Why Northern Ireland is incompatible with woman's rights #abortion

When the High Court in Belfast ruled last month that Northern Ireland's abortion legislation was "incompatible" with human rights law, I expected there to be some objections. However, with both the Attorney General and Justice Minister lodging appeals against that decision.

Now the Justice Minister unlike the Attorney General admits that some change does need to be made to Northern Ireland's abortion laws, his words show a certain bias none the less. David Ford has said:

"The judgement from the High Court does not fully clarify the law and potentially leaves open the possibility there could be abortion on demand in Northern Ireland on an even wider basis than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom."

Firstly the use of the phrase abortion of demand ignores the fact that many Northern Irish women already access abortion within the confines of the law in the rest of the UK. The way to stop there being legal challenges as to the compatibility with human rights law is to act in a positive direction to relax the restrictions not challenge a ruling that says you need to act.

What they need most is support prior and post the terminations which do happen. We need that support on demand! Hoiwever, with the current archaic laws in Northern Ireland they fear being arrested for taking whatever means they have done to terminate a pregnancy. The fact that future gynecological issues may arise because of earlier terminations, but such women in Northern Ireland may fear seeking assistance for these because of their secret, taboo, history.

I do not think any makes a decision for termination lightly. It is an emotive subject with heated arguments on both sides of the debates. But the people for who it is the most emotive are not the protesters outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast, not are they the feminists who stand up loudly against just such protesters. Not the people for whom this is most emotive are of course the women carrying the foetus/unborn child (depending on your viewpoint) and those who care for them secondly.

So while we continue to fail to move any distance on abortion here in Northern Ireland we are incompatible with human rights law and that is we are enslaving many women to a live of fear of authorities finding out what they may have done in their past, or might have to consider in the future.

Personally I want to see the 1967 Act extended to Northern Ireland but I certainly believe we need to go some distance further than even the limited position that the Department of Justice has said it is prepared to move.

Selective Ten Commandments

The theft of part of the Mannamán Mac Lir statue (pictured right) that overlooks Lough Foyle near Limavady appears to be a case of selective ten commandments following by religious zealots.

The body of the Celtic sea god was removed with a wooden cross put in its place on which were inscribed the words "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" along with the Greek letters alpha and omega (one of the biblical names for God "the beginning and the end"). Now this is the first commandment as listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but no body is making this statue an idol that would defile the second commandment. Of course locally people will refer to Mannamán's anger when Lough Foyle is rough and call seahorses that form on the lough Mannamán's but this is not idolatry but merely placing a representation of a myth in an area that they are associated with.

But this statue was commissioned by Limavady Borough Council at a cost of £10,000 plus was drawing tourists away from the other tourist attractions in the Foyle area such as the City of Derry/Londonderry bringing tourist money into the area for more than just Benone beach down below. Therefore not only have the perpetrators cost local taxpayers £10,000 and whatever the replacement cost might be they are also stealing money from tourism that local businesses may have relied upon. So they have actually broken the 8th commandment.

However, I do have a question for however carried out this theft. From their thinking how to they refer to the days of the week?

• Monday after all is named for the North Germanic moon god Mani.
• Tuesday after the Norse one handed god Tyr the god of one handed combat.
• Wednesday for Norse Wodan or his North Germanic counterpart Odin who was a guide for souls after death.
• Thursday of course is called for Thor the god of Thunder
• Friday is after the Anglo-Saxon fertility goddess Frige 
• Saturday is the only day to retain it Roman god as it origin Saturn the god of wealth, agriculture, liberation and time
• Even Sunday is named like Monday for the body in the sky. The Sun goddess Sunna in Germanic and Norse mythology

Therefore taking this action to the logical conclusion these poor thieves must have a tough time referring to the days of the week.

Dear Dave, Why ECHR matters to me

Dear Prime Minister,

Being a white, Etonian, heterosexual, with a Royal bastard in your ancestry you have probably never suffered from having your Human Rights violated.

However, I am a white, homosexual, Northern Irish man with very working class roots and without European judgements I would probably be locked up right about now. Or trying to stay away from the place I call home.

You see without the European Court homosexuality would still possible be illegal in Northern Ireland. Or quite possible only up until 1997, but by then I would have acted illegally in the interim and so would have had a criminal record for loving someone. You see it was only when Jeff Dugeon's case made it to the European Court that the UK Parliament felt it had to act over the wishes of every Northern Irish MP at the time. At least at the present that is not the case, but we do have a situation where even a simple majority of our MLAs being in favour of advancing LGBT legislation here one mighty party has enough MLAs on its own to lodge a petition of concern and veto that advance.

David will no doubt tell us that we have legal recourse within Northern Ireland and the UK.

However, when the ministers of said party appeal every judgement that a High Court Judge in Northern Ireland makes that speaks in favour of LGBT people we have an issue. Of course some will say we have the Supreme Court of the UK. But they have intimated that they will be wary of making a judgement on a area of legislation that's power has been devolved.

