• Chris Huhne: Perverting the course of justice?

      2 comments

    The question mark at the end of today’s title is of course due to the millennia old English judicial tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.”

    Of course, British Gazette readers will need no reminding from this organ as to the acute irony here as Mr Huhne and his fellow Europhile traitors have assiduously sought to undermine this tradition – which of course the right of every free born Englishman (later extended to Welshmen, Irishmen and Scotsmen) – that these characters have sought to extinguish with the unlawful and unconstitutional importation of the Corpus Juris (Roman Law) of the European Union.

    Whilst the tame media will castigate Huhne for his alleged crime they will of course totally ignore the very crimes that he and his felonious colleagues have committed already!

    These are:
    PERJURY: for breaching their Oath as a member of the House of Commons (and the House of Lords) of bearing true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her Heirs and Successors according to law”
    PERJURY: [of Privy Councillors] for breaching the Privy Council Oath of ensuring that “…..no Foreign Prince, Potentate or Power shall have precedence in this land…..”
    TREASON: for causing Her majesty the Queen to be in breach of her Coronation Oath “…….to Govern us according to Our Laws and Customs…..”

    Against this charge sheet, perverting the course of justice is as our American friends would say “small potatoes!”

    The British Gazette however wishes to extend its best wishes to Vicky Pryce, Huhne’s co-accused. Our advice to her [based on the assumption that the CPS’s claims are factual] is this: Plead guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Your counsel will argue that this is a first offence, that it is a non violent offence, that there is virtually no likelihood of reoffending and that you were acting under the persuasive influence of your former partner. It is very likely that if found guilty, the judge will pass a custodial sentence on both of you. The important thing your counsel must concentrate upon is to have the sentence in your case made a suspended sentence. If luck (and it is largely a matter of luck as to which trial judge you get) is on your side and you are able to leave court in anything other than the prison van, you will however discover that your past actions will have a financial cost. You will discover that the high street insurer/s you use for your house, car and any other insurance will no longer insure you as you will have a criminal record for offences other than motoring.

    This will mean that you will unable to obtain insurance from these firms until your conviction is spent: which will be in ten years time. Until that time you will have to use specialist insurance brokers who will have insurance providers willing to insure you.

    You will be able to obtain details about these specialist brokers from the probation office in your area. However, the British Gazette provides the following link:
    http://www.unlock.org.uk/main.aspx
    This is the charity Unlock, to help offenders. You will find them most helpful. They will put you in contact with these firms. They are there to help people just like you.

    Unfortunately you will find the premiums much higher. If you find your premiums doubling count yourself lucky as many persons possessing criminal records find their premiums tripled or even quadrupled.

    Doubtless you will, feel yourself to be ill-used and feel that this treatment is unfair. On this the British Gazette agrees with you.

    To Vicky: Good luck!

    • One wonders at how docile we have become as a nation; how we accept being criminalised by the criminals we pay to run the country.
      The Law is plain: we are free sovereign people, free to go about our lawful business without interference fro the state.
      We are guilty of a crime if we commit a breach of the peace, cause harm or loss to another, or engage in mischief.
      Protected by the rule, “No man shall be judge in his own cause.” we had the added safeguard of being able to put our side of the story to an independent tribunal of our peers.

      To commit a crime, someone, a human being, had to accuse the alleged offender, the human victim must have been harmed or made to suffer loss,
      This is our protection from the tyranny of the State, this Law of the Land, of Magna Carta, Bill of Rights. This, then is the British Constitution, the law our Queen, her Government and Judiciary have all sworn an oath to defend.
      When Chris Huhne, or his wife were caught speeding by a camera, Who is the accuser?
      Who is the man or woman who has been harmed, or made to suffer loss?
      Are we the ’sheeple’ the politicians claim we are, to allow them to brand us criminals when we have not injured harmed or caused loss to anyone, because we might have done. Might have done is largely a matter of opinion, a means of creating fines through fraud.

    • On hearing the news this monring it now seems the Tories and Labour are on the same page in wanting to establish a link between entitlement to benefits and amount contributed thus disqualifying new arrivals.More common ground can be found in William Hague’s and Jim Murphy’s enthusiasm for the militarisation of foreign conflicts.Surely a coalition between Tory and Labour must soon follow how else will the two mainstream parties be able to defeat UKIP’s one admirable policy opposition to unnecessary military adventures?

    Write a comment