Sarah Palin is allowed first dibs on Alaskan wolfpack kills.

calendar   Thursday - October 24, 2013

old man’s wife dies, so carer’s hours are cut. there’s only him left. she sues and wins.

How’s this for a story?
I can not make heads or tails on this.  Maybe something has been left out because it makes no sense whatever.
I feel sorry for the old guy.  In his condition and at his age, he shouldn’t have to face this.  I’d really like to know what the judge may have heard that hasn’t been reported, if there is anything to know that isn’t in the article. 

Stumped by this one.

The amount in US dollars is actually in excess of $5,658.00, because as you read you’ll find he must pay more than £3500.

Pensioner forced to pay £3,500 in compensation to carer for constructive dismissal because her hours were cut when his wife died

· George Lomas, 77, was taken to employment tribunal by Jayne Wakefield
· Carer’s hours were cut from 30 hours to 16 after Mr Lomas’s wife Rose died
· Ms Wakefield said she was forced to resign sued for constructive dismissal
· Judge rules carer was unfairly treated and orders pensioner to pay £3,500

By Lucy Crossley

A grieving pensioner has been forced to pay thousands of pounds in compensation to his carer who sued him for constructive dismissal after her hours were cut, because his wife died.

George Lomas, 77, was told at the funeral of his wife Rose that he would be taken to an employment tribunal by carer Jayne Wakefield.
The 55-year-old, who Mr Lomas said he had treated ‘like a daughter’, resigned after having her hours cut when Mr Lomas’s wife Rose, 76, passed away earlier this year.

East Cheshire Council paid Ms Wakefield for working 30 hours a week over five years to care for Mrs Lomas who had Parkinson’s disease.
But she quit and launched legal proceedings against the frail pensioner after her hours were slashed to 16 when Mrs Lomas died on March 4.

Shockingly, the grandfather-of-one said Ms Wakefield approached him the day after his wife’s funeral on March 13, demanding redundancy money.
Mr Lomas still offered to pay Ms Wakefield for the reduced hours for his care but she claimed she was forced to resign on March 20 after ‘nothing was put in writing’.

On Friday a Birmingham employment tribunal awarded Ms Wakefield £3,569 in compensation for constructive dismissal after a judge agreed she was unfairly treated.

Mr Lomas will now have to stump up the bill as he is classed as Ms Wakefield’s employer because the council stopped paying for Mrs Lomas’s care following her death.

The retired accountant was order to pay £1,097.65 damages for breach of contract for failing to notify termination of her employment.
He was also told he must pay a further £2,472.62 in redundancy payments.

‘And when she pushed a letter through the door saying she was suing me - my world fell apart.

‘I will never forgive her. How was I supposed to give notice?

‘You don’t have notice when your wife is going to die.’

The father-of-one said he does not know how he will now afford to pay the compensation and accused the council of ‘washing their hands of the issue’.

He added: ‘I can’t understand how I’m liable.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 10/24/2013 at 09:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - October 18, 2013

she was discriminated against because of a disability. has memory loss, wants to be a cop?

Another update and what a story this is.

Don’t know what you will think, but I don’t believe a word this sack of lying crap says. And the judge ain’t much either.

Background.  PCSO - Police Community Support Officer

So this person probably a foreigner judging by the name, (Rachida Sobhi) wants to be a one of those PCSOs. Maybe it’s the uniform or she thought it might be better then working at a real job. Who knows.  Well, she applied and apparently got the job but, during a background check it was discovered she had a record.
So she lost the job.
But you know how it goes ... one is disappointed in life and so one sues or finds reasons or makes them up as to why they aren’t wanted.
So .... somehow it’s found she suffered (they ALWAYS are described as “suffering") memory loss.  So you see, she couldn’t tell em what she didn’t know, so now she suing.  And the judge buys it.

claiming she was discriminated against because of a disability

Well okay .... so what if in the performance of this job she lost her memory again. And again.  Plainly she isn’t fit for this kind of employment, assuming she is telling the truth. But no matter.  The way things work here ... bullshit wins.