So as a Citizen of the European Union (yeah it says that on my passport) I would like to retain full access to the powers of being in that Union. I don't want a majority Conservative Government making judgements as to what should be in that British Bill of Rights. Looking at recent comments from many about the "awkwardness", "unnecessariness" of same sex marriage, I have doubts if left to their own devices such a Bil of Rights would be fully inclusive all in the LGBT+ spectrum the way that the ECHR is.

I have a feeling that they may well be something akin to the DUP "consciousness clause slipping in there somewhere, allowing people of faith to refuse service to someone that they find in conflict with their faith. Raising freedom of religion away from merely the freedom to practice, observe and be treated fairly into the right to use that freedom to counter other freedoms that also need equal billing. That Bill of Rights may well be an Orwellian "some are more equal than others".

So Dave stop bowing to Nigel Farage and knee jerkingly doing away with some of the good bits of Europe, but start to look at the things that even the most ardent Europhiles say need reform.

Just who is too precious? #EdwinPoots

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

Thus states clause 29 of the Magna Carta one of three clauses that are still in effect in UK law without amendment or repel.The reason while I am starting this at the top of this blog post will be revealed at the end.

However, today Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, Northern Ireland's most senior judge said that he expressed concern that comments made by the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the DUP's Edwin Poots, were detrimental to the rule of law. Those comments were made after Mr Justice Traecy had ruled that the minister's continuation of the lifetime ban on men who'd had sex with other men donating blood was "irrational".

What the minister said in the chamber of the Assembly was:

"The question is this:  will I appeal it?  I am very reluctant to appeal it.  Number one, it gives the larger parties in the Executive considerably more power.  Number two, it refers a lot of governance back to the national Parliament and, as a unionist, should I be that concerned about that?  Number three, do I believe that I would get fairness in the Court of Appeal or would there be a circling of the wagons?  I am concerned that that may not be the case."

[Official Report, Vol 89, No 2, p55, col 2]

Later of course his reluctance was lifted and he has in fact appealed the decision.

Earlier today Sir Declan Morgan said that he had written about his concerns to the OFMDFM that the Minister was doubting the impartiality of the courts and was also damaging to public confidence in the administration of justice. He added that he has yet to receive a reply to his letter of 18th January which he also release to the public. The text of that letter is below:

RULE OF LAW

Regrettfully, I am writing to you about the comments made by a Minister which I believe are detrimental to the rule of law in Northern Ireland.

In November the Assembly debated the issue of blood donations by gay men who had been sexually  active [sic]*. A challenge to a decision of the Minister, Edwin Poots, that there should be a lifetime ban on blood donations by such men had succeeded in a related judicial review in the High Court some weeks earlier. During the course of the debate the Minister strongly inferred that he would not get a fair hearing should he appeal to the Court of Appeal. While I have no difficulty with judicial decision being the subject of informed comments and criticism, I think it entirely unacceptable for a Minister to suggest that the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland is biased or unfair, Such a statement is not only untrue, it is inevitably damaging to public confidence in the administration of justice and ultimately to the strength of our democracy.

 This is quite a strongly worded letter to come from the most senior judge to the highest political office in the land. The fact that is has yet to receive a response shows a great lack of respect from either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to his concerns. However, as the right to due process is outlined by that clause 29 of the Magna Carta which I quoted at the top of this blog post you can see why Sir Declan Morgan finishing with the ultimate damage to the strength of our democracy, Magna Carta is the foundations of it and due process is one of the keystones that survive.

 The only circling of the wagons would once again appear to come from the DUP (as well as many in the UUP) stopping due fairness and justice on matters of LGBT equality which even if won in a court of law are challenged by our own taxes, at our own expense by the Ministers who are supposed to uphold Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998).

Paul Girvan, Mr Poots DUP colleague, who is chair of the Justice Committee, was present when Mr Justice made his comments and he laid down the law to the judicary that they "don't get too precious about their status".



So another teamster busy circling the wagons from a party with the word Democratic in its title with no idea of the history of democracy, its likes historically to the judiciary and fair process and how this is laid down before anything else that politicians have done afterwards.

Does anyone else think that Mr Girvan and especially Mr Poots with his constant appealing of High Court rulings that go in favour of the LGBT community in Northern Ireland are getting too precious about their position? Are LGBT people not freemen and freewomen who should not be denied or deferred either Justice or Right?

*  Sadly Sir Declan Morgan has fallen into the often repeated trap that ignorance about the blood ban leads to. It is not merely gay men who are banned from donating in Northern Ireland, but any bi-sexual man who has had sex with another man, or indeed any man who is straight but once gave a blow job to a mate in his youth. As the ban in on any man who has ever had sex either anally or orally with another whether with or without a condom. It is my one criticism about his wording of his letter.

Dear Vlad, there are Gay criminals too

Now while most of the western world are aware of the corruption and sexual offenses that Silvio Berlusconi faces it seems bizarre that Russian President Vladimir Putin should jump to such an unusual defense of his friend:

"Berlusconi is on trial because he lives with women. If he was homosexual no one would have lifted a finger."

