Is this the new face of the Law? -

jonfree Reading Frederick Forsyth- Afghan

05 Jul 2012, 10:46 AM | Post: #1

Junior Member

Posts: 35
Joined: May 2012

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

Is this the new face of the Law?

I was shocked to learn that the Chairman of the British Constitution Group was arrested at 9.30am on Monday morning taken to the police station charged and tried for the crime in a secret court and then dumped in Liverpool prison all within a few hours. His family knew nothing of what had happened to him until 6.30pm that day. His crime was that he witheld payment of his Council Tax, because along with other state taxes, is being sent to the EU to support unlawful wars with special reference to the middle- east. However what is so worrying is that this man was denied the right to argue his case, denied the right to a jury, denied the right for the public to see justice done. This is where we are beginning to experience our freedoms under Common Law and Constitution are being stripped away and replaced by a dictatorship of secret courts operating under Administrative and Statute Law. Shades of European Law, Conclusion is that Britain has to distance itself from the present development of the European Union. We need to be alert.
Make your feelings and thoughts known-http://www.gripesandgroans.com

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

ElaineG Reading Standers by Dale Brumfield

05 Jul 2012, 02:41 PM | Post: #2

Posting Freak

Posts: 861
Joined: Jan 2012

Thanked 8 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

This post was last modified: 05 Jul 2012 02:42 PM by ElaineG.

You think he should get special treatment just because he is leader of some anti establishment group that not many people will have heard of? If I refused point blank to pay my taxes I could be expected at some point to be arrested and sent to court - why should he be any different? As for all this "denied a fair trial" = he was probably tried by magistrates court, which is to be expected, and if it was a "secret court" then anything that did happen there is all hearsay anyway, embroidered for the sake of publicity. Sorry, but he gets no sympathy from me.

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

Trace Reading

06 Jul 2012, 03:41 AM | Post: #3

Veteran Member

Posts: 369
Joined: Oct 2010

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

I think I'd need a lot more information before making a judgement. While I believe it's true that in countries like America there is a steady if slow erosion of civil liberties but we also have to remember that the majority of American people voted to give their governments greater power out of a sense of fear following the 9/11 attacks. Whether this is also beginning to happen in Britain or other parts of the Commonwealth still remains to be seen I think.

Amazon UK http://tinyurl.com/9xjn9z3
Amazon US http://tinyurl.com/3nm9n6o
http://traceyalley.weebly.com/
https://twitter.com/traceylalley
Facebook - http://tinyurl.com/3l26863
[Image: 549078_508377629175582_533032641_n.jpg]

[Image: 549078_508377629175582_533032641_n.jpg]

Website Find

Thank (0)

Reply

jonfree Reading Frederick Forsyth- Afghan

06 Jul 2012, 10:57 AM | Post: #4

Junior Member

Posts: 35
Joined: May 2012

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

(05 Jul 2012 02:41 PM)ElaineG Wrote: You think he should get special treatment just because he is leader of some anti establishment group that not many people will have heard of? If I refused point blank to pay my taxes I could be expected at some point to be arrested and sent to court - why should he be any different? As for all this "denied a fair trial" = he was probably tried by magistrates court, which is to be expected, and if it was a "secret court" then anything that did happen there is all hearsay anyway, embroidered for the sake of publicity. Sorry, but he gets no sympathy from me.

Indeed Elaine no matter who the individual, if a person refuses to pay their Council Tax however much they may dispute it, the full force of the law will be inflicted, no problem with that. In this persons case he claimed to be witholding said CT demand, however my concern leans more to the way in which the instrument of the Law was inacted against Roger Hayes.
What is so concerning is this instance is the influence that the European Union is having upon our nations judiciary. Their intention has been to create a ‘single judicial space’ and that now appears to be the case that the EU has powers to arrest and detain British Citizens on British soil, under their inquistional System of Laws- Corpus Juris. Our Common Law, as far back as 1215 with the Magna Carta states that a citizen can only be judged by his peers (Section 39). These rights protect the individual against arbitrary conviction and imprisonment. Our Common Law recognises several vital rights to the citizen. The right to Habeas Corpus (That the accused must be taken to a public court within a very short period of time, usually 24 hours and the accusers must produce their evidence then and there). The right to Trial by Jury at which jurors can in fact disregard the law if they think it would give an unjust conviction. The jurors are thus sovereign- If found innocent the accused cannot be tried again on the same charge (double jeopardy)- Q/So why, following the charge against Roger Hayes was he not put before a court with jurors ?
In order of our process in Britain-1/Suspicion, 2/ investigation, 3/arrest, 4/ charge. Q/ Why was Hayes apparently tried in a secret court? Frankly I am not absolutely sure why that should have been.
However Under the Continental system things are quite different. I know this having once lived in France for many years. Sequence of events in Europe- 1/ suspicion 2/ arrest, 3/ investigation, 4/ charge. In other words the citizen can be arrested and imprisoned without anyone having to produce any evidence against him/her. Therefore there is no Habeas Corpus so a person can be imprisoned for very long periods without any evidence being produced against that person. Although the introduction of Corpus Juris ( European introduction by stealth) into the UK would infringe on the Civil Liberties of us all and was therefore thought that it could not be introduced , nevertheless information it appears from the EU, states that Corpus Juris will be introduced under Article 280 of the Amsterdam Treaty- this article provides for Qualified Majority Voting so Britain would have no vote. That is why my question was posed in such a way as to show the route our judicial process of our laws is now heading.