Take a look.  What do you think?

Judge accepts sacked PCSO’s claim she had amnesia when she forgot to tell Scotland Yard of a previous theft conviction

Rachida Sobhi has successfully argued she did not know she had amnesia when she failed to declare a conviction for theft
She was denied a PC job - and has since been sacked - because she was reprimanded for failing to declare a conditional discharge for theft in 1991
Took Met Police to court after she was denied a role as a police constable, claiming she was discriminated against because of a disability
A preliminary hearing will decide whether Ms Sobhi knew she had amnesia when she filled out the form and if she should have mentioned it

By Anna Edwards

A sacked PCSO who is suing London’s Metropolitan Police for discrimination has successfully argued she did not know she had amnesia when she failed to declare a conviction for theft.


But a tribunal has reserved its decision on several key points that will determine whether her claims against the police force are ultimately successful.

Rachida Sobhi, 43, took the Metropolitan Police to court after she was denied a role as a police constable in December 2009, claiming she was discriminated against because of a disability.

She was denied the job - and has since been sacked - because she was reprimanded earlier that year for failing to declare a conditional discharge for theft in 1991.

But Ms Sohbi had since argued at the time she did not remember being arrested because she suffered dissociative amnesia stemming from personal trauma she had experienced around that time.

A preliminary hearing at the London Central Employment Tribunal today was tasked to determine whether Ms Sobhi knew she had amnesia when she filled out the security form and whether she should have mentioned that on the form.

Ms Sobhi said she wasn’t aware when she filled out the form and only had any recollection at all she might have been arrested when she was contacted by a vetting officer in February 2009, about two months after she filled in the security form, to ask why her fingerprints were in the police database.

‘For some strange reason… I had a couple of small flashes of memory - nothing else,” she said.

‘I still did not know of the existence of the dissociative amnesia then. I didn’t even know what on earth he was talking about.’

Miss Sobhi also told the hearing that she felt the Met did not support her after she discovered her memory loss.

‘I just had a feeling that some sort of assessment need to be done. It is not very nice experience to go through - they refused to provide me with medical assistance.

‘Without the help of my family and seeking psychiatric assessment I could have spent the rest of my life not knowing what was going on with my memory.

‘February 26 (2009) was the first time I was aware there was an allegation of theft that had resulted in the receipt of a conditional discharge.’

I am not posting the whole thing but you may want to read more at the link.
If she’s really got some kind of weird mental condition that is serious, would you want her on your police force?



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 10/18/2013 at 05:16 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily LifeJudges-Courts-LawyersUK •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - October 12, 2013

when your stalker live right next door

Editorial writers here, even those conservative ones, harp about America’s gun laws, the gun lobby and those crazed right wing gun nutters in the USA.
As if it’s any of their damn business. Which of course it isn’t.
Well, I saw this story today and could not help thinking, if ever there was a very good reason for owning a gun, this one good reason.  Among many.
But this is Britain, and so this young lady is SOL.
Now 22, she lives alone. 
Thankfully, she came to no physical harm.  But imagine if it’s possible, to be a young woman and be stalked for so long, and to have a court only slap the wrist of the offender and then send him home.

Which happens to be, right next door.
Only in the UK.

Stalker who terrorised woman for two years is freed from court… and allowed to live NEXT DOOR

Darren Blee admitted having an ‘unhealthy fixation’ with Pippa Dowson
He pleaded guilty to stalking but was allowed to return to his Truro home
Ms Dowson, 20, described the decision as ‘disgusting’

By Ted Thornhill

A stalker who has terrorised a young woman for two years has been freed from court and allowed to live next door to her.

Darren Blee, 22, plagued Pippa Dowson by following her day and night, hiding in bushes and jumping out in front of cars she was in.

Blee, who lives with his parents, admitted an ‘unhealthy fixation’ with the 20 year-old and told police he could not stop himself from following her.

