister to come in to being with only an actual 25% of the popular vote, so on top of everything else, in Britain, there really is not representation by population,but rather the old system of the rotten burrough still is functional in a manner of sorts.
Electing both chambers of the Houses of Parliament would create legitimacy issues because both houses would be able to claim to represent the people;two would and could claim rightly to be Prime Minister,and in any events, popular percentage vote, number of seats in either house, either would and could cancel the other,one being considered to be the Senior Prime Minister of not.Neither house would have a right to superiority over the other as both have a democratic mandate. This would lead to the House of Lords becoming an alternative government entitled to as much power as the House of Commons. British governments tend to find it hard to agree internally – Blair vs. Brown, Cameron vs. Clegg -, do we really trust that they would be able to work with an equally, if not more, valid alternative government operating from the same building? Having two bodies who can claim a mandate would lead to a constitutional crisis and the jamming of the gears of government, reducing the power of not only the Lords, but also the Commons.
Now we dealt with real numbers, but the politicians want reduced but elected numbers for the new House Of Lords.However, even with that, the above mentioned problems still remain.Exactly what are they intent on doing, and why, and how?Consider what was to be found in the Australian Times with respect to the present British government fascination with altering the House Of Lords...............
The Timeshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lords-dig-in-for-trench-warfare/story-e6frg6so-1226066736682
The Times sent questions to each of the 789 peers entitled to sit in the Lords. A total of 310 responded, in almost precise proportion to how their parties are represented on the red benches. The results revealed that:
80 per cent oppose a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber, even though the policy was in all three party manifestos and is in the coalition agreement;
74 per cent believe it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act -- a warning to Mr Cameron to think long and hard before triggering a legislative war with the Lords;
81 per cent believe the Lords works well as it is -- a challenge to Mr Clegg, in particular, to explain what is wrong with the system; Mr Clegg's peers are deeply split, 64 per cent believing the Lords works well, 46 per cent opposing a large
elected element and 54 per cent saying it would be unconstitutional to use the Parliament Act.
The results are likely to inflame coalition tensions, emboldening Tory MPs to question whether the goal of an elected Lords is worth a civil war within their party and the legislative gridlock that would follow. It is understood that Tory ministers,
including Home Secretary Theresa May, have voiced concern that other public service reforms risk being sacrificed in the coming session by the anticipated trench warfare over Lords reform.The poll findings offer the first in-depth survey of
opinion in the Lords since Mr Clegg published plans this month to replace its members with a wholly or 80 per cent-elected chamber of about 300. They would be elected by thirds every five years and serve single 15-year terms. Party leaders in both chambers will soon select 26 peers and MPs to sit on a committee to draw up final proposals by February. It is expected to be chaired by a senior Labour figure.............An overwhelming majority of Britain's upper house believes it would be unconstitutional for the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to create an elected chamber in the face of objections from peers..........Frances D'Souza, convener of the crossbench peers, said legislating for a fully elected upper chamber would in effect be to abolish the Lords. "Then I think the use of the Parliament Act legally would be impossible," she said.
Here ends the Australian Times excerpt.
And so ,then,perhaps taking all things and arguments presented above in to account, then what with all the resultant problems,constitutionally and yet the others mentioned, perhaps it's better,say I,I say, neither either, either neither,
neither, let's call the whole thing off.Permissum quietus cannus recubo(Let sleeping dogs lie).Abolish The House Of Lords?Nay, let's not even yet waste time considering it,beyond it being clearly unthoughtout idiocy.
"I have come to condemn politicians,not to praise them."
-Secret Squirrel
"A doctor can bury his mistakes but a politician can only advise the people to vote for them."
-Secret Squirrel
Secret Squirrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)