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

jonfree Reading Frederick Forsyth- Afghan

06 Jul 2012, 11:06 AM | Post: #5

Junior Member

Posts: 35
Joined: May 2012

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

(06 Jul 2012 03:41 AM)Trace Wrote: I think I'd need a lot more information before making a judgement. While I believe it's true that in countries like America there is a steady if slow erosion of civil liberties but we also have to remember that the majority of American people voted to give their governments greater power out of a sense of fear following the 9/11 attacks. Whether this is also beginning to happen in Britain or other parts of the Commonwealth still remains to be seen I think.

If I get more detailed information Trace I will inform you. My concern as I have pointed out to Elaine is that our judiciary perhaps the greatest in the World is being subjected to pressure from the EU on matters of Law and I am also very concerned at the lack of such information is being side lined away from public concern. Over the past few years we the public have had our sincerity in believing that our Governments and those in authority had our best interests in all they performed on our behalf-BUT now we know very differently. We have now to question everything and trust nothing we are told. Sad day. Take care John Free

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

LindaGruchy Reading The Chandelier Ballroom by Elizabeth Lord

06 Jul 2012, 06:19 PM | Post: #6

Queen of the Typos

Posts: 2,866
Joined: Jan 2012

Thanked 4 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

I'm sorry, Jon, I don't believe this story.

Blog

Website Find

Thank (0)

Reply

cecilia_writer Reading Bang

06 Jul 2012, 06:25 PM | Post: #7

That Singular Anomaly the Lady Novelist

Posts: 762
Joined: Dec 2010

Thanked 21 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

It's news to me that council tax goes to the EU - I thought it went straight to local authorities to pay for local services, so people who don't pay it are depriving themselves and others of essential road repairs etc.
I can believe some of our taxes go to the EU but not that one. In any case better it should go to a collaborative group of countries with a previous history of centuries of warfare amongst themselves than to our own government to fritter away on bolstering up the banks as they wreck the economy.

Website Find

Thank (0)

Reply

jonfree Reading Frederick Forsyth- Afghan

08 Jul 2012, 09:54 AM | Post: #8

Junior Member

Posts: 35
Joined: May 2012

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

(06 Jul 2012 06:19 PM)LindaGruchy Wrote: I'm sorry, Jon, I don't believe this story.

Google British Constitution Group and see for yourself- however my main concern is with the way in which this man a free citizen of our nation was treated. Of course he had a case to answer , witholding Council Tax payments or simply refusing to pay the tax it would then be quite obvious that he should expect to face the force of the law against such action. However there is a much wider and more concerning issue to this particular case.
John

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

jonfree Reading Frederick Forsyth- Afghan

08 Jul 2012, 10:00 AM | Post: #9

Junior Member

Posts: 35
Joined: May 2012

Thanked 0 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

(06 Jul 2012 06:25 PM)cecilia_writer Wrote: It's news to me that council tax goes to the EU - I thought it went straight to local authorities to pay for local services, so people who don't pay it are depriving themselves and others of essential road repairs etc.
I can believe some of our taxes go to the EU but not that one. In any case better it should go to a collaborative group of countries with a previous history of centuries of warfare amongst themselves than to our own government to fritter away on bolstering up the banks as they wreck the economy.

Challenge this alligation, check it out. People are all too ready to beleive all is rosy and straight, well believe me it is not.
I would readily accept that the money is siphoned off by certain powers to end up with the EU-they all but own us. What I fight for is to ensure that this nation retains the Freedoms it has fought for for over a thousand years which is now under threat of loosing it.

Find

Thank (0)

Reply

LindaGruchy Reading The Chandelier Ballroom by Elizabeth Lord

08 Jul 2012, 12:11 PM | Post: #10

Queen of the Typos

Posts: 2,866
Joined: Jan 2012

Thanked 4 times

What I Read

RE: Is this the new face of the Law?

(08 Jul 2012 09:54 AM)jonfree Wrote:
(06 Jul 2012 06:19 PM)LindaGruchy Wrote: I'm sorry, Jon, I don't believe this story.

Google British Constitution Group and see for yourself- however my main concern is with the way in which this man a free citizen of our nation was treated. Of course he had a case to answer , witholding Council Tax payments or simply refusing to pay the tax it would then be quite obvious that he should expect to face the force of the law against such action. However there is a much wider and more concerning issue to this particular case.
John

I won't bother even looking, Jon, because if it was so "secret" how come people know about it? Because he told them so? Is he biased? You betcha. Is his fanmily biased? You betcha. Has he got an axe to grind? You betcha. Have we heard the real story? Doubt it very much.