Now I have a lesson for Mr Putin, not every gay man, or lesbian woman or anyone who is bisexual or transgender is a law abiding citizen. Believe it or not these do face persecution based on the facts of the case just as any heterosexual would do. When the laws are equal and the charges have nothing to do about the person's sexuality the LGBT community expect justice to be carried out. It may be a case of domestic violence against a same-sex partner, or a fellow clubber. Or it may be corruption charges or grooming minors into sexual activity.

Not everyone is perfect, yet the law of the land should be equal to everyone no matter what their sexuality. However, what many nations believe is that when a nation, such as Russia, makes a law that criminalises someone merely on the grounds of their sexuality or by "promoting" it that is not fair, and people will raise fingers to prevent that happening.

Why we should go to Sochi

I've been giving this some thought over recent days. With all the talk between the IOC and the Russians about how the application of the anti-gay propaganda law would be enforced in next year's Winter Olympics in Sochi. This has included the first arrests of foreign nations who were interviewing people was a documentary story on the law change.

At first their were calls to boycott Russian vodkas. But I scanned the shelf at Tesco. Smirnoff is distilled in the UK, Stolichnaya is distilled in Russia but bottled in Latvia, in the EU, there are others that sound Russian that actually come from Belarus, Ukraine or Finland. If I were a big Vodka drinker it would really need a lot of knowledge to check the labels as some boycotts would actually be affecting jobs outside Russia, and the home distilled stuff would still be getting produced and drunk in Russia. Earlier today a New York bar and its customers poured Stolichnaya vodka down the drains outside the Russian Embassy, however the company has risked a lot back home when it released this statement opposing the law and supporting LGBT equality.

Then there was the call to boycott the Games themselves.

Now as some of you know I am a bit of a sportsman who once held hopes of appearing the Olympics, and until bowls qualifies I fear that day will never come, but if it does I will try and compete for Ireland. I love the Olympics, if any of your read my histories of the Summer Games or my reports of the Games last summer will attest. I'm not one for boycotting the games, mainly because the people it affects most are the athletes who have given up a four year cycle of their life to try and peak at the right time to win that medal. Think how many of you currently have a goal of what you are going to do in four years time? How many of you are willing to sacrifice more or less everything in order to achieve that goal?

But there is another reason why those athletes should be allowed to go to the Games. The nations that are most likely to object to the draconian nature of the law change in Russia are also those nations that are most likely to have the most openly LGB athletes and allies in their party. They are the nations that are most likely to make a stand live on Russian TV that is carrying the Games as the Olympic Broadcasters. People like openly gay New Zealand speed skater Blake Skellerup who said he will be wearing a rainbow badge. Others both LGB and straight may be encouraged to do likewise.

These Games could well be to LGBT rights what the Blank Panther salute was in Mexico in 1968 for black civil rights in the USA. To boycott them means that the reason for the boycott will probably not get reported in Russia. I know things have moved on a bit since I didn't learn that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait until I exited the USSR and found myself back in Warsaw, 10 days later. But the press there will still be very careful about how they report a boycott, especially because of the new law. But by turning up en masse and making a statement the athletes of the world can show the LGBT population of Russia that we support them.

Others will no doubt disagree with me. But others will agree that unless we follow the example of Tilda Swinton (right) and make a statement that the people in Russia can actually see and hear we are not helping those who are LGBT in Russia. The Russian LGBT network has called not to boycott the Games but to boycott homophobia.

They talk about not knowing and LGBT people, probably because they are scared to say who they are. We are out and proud and those who support us are too, it is time to be proud that there is nothing unnatural about being LGBT and that a law against being born this way was remarkably one of the things that Russians fought and died for in the second World War.

Whether as Russian legislator Vitaly Milonov says the law will be enforced the Games come during a period known as the Olympic Truce. I would like to see whoever replaces Jacques Rogge as President of the IOC in September to make a mention of human sexuality not being a barrier to participation in the Games, in his speech at the Opening Ceremony. Having heard that sort of statement made in a few pulpits in my day I can assure you that it warms the hearts of those who feel oppressed in such situations normally. It can give them hope.

So I say we send the athletes to Sochi 2014 and provide them with rainbow badges to wear.

Following Sir Edward Garnier's logic I shall call my car a bicycle

According to the logic of former Solicitor General Sir Edward Garnier MP QC for the constituency of Harborough I shall call my car a bicycle but there is no need to change the law as a result.

Under the logic as I own a car bicycle I shall not be subject to road tax for my car bicycle. My car bicycle will still transport me from point A to B. As I now travel in on my car bicycle to work though I shall not be allowed to travel on the motorways, but I will have access to the excellent cycle path alongside the M5 from the Harbour Estate to Whiteabbey. As I am driving riding along in on my car bicycle seeing the other drivers cyclists scurrying for cover as I hurtle gently pedal along I know that I am fully within my rights.

My next car bicycle

I am a bit concerned that I shall have to purchase a helmet to wear in on my car bicycle, but at least I do not have to wear a seatbelt. I do not need to renew my driving license as from now on I will be driving riding my car bicycle everywhere, including to the filling station (merely to buy my papers you understand).