He pleaded guilty to stalking but was given a suspended sentence and left to return to his home in Truro, Cornwall.

Ms Dowson, who lives alone, said: ‘My life has been ruined for nearly two years and he got a slap on the wrist.

‘My safety is compromised. His feelings were taken into consideration over mine.
‘It’s disgusting. I think it’s horrendous that they have just let him go home right next door to me.’

Garth Richardson, prosecuting at Truro Crown Court, said police first told Blee to stop his harassment in July 2012, followed by a caution in November.

He behaved himself for three months until February when he started following Ms Dowson again.

On one occasion she came home to find Blee screaming at her and making animal noises.

When asked by police why he kept following her, he said: ‘I don’t know why, there is something wrong with me but I don’t know what. I can’t stop myself.’

Dieter Kehler, defending, said Blee found it hard to make friends or interact with people.

New laws were introduced last November which recognised stalking as a specific crime with a potential sentence of up to five years.

‘He threw things at my window at home. It’s been absolutely terrifying. From the beginning of this year it’s been absolutely horrendous’ - Ms Dowson

Blee was the first person in Cornwall to be dealt under the new legislation which Ms Dowson hoped would finally protect her.

He was remanded in custody by magistrates at the end of August when he pleaded guilty to stalking involving serious alarm or distress.

But he was freed when he returned to the crown court to be sentenced and got a nine-month prison term, suspended for 12 months, and an order to do 100 hours of unpaid work.

Blee was also given a restraining order not to contact his victim, go to her work or follow her for five years.

However, he was allowed to continue living with his parents in the house next door to Ms Dowson.
After the hearing Ms Dowson told how her nightmare began in January 2012 when she was just 18 years old.

She had never had any previous contact with Blee before he targeted her out of the blue.

She said: ‘I noticed he was following me everywhere I went and it got to the stage where I could not leave the house by myself.

read more,

Right, so the bastard cannot help himself. Uh huh.  I hate to think where this might lead.  Sounds like he’s already setting things up for a future, diminished mental responsibility claim.  People like this guy should not be allowed to live.

She might wanna move away. Hope so for her sake.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 10/12/2013 at 03:16 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - September 29, 2013

to say or print anything that justifies a crime in France, can lead to fine and arrest.

We get the Daily Mail 7 days a week, read cover to cover.  Or, I’d like to say I do.  My wife for sure does, sometimes even the sports page and always financial. So how’d we miss this story? 
There has been a time or two I have either been just too tired, or out of sorts, but one of our regulars emailed me the article so although some days late, it’s still worth the post. Comes under a heading we haven’t bothered to enter under categories which is;

What was this woman thinking?

Maybe she wasn’t thinking at all.  ??

H/T Doc Jeff

French mother convicted after sending three-year-old son named ‘Jihad’ to school in ‘I am a bomb’ T-shirt

Bouchra Bagour, 35, found guilty of ‘justifying a crime’

Insisted she had put it on child ‘without stopping to think about it’

The back of T-shirt read Jihad: Born on 11 September

Child’s uncle, who bought T-shirt also convicted

By Jill Reilly

A French court has found a mother guilty of ‘justifying a crime’ after sending her three-year-old son, Jihad, to school in a T-shirt with the slogans: ‘I am a bomb’ and ‘Born on Sept. 11’.

Bouchra Bagour, 35, was given a one month suspended sentence and fined 2000 Euros. Her brother Zayed, who had the T-shirt made, received a two month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 4000 Euros.

The case was brought after a teacher at the child’s pre-school in Sorgues near Avignon complained about the T-shirt. She and the school’s principal were shocked and alerted authorities.

Bagour insisted she had put it on her son ‘without stopping to think about it’ when he wore it to school on 24 September last year.

A few days later the town mayor, Thierry Lagneau of the conservative UMP party, asked prosecutors to investigate.

I condemn the attitude of the parents who shamefully took advantage of the person and the age of this child to convey a political message,’ Lagneau said at the time.