Are people gullible? Too right.

I'm a cynic and I don't believe hearsay. Anything he says or his political chums say is hearsay.

If people don't turn up at court when bailed to do so they can be arrested and taken straight there, and quite right too. If someone is due in court, they have to go, and if they wanted people to know about it, should have told people they were due in court.

The only time, as far as I know (I'm not a lawyer) a court is held in camera is when it's youth court or there are issues around safety of witnesses. It's actually very hard for a court to be held in camera.

Restrictions are put on reporting of proceedings, which, if broken, leave the breaker in contempt of court for which you can go straight to prison. eg if a youth is tried alongside an adult, his or her name must remain confidential.

I watched some trials of non-payment of council tax when researching for my novels, along with non-payment of TV Licence etc etc, to see how court works. The one I watched the defendant defended himself (always a reason for the mags to groan bevcause mostly such defendents are clueless). This gent wasn't just clueless but appeared to have other "issues". When he found he was lacking in some information/knowledge (I can't remember what, exactly) he asked for an adjournment, apoparently for the nth time. This was denied him because he had had ample opportunity to garner his defence, get a proper lawyer involved and so forth, and the trial proceeded along the lines of "Did you pay your Council Tax?" / "No, but..." / "Guilty. Bailed for 3 weeks for pre-sentence reports." There was nothing more to say, no political point to be made in court, the court is not interested in politics, just guilt and innocence.

I might also mention that I was the only outsider there. Most trials of that ilk are not of interest to the Press or the public, so nobody bothers watching. This could look as if it was a "secret" court to anyone who was unfamiliar with court, paranoid, or with a political axe to grind.

This gent, once found guiilty., accosted me in the lobby, asked who I was and prepared to open his briefcase to harangue me on the state of British Justice. I told him I was just an observer and walked off fast. He walked behind me from the court building for a good half-mile, to the extent that I was getting rather concerned, mainly because I suspected he might have mental health issues and was unpredictable, and because I had to be back at a certain place at a certain time and hadn't got the time to listen politely to someone's delusional ramblings. I didn't think he would be violent, but I didn't want to get involved when he was clearly guilty.

This gent was bailed because he had turned up at court as dictated by his bail conditions. Let's say, for instance, he had not done so on previous occasions. Any breach of bail is arrestable, and indeed, arrest is easier than it was 10 years ago. The police could have been asked to arrest him and deliver him straight to court. They would, most likely, have taken him in quite early so he would have languished in the cells attached to the court for a few hours before his hearing. I think, though I don't know for sure, that there is a duty solicitor attached to the court who will defend people who are not represented... but that can be declined if someone wants to defend themselves. (Often the duty solicitor will advise a guilty plea which the defendent doesn't like so declines such help.) This service might not be available for matters like non-payment of council tax etc - I don't know, I'm noyt a lawyer. But if someone knows they are due in court on a certain day, they have had ample opportunity to get their defence sorted out... why should the Public Purse pay the defence of someone who has deliberately not paid their dues? Let's say the gent was found guilty. When it came to pre-sentence reports the assumption is that someone will be bailed unless there are reasons to believe they will abscond or fail to turn up in court at the appointed time. If this gent had a history of breaching bail, then he could be remanded in custody (though this seems unlikely nowadays). If this gent had made a row, been rude to the Magistrates, said he wasn't going to pay the fines etc etc, he would have been in contempt of court and could be gaoled indefinitely. This is nothing new, and not a sinister development in our judicial system. If anything, our CJS is becoming weaker and more enfeebled as time goes by, but the public don't know this becasuse they assume it works. It doesn't. The criminal's rights are rated higher than the victim's rights. eg time in gaol on Remand counts as double, so a guilty criminal awaiting sentence in gaol for a week has a fortnight lopped off his sentence when sentence is passed. Many sentences are passed as concurrent, and are served at the same time, so the criminal who confesses to sevweral crimes only serves sentence for one. Magistrates have to follow sentencing guidelines which means that some criminalas laugh out of court because their sentence has been suspended. Fines are often watered down to 50p a week and even then not paid.

So sorry, Jon, I don't believe the whole story is being promulgated by this group, but suspect rather a garbled and not particularly accurate story is being foist on the public via the internet, in a situation where the truth can't be given to correct matters. There is nothing unusual in this; and with the advent of the internet such promulgation of misinformation is getting worse.

If someone witholds their council tax or part of their council tax they should recognise that they are liable to end up in prison. That is their choice, if they wish to make the political point. If they don't want to go to prison they should pay their dues and campaign in other, legitimate ways.

It's also not the first time someone has gone to prison for non-payment of council tax.

Blog

Website Find

Thank (0)

Reply