Of course me calling my car a bicycle is ridiculous, nobody else will see my car as a bicycle. When it comes to legality certainly the police would not take too kindly to me flaunting the law of the land by claiming that I am a cyclist from the comfort of my driving seat. When it comes to people of the same sex referring to their civil partnership as marriage and their other half as their husband or wife instead of their civil partner it is still not the same thing. On forms they fill in they cannot tick the box for married and sign the bottom that all information is correct if in fact they are civil partnered and that box is left unchecked.

So if Sir Edward Garnier is happy for same-sex couple to call themselves married why is he not prepared to equalise it in the eyes of the law?

Looks like David Cameron wants a Big Secret Society

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

First we have the Snoopy snooping row today we hear that the Conservatives want more closed, secret court hearings.

The issue is over whose say so court proceedings should be secret. Cameron says it should be the Ministers, but Clegg is saying this power should not go to Parliament but remain with the judiciary. Maybe David Cameron fancies himself as the next James Bond (which after all is just 4 years older than the PM as a film franchise) with Theresa May as Q, but there is too much talk from the Tories about subterfuge at the moment.

Thankful this time it appears that Clegg has taken the bull by the horns before it even contemplates the merest possibility of bolting from through the doors of Westminster, saying:

"[Security Services] cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the principle of open justice".

Clegg has even said that the Tories have gone about announcing legislation in a "blunderbuss" fashion, the past few days when there have been leaks about secrecy legislation plans being a case in point. Spuriously coughing out a worst case scenario that may have been discussed that in no way would get approval by the Lib Dems, hence making us look bad only to then come in later with another proposal that is less scary after all the initial accusations have passed and nobody gives them as much attention.

However, Nick Clegg has told the National Security Council that the Lib Dems will not back legislation that allows more court hearings and inquests behind closed doors. The excuse from Ken Clarke that the USA are  afraid of the openness of UK judicial proceedings is not a valid one. The USA had long held secret, closed sessions of their supreme court sometimes subpoenaing witnesses at the last minute. They are one of the most secretive states in the world at times for all the appearance of openness on the outside.

Their failure to ratify Protocol I and II of the Geneva Conventions and other Internation Human Rights Conventions, or at least without much alacrity means that the USA is one of the least accountable countries in the World to everyone else. Their use if extraordinary rendition and sanctioning of evidence obtained through torture are things that aren't to be held in esteem. Indeed their retention of capital punishment would make them ineligible for membership of the EU. So the USA is hardly an example of being above board in terms of judicial practice, so the fact that they fear handing over secrets that may expose some of the practices mentioned in an open review is hardly a cause to hide those ourselves.

The Conservatives want secrecy, the Lib Dems want openness. We know how the secrets of the MPs expenses went down with the general public, so how on earth do the Tories think that keeping something so fundamental a secret is going to go down? I'm glad the Lib Dems are in government at the moment and are campaigning for openness and the retention of open justice.

David Cameron is not so much wanting a Big Society as to still be the member and leader of a Secret Society it seems.

Thoughts on Tonge and Huhne

Two Lib Dems have been in the news for the wrong reasons today.

First up looking at the case of Baroness Tonge. Do we know that Israel, or any country will exist forever? Simple answer is no we don't. Look at the map of 1980s Europe

Who would have thought when Maggie Thatcher came to power that by the time she left power that the Soviet Union would have split into its component parts. That the same would happen to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, or that Germany would be reunited.

In the rest of the World since then Yemen has unified a Palestinian State has been recognised as had Eritrea and East Timor.  Also, while there is talk of when Puerto Rico might become the 51st state Palau has gained independence from the superpower. So nobody can say what countries will be around in 20 years time.

Baroness Tonge

However, Baroness Tonge's crime is not being unable to predict history but to say "Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown." 


If we are to have influence in the world we should be striving to make Israel realise how they are seen by many in the world.  Along with Spain we in the UK have experience of dealing with conflict resolution and expertise that we can use to have influence in the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Peace walls are coming down in Northern Ireland, interfaces are being opened up after decades of being closed between communities. We are actually the position closest to that facing the West Bank and Gaza Strip today. What we should be doing is helping in the dialogue to enable Israel and Palestine to co-exist side by side.


Tonge is wrong and the fact that she has failed to realise that as Lib Dems we should be at the forefront of helping that region gain a lasting peace is illiberal and she had rightfully had the party whip removed.

Chris Huhne

The issue with Huhne is different, he has stepped down in his own words to defend what he says is his innocence. If he had been sacked or resigned for another reason he would have been entitled to his severance pay as any other employee with such a scheme has. The difference is that the minister in question has to put in the claim for it. I'm not sure if there is a time restriction on being able to claim this money, however I suspect that there might well be. Huhne is facing a court case the end date of which he does not yet know so he may have been unable to claim it after the case is settled.


So here is a solution.