The verdict of an appeals court in Nimes overruled an earlier decision to acquit the pair.

Bagour’s lawyer Gaele Guenon told AP she was astonished the acquital had been overturned.

During her trial Bagour denied the charge of defending terrorism through the T-shirt message.

‘I thought it might make people laugh,’ she said, according to Le Parisien.

The expression plays on the popular French saying ‘Je suis la bombe’, which translates roughly as ‘I am the best’.

The back of the T-shirt read ‘Born on 11 September,’ but Bagour insisted it was only a reference to her son’s date of birth.

Bagour’s brother - who gave the child the T-shirt was also charged.

Zayed Bagour denied trying to promote a message by buying the T-shirt.

‘It’s the day his birth I wanted to highlight, not the year,’ he told the court.

In an interview with the newspaper La Provence in November, Boucha Bagour said that while she is Muslim, ‘there is no message to be conveyed by the T-shirt — no intent.’

‘Bomb’ is used in the sense of ‘handsome,’ nothing more,’ she said.

However, lawyer Claude Avril said: ‘Idiocy is often the best alibi to hide real intentions’, reported Sky News.

‘At some point there must be limits. They are not stupid. They understand the significance of what they are doing,’ he said.

Josette Pessemesse, from the far-left Front de Gauche party, wrote an open letter to the court defending the ‘right to humour.’ It was signed by around 50 people.

‘This is the same as qualifying all Muslims as terrorists,’ Pessemesse told France Info.


Interesting. In France one may not legally opine that a crime may be justified. 
So, what might happen if a parent caught their child’s abuser, and either crippled him or killed him, and I said “Good”. The bastard had it coming for what he did.  I am justifying the parents taking the law into their own hands, and so therefore could be arrested.  Is that correct?
Not sure that’s a very fair law.  Or am I off side here?  I may not like her use of those images and words and what they convey. I see no humor either. Not so certain about arrest or fines tho.  Really not certain what I think, as I ponder this story.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 09/29/2013 at 04:45 PM   
Filed Under: • FRANCEJudges-Courts-Lawyersmuslims •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - September 24, 2013

just another example of how wrong the world has become. not to mention stupid!

Where’s the penalty in this?
Where’s the punishment that makes an impression that might cause this miserable bastard to think 2wice before doing it again?

Why is 12 years of age too young to be named?

This little shit raped a 6 year old girl, then tells cops .... “I don’t care”.
Why can’t he be made to care?  Cutting off his pecker might go a long way to convincing the scum that he does indeed care.

What a gross miscarriage of justice. Oh wait ... he was fined.

It this sort of thing that has me convinced the F****** world is mad.  What the F*** was the judge thinking?  Or, maybe she wasn’t. This judge perhaps has nothing to think with.  Good grief.  The little girl is almost a baby.  Even in my far away day at age 12 I knew and so do you at any age, right from wrong, good from evil.  I think we all know it even before our parents teach it.  But the born criminal, the bad seed, that life form knows as well but just does not care.

Schoolboy, 12, who showed no remorse after raping six-year-old girl walks free from court and is ordered to pay her just £300

The boy told probation officer ‘I don’t care how she feels’ when asked about victim

He was given a 12 month referral order at Ipswich Youth Court

He was also banned from contacting the victim or her family for 12 months

By Steve Nolan

A schoolboy who raped a six-year-old girl twice has walked free from court despite telling a probation officer ‘I don’t care’ when asked how his young victim felt following her ordeal.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted forcing the girl to carry out a sex act on two occasions, Ipswich Youth Court heard.

But during a meeting with a court official, who was compiling a pre-sentence report, the youth showed no remorse for his victim.

Prosecutor Simon Newell said the boy was asked what he felt about the impact of his crimes on his victim and replied: ‘I don’t care how she feels.’

District Judge Celia Dawson told him that she was not sending him to a secure youth offending unit because she did not want him to be in the company of ‘older and more sophisticated criminals’.