Chris Huhne should set up a blind trust, over which he has no contorl, to handle the three months ministerial pay that he is entitled to as severance pay, with the proviso that if he is found guilty that all money and interest is returned, but if he is found innocent the monies in the fund are transferred to his control. That seems like a sensible and equitable solution just in case the accusations are those created by an ex-wife spurned making something out of rumours from the past.


I don't expect everyone to agree but I'd like to hear of an alternative that maintain the premise of innocent until proven otherwise in that situation.

Trevor Phillips doesn't really get what Jesus said about the law of the land

So Trevor Phillips says that Christians should break the law of the land and only follow their religious law.

Well I think there is an answer for him in Mark Chapter 12 verses 13-17

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.

I think that the result that they were amazed that Jesus told them yo obey the law laid down by the "oppressor" that they thought he was here to overthrow shows the lesson there. The law of the land is to be obeyed by those that follow Christ, even if they think it is oppressive.

Herein endeth the lesson to Mt Philllips.

Daily Fail misreport courts ruling on prayers

Seeing this mornings Daily Mail (paper edition) front page you would almost believe that David Cameron, or at least the personage of Ken Clarke in his role as Lord Chancellor had declared war on Marx's opiate of the masses.

The two stories that sparked the headline

CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK


with the subheader

Anger as TWO major court ruling go against British worshippers


Refers of course the case in Bideford Council and the failed appeal of Cornish guest house owners [both links to non Daily Fail coverage].

First lets us look at the ruling on prayers before council meetings. The Mail screams out that these are now banned. Here are the words of Mr Justice Ouseley who ruled on that case:

"A local authority has no powers under section 111 of theLocal Government Act 1972 to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda. 

"The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend."

Hang on  there! Far from being banned the judge said it was lawful to hold prayers before a council meeting. What wasn't lawful for requiring ALL councillors to have to attend.

If the calling to order of the council meeting occurs after the prayers are said and councillors who do not wish to partake in them have a chance to enter the chamber then no harm is done. In other words prayer is allowed, just don't force everyone to take part in it against their own conscious. Something that Christians also want to be allowed to do themselves.

The second, which happens to be the result of the appeal hearing, just happened to be delivered on the same day. It is the case of the Christian guest B&B owners who prevented a civil partnered homosexual couple from staying in a double room.

On this occasion we turn to the ruling of Lady Justice Rafferty.

"Whilst the appellants' beliefs about sexual practise may not find the acceptance that once they did, nevertheless a democratic society must ensure that their espousal and expression remain open to those who hold them.

"It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the appellants' beliefs).

"However, in a pluralist society it is inevitable that from time to time, as here, views, beliefs and rights of some are not compatible with those of others. As I have made plain, I do not consider that the appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs. They are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen."

So here we have a judgement that says the the Christian owners had no issue in expressing and manifesting their beliefs, however they had entered a trade of hospitality. The point was made at the time of the judgement had they checked the marriage certificate of every "heterosexual couple" who had turned up at their guesthouse to book a double room. Their objection had been to the fact that the couple were not in marriage of a man and a woman and they would not let them share a room. One wonders what the report would have been if one of the 'of faith' civil partnered couples that I know had been the couple in question? Because then you would have had two potentially christian couples of differing opinions on either side of this debate.

In both cases there was no hindrance in worshippers actually worshipping. What there was however, was protection under the law for those that are not worshippers, or at least don't not believe the same as the worshippers in question.

If Christians want to maintain freedom of their religion they really must stop attacking others options to opt out of their belief system.

Huhne and ex-wife to face charges

So the Crown Prosecution Service have announced that charges of perverting the course of justice are to be brought against the Environment Secretary Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce.

So with his cabinet position untenable who will take over this Lib Dem position. Not because he has been found guilty of anything, but because his resources or time and energy will have to be directed to defending himself. Therefore the ability to carry out his Government responsibilities would be limited as he is facing a criminal charge.

Who will be replacing him? There was talk of David Laws making his return. However, the BBC seem to be implying that Norman Lamb who is currently a senior adviser to Nick Clegg will be coming in, or Ed Davey.

Update: People are talking about the option of Davey going to DECC, Lamb to replace him at Business and Laws to become the PPS to the DPM.

Update 2: The above is mostly correct except for the fact that the PPS to the Deputy Prime Minister is actually going to be Jo Swinson not David Laws. In a rather nice loop in my own personal life, shortly after I went to University the MP for the seat entered the Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and later a second promotion within the department found him as Chancellor, now the man who replaced him with Kingston as part of the seat name is in the Cabinet.

If you can't beat Obama subpoena him

Yeah the weirdest story of the week in the Presidential race comes from Georgia, home state of Newt Gingrich.. It is there that Californian attorney and "birther" Orly Taitz has managed to get one justice to actually look at her one of her various lawsuits trying to ban Obama from the State Primary on 9th March. Others have failed.

The court hearing is scheduled for today and Georgia Deputy Chief Justice Michael Malihi has subpoenaed the President to appear before him today n the grounds that his filings to Georgia's secretary of state fail to show why his attendance would be "unreasonable or oppressive," or why his testimony would be "irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative."

I'm sure one of the documents that were passed on to Georgia was the following, issued by the State of Hawaii on 8 August 1961.

Of course the guy who he beat in 2008 was John McCain, born 29th August 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.

One wonders what would have happened had his non-American parent not been black and African.

The presumptive Democratic nominee for President is actively campaigning today, but no in the State of Georgia.

Looking at the text of the 14th Amendment it is clear that he qualifies, through section one from the place of his birth. His mother being a natural born American from the State of Kansas he was not the child of an illegal immigrant. His mother and her parents are American. He was raised by them.

14th Amendment to the US Constitution (adopted 9 July 1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Even if both his parents had not been native born American's the fact that he was would make Barack Obama a Natual Born Citizen. This was tested in the Supreme Court in 1898 by by Wong Kim Ark who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. This ruled that Wong was a natural born citizen of the USA.

The birthers really do not have a legal leg to stand on in this case are are merely showing prejudice as well as being sore losers. But of course not being native born, McCain did qualify to run for President even though he wasn't born in the US because his parents were American. Strangely the birthers never challenged McCain's eligibility to run or serve as President.

Update: Reading the reports of what happened in court today it appears that the main thrust of the plaintiff's cliams are that because Obama's father is saying because he was not an American citizen, neither is the President. If that is the main thrust it is unconstitutional and should not be admissible in court, see the above.

DUP and the Death Penalty Part II

The DUP MPs David Simpson, Sammy Wilson, Jim Shannon, Gregory Campbell and Jeffrey Donaldson say they are backing a motion to discuss the return of the death penalty. They say this issue was last discussed in 1998 in Westminster in 1998 and that it was now time for the debate to be reopened.

Indeed Mr Donaldson had earlier said that he wanted it brought back for convicted terrorists. Time I think to republish a certain photo.

The issue had of course been debated in each parliament since the abolition of the death penalty up until 1998 when it was last put to the house. Ironically the last time it was amended removing the death penalty for treason, piracy and mutiny were all removed from the statute book. Of course for the Death Penalty was removed in 1965 for most of the UK except Northern Ireland when it came to an end in theNorthern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

The Belfast Agreement contains the following statement on policing and justice (emphasis mine):

The participants believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms. The participants also believe that those structures and arrangements must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance. They believe that any such structures and arrangements should be capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility, consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should be based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community.

We were basing a Northern Ireland that was based on norms, ironically in the same week that the final death penalties were being removed from the statute book, in July 1998.

So does Donaldson's statement indicate a unilateral removal of Northern Ireland from the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights in Protocol 6, Article 1 states:

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

There are exceptions in time of war, but the DUP are talking about a shared future therefore a peaceful future so hard to find where the war is.

The DUP are saying that one of the reasons they want the debate is "because [they] want to hear the contrary arguments." Interesting that at Stormont quite a lot of the time they refuse to hear the contrary argument (eg The Blood Ban) and make their own decisions without consultation with a contrary position to their own. Curious that the DUP are supporting the 25,000 strong petition to bring back the death penalty and not the contrary reaction based 30,000 strong petition to keep it off the statute books.

Just who is infantile Richard Littlejohn?

***WARNING THIS BLOG POST LINKS TO THE DAILY FAIL***


You'd expect the Daily Mail to condemn us Liberal Democrats it is something that they do on a regular basis. However, Richard Littlejohn takes the biscuit today.

He says that Lib Dem delegates at conference, so that by that he includes me, are infantile for cheering Nick Clegg for defending Human Rights and the Human Rights Acts. Only of course Littlejohn doesn't call it that he calls is yuman rites, when it comes to terrorist suspects.

Here is news for Mr Littlejohn all suspects are just that suspects until proven otherwise. What is worse even if they are convicted they are still human.

But Littlejohn suggests being able to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial or with a trail but before a kangaroo court. We've done that before in the UK it was called internment and it took place in Northern Ireland in the 70s. You know what it did, it acted as a major recruitment aid to the terrorists groups as others saw those interned as martyrs. So go on Mr Littlejohn learn nothing from recent history, don't try and learn anything from the present and just stoke the fires of hatred see how much safer that makes the people of the UK.

Are the rioters about to get anti-terrotist emergency powers enacted? #LondonRiots

COBRA are meeting at the moment but the media while awaiting the Prime Minister's statement are speculating that there may be a recall of Parliament on Thursday.

Why would such a recall be made? Possibly to enact the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is clear that the definition of an emergency certainly covers what we have seen in recent days.

(1)In this Part “emergency” means—

(a)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,

(b)an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or

(c)war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) an event or situation threatens damage to human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)loss of human life,

(b)human illness or injury,

(c)homelessness,

(d)damage to property,

(e)disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,

(f)disruption of a system of communication,

(g)disruption of facilities for transport, or

(h)disruption of services relating to health.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation threatens damage to the environment only if it involves, causes or may cause—

(a)contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or

(b)disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life.

(4)A Minister of the Crown, or, in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers, may by order—

(a)provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1);

(b)amend subsection (2) so as to provide that in so far as an event or situation involves or causes disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service—

i)it is to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare, or

(ii)it is no longer to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare.

(5)The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom.

There are sweeping powers in the Act. It allows under the monitoring of Parliament and/or the devolved powers for emergency powers, necessary for the overcoming of the emergency to be enacted. There is a quite a scope for just what those powers entail

Section 22

(1)Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made.

(2)In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations is satisfied is appropriate for the purpose of—

• (a) protecting human life, health or safety,
• (b) treating human illness or injury,
• (c) protecting or restoring property,
• (d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
•  (e) protecting or restoring a system of communication(e)protecting or restoring a system of communication
• (f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport,
• (g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,
• (h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,
• (i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air,
• (j)preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life,
• (k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
• (l)protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

(3)Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—

(a)confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—

 (i)a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
(ii)a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);

(b)provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
(c)provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
(d)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
(e)require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
(f)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
(g)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
(h)prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
(i)create an offence of—

(i)failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
(ii)failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
(iii)obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;

(j)disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k)require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);
(l)enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(m)make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(n)confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
(o)make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—

(i)an area of the territorial sea,
(ii)an area within British fishery limits, or
(iii)an area of the continental shelf;

(p)make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;

(q)make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.

Yes in the midst of that are the powers to declare martial law more or less and to make it an offence to fail to comply. It is possible that the rioters may have ended up bringing about such a threat that is even greater than any overseas terrorist threat to the UK in recent years.

Update As I was writing this the Prime Minister said he would be recalling Parliament on Thursday. What powers and actions they discuss on that day we shall have to wait and see.

Update The Hon Lady Mark has told us that his wife Baroness Scott of Needham Market has been told that the Lords will also be recalled tomorrow. Does this mean that there will be some sort of primary legislation, or a vote required on Thursday? Does this mean that the draconion parts of the Civil Contingencies Act may be asked for?

Worst night of deliberate fires across London since the Blitz #LondonRiots

Croydon! Yes, Croydon last night

If I was still working in retail in London who knows where I may have been sent to this morning to help with the clean up. As I was listening and watching the news last night I knew that three of the shops that I have worked in as temporary cover were affected, or close to an area affected one way or another. The trade I worked in would have been one of those that would have been a favourite of looters.

Also I watched I saw or heard of addresses where friends live or lived. I saw two separate flats where friends used to live burn down as a result of the worse fires across London since the Blitz. The London Fire Service was severely over stretched as was the Metropolitan Police. There is just no way that they could be everywhere in the numbers required to stop another outbreak or to get to another fire on time before it really caught hold. As I watched I couldn't believe it was London rather than Belfast I was watching.

What is all this looting, razing and pillaging of London business and the housing above them is that people will have been watching their jobs disappear on screens. Small shop holders that are getting looted, or having their businesses burnt to the ground may not be able to set up store again, not just soon but ever again. There was wanton vandalism on cars parked in streets all across the City. This 'pure criminality' as it was called last night, is taking the guts out of local businesses. Many of these have been struggling in the economic climate as it is and now find that their premises and stock have gone. This has very little, if anything, to do with the original protest in Tottenham after the shooting of Mark Duggan. This has now become opportunist burglary, vandalism and rioting.

There is the #LondonCleanup hashtag that is telling people where cleanup in going on. Bear in mind that some can not be done until the police and insurance companies have taken their evidence. But if I were in London today I would be seeing where I could be helpful, even if I wasn't working in retail and being sent to one of the chains other stores.

The sex abuse victims who will have to sue God

There is the Billy Connelly film The Man Who Sued God about a man who takes God to court when he one piece of property his boat is destroyed by a lightning strike. The reason of course is the infamous insurance company get out "an act of God".

Why am I bringing this us? Well it appears that the Catholic Church is using the defence in court that the priests involved in sex abuse are not technically employed by the church. In a Christian sense they are right, in that priests are effectively called by God to their charges. However, the training that they undergo is given by the church, the supervision is given by the church, the name above the door (or where ever it is) is that of the church. So effectively the church is a chain of franchise operations seems to be what they are saying, run by a number of self-employed or God-employed individuals.

So the church is trying to effectively use scripture to circumvent their own responsibility to remove, take action against these men, to stop them having access to opportunity whilst representing the church.

There is of course a passage of scripture that comes to mind. "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars" Luke 20:25. Or of course "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him take your coat also." Matthew 5:40. Now both these are sayings of Jesus who is the recognised Head of the Church in the Roman Catholic tradition. So maybe they should listen to their boss and just get on with doing as he says.

The Jam Tarts are slowly catching the smarts

Craig Thomson seen promoting a kids reading scheme

It may be losing sponsors. It may the lose of fans. It may be the public outcry. But slowly the Jam Tarts aka  the Jambos aka Heart of Midlothian Football Club or just plain Hearts are catching up with public opinion over Craig Thompson.

Here is a brief recap of events.

On 17th June the 20-year-old defender pleaded guilty to lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour towards two girls, aged 12 and 14 over the Internet. He was fined £4000 and placed on the sex offenders register.

A week later, 24th June, the club issued this statement. Opening with the line:

"What's happening with the club today is not a new thing. For almost 7 years we have been fighting to shield the club from crooks, criminals and thieves. Many of the top players at the club have felt the bitter results of the swindles that have been carried out with them on their own skin."

Continuing with a clear reference to the Thomson affair to conclude with:

"Mafia are dragging kids into the crime, in order to blackmail and profit on them. It is not possible to separate these people from pedophiles, and you don't need to do that. Each year we are forced to fight against these maniacs harder and harder. We are standing in their way not letting them manipulate the game of football in the way they want. As such they undermine us in every possible way they can.


"The task of the club is to tear these kids out of hands of criminals."

That's right even though the player admitted guilt for the crime in a court of law it is still some external forces fault.

On Saturday they said that they had carried out their own investigation which had "provided a complete picture of the entire circumstances relating to the case" and "accepted that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances that provide significant assurance that the player's conduct, no matter how distasteful, was the result of a grave error of judgment due to naivety and possible wrong outside influence rather than anything more sinister and it will not be repeated." Therefore they seem to take the opinion that they are a higher court than the procurator fiscal.

On Sunday the BBC published a story about a call to sack the player.

Yesterday the clubs drink's sponsor was the first to formerly sever ties with the club.

Today the club have suspended the player. However, as with their statement on Friday they are still claiming mitigating circumstances.

"In reaching this decision, the club accepted that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances that provide significant assurance that the player's conduct, no matter how distasteful, was the result of a grave error of judgment due to naivety and possible wrong outside influence rather than anything more sinister and it will not be repeated." 

Apparently at the time of the conviction the Club knew of the guilty plead. Therefore what mitigating circumstances could there have been. If he was not guilty they should have fought that through the courts, it is not like Romanov (the Club Chairman and owner) doesn't have a team of lawyers at his disposal.

What any Scottish football fan is well aware of in that Romanov has a victims attitude. A footballing decision on the pitch goes against him, it is the SFAs fault. His player punches the lights out of another player on the park in front of 20,000 fans it was the opposition player's face that moved into the fist of the Hearts player.Therefore one of his players pleads guilty to a crime that he will know leads to him being placed on the sex offenders register (not a pleasant situation to be in if you are innocent) it is 'obviously' somebody else's fault.

It is time for the Hearts Board to grow a pair and do the right thing. Finally realise that they were not responsible for the player's actions but are responsible for the message that they send out in light of his conviction.

My g***** s*** is b***** than t*** and other legal rulings

If you've ever stood on the terraces of a football ground (although sitting is now the default position at many grounds) you will have heard a variety of chants.

• Some question the marital status of the official in the middle's parent on the occassion of his conception
• Some question the sexual preferences, or orientation of certain players, their WAGs or BAH*s
• Some question the ability of players to perform at a standard greater than an elderly female relative
• Some question the real estate value of stadium fans are visiting and believe larger accomadation could be found at the nearby garden centre
• Some also question the visual health or mental health of any of the officials

If you've ever been to a game you will quickly work out just which chants go with just which of the comments above.

All of these are of course a fiction, at least they are intended to be.

It is possible that some of the officials were born out of wedlock. Some of the players with their WAGs and certainly with their BAHs may engage in anal sex. Somebody's granny may well be an international standard player and better than some poor guy on display that day. Your garden shed may well be bigger than the stadium your Lordship. Maybe the ref should have checked out the 2 for 1 offer at a well known optometrist, or read the rule changes for this season in some greater detail.

However, never once have I heard of a footballer or an official suing a fan because of announcing these fictions to the world. Strange then that a player is suing Twitter and other persons unnamed for breaking the super injunction(s) that was(ere) set up to protect the names of player(s) that may have had an affair with Imogen Thomas (and or other misdemeanours).

Since when has having an affair been such a matter of national security that the press should be stopped reporting it. When has cheating on your wife or partner with someone else meant that you could hide behind a judges gown (propably another super injunction there). If even John Perfumo can't get away with it nor should anyone else, it is not a matter of national security merely a wealthy person being able to stop his wife/partner from finding out he is a cheating scum.

If the wife/partner takes scissors to the players wardrobe, or throw his clothes out unto the street for his infidelities a judge is likely to say, "You had it coming, didn't you?". So is the case for trying to hide his miscreants behind a super injunction. I'm hoping the judge ruling on this case will notice the impossibility of stopping anyone hiding something this quasi public from everyone with a computer. That super injuctions even prevent the other party on occassion from even talking about what they are up to with trusted friends.

* This relies on the sexual orientation being proven correct and there actually being a gay player on the pitch with a Boyfriend and Husband on the pitch. This may be subject to a super injunction for all I know. For all the non-outness of the top leagues it may well be.