The boy, who lives on the Suffolk and Norfolk border, was given a 12 month referral order and a 12 month restraining order banning him from contacting the victim or her family.

He was also ordered to pay £300 in compensation to the girl, having admitted two counts of rape at an earlier hearing.

The court heard that the boy’s parents took him to a police station when they heard about the sex attack allegations where he admitted what he had done straight away.

Judgee wudgee then went on to make the following erroneous statement.

‘I hope you are aware if you don’t change your attitude you may have very serious problems in the future.’

District Judge Celia Dawson

No you fucking idiot!  The people with the serious problem are his future victims.
If we’re lucky judge --- maybe it’ll be someone close to you.  There’s always hope. Wonder what your judgement will be then. ??



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 09/24/2013 at 03:17 PM   
Filed Under: • CrimeCULTURE IN DECLINEDaily LifeJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFOutrageousStoopid-PeopleUK •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - September 18, 2013

idiot judge orders moment of silence for dead gang member. what next?

Insomnia at 3am ... pills not working ... so booted to see what’s what and found this.
There is NO way to ignore the suck up stupidity of the action by yet another idiot, accommodating and appeasing judge.

Some background for you readers briefly.

You will recall the riots that burned cities here in recent years.  The excuse used was the shooting by police of a black gang member who it was thought, was reaching for a weapon inside a car he was riding in.  It turned out there were indeed guns in the car, but a question as to whether the negro was actually going for a gun or had one in hand.  When a cop has to make a quick life and death decision, seconds count.  Fact ... there were weapons in the car. 

So now there another inquiry into the shooting.  When a black is shot or killed by cops in line of duty, the inquests hardly ever end.  They go on and on because of course as everybody knows ... there isn’t any such animal as a guilty black person. Only guilty and racist cops.

That now brigs us to this latest inquest in which the judge .....

Orders moment of silence for ‘notorious gangster’ whose shooting death by police marksman sparked wave of riots: Unprecedented move at start of Mark Duggan’s inquest

Do you understand now why I claim this place is DOOMED?  Anyone disagree?  Have your say.

Judge takes unprecedented decision to hold a moment’s silence for Mark Duggan at start of inquest into his shooting by police

The 29-year-old was shot twice by police marksman in Tottenham, London

His death sparked the 2011 London riots

Judge Keith Cutler asked everyone inside the courtroom to fall silent

The request is understood to have been made by Duggan’s family

Decision to hold a silence at an inquest is virtually unprecedented

The inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice is expected to last two months



A judge took the highly unusual step of leading his court in a moment’s silence to commemorate Mark Duggan, the alleged gangster whose death sparked the 2011 riots which scarred Britain.

Judge Keith Cutler, sitting at Duggan’s inquest, asked everyone inside the courtroom to fall silent and to acknowledge the ‘regrettable loss of a young life’.

Later the inquest heard Duggan was a member of one of Britain’s most notorious gangs and was shot by a police marksman who believed the suspect was about to fire a revolver in a crowded street.

Judge Cutler, sitting as a coroner at the High Court, led the 20-second silence by lowering his head and clasping his hands together.

Addressing the jury, he said: ‘It is right that you should know that present in court today are a number of Mark Duggan’s family and friends and to acknowledge the grief of those family and friends and to respect that loss we will together just have some moments of silence as we sit here to recognise the seriousness of the hearing for which we are about to undertake.’

The request for a moment’s silence was understood to have been made by Duggan’s family and supporters.

Inquests, by their nature, involve the passing of a loved one, but are not generally used to commemorate someone’s death.

The decision to hold a period of silence at the start of an inquest is virtually unprecedented.

more text and a slew of photos here


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 09/18/2013 at 10:00 AM   
Filed Under: • CrimeCULTURE IN DECLINEJudges-Courts-LawyersUK •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - September 13, 2013


This is one hell of a story.
I guess this now passes for justice over here.

This guy is rowdy in a pub and is one of those violent drinkers I guess.
So there a fight which spills out into the street.
He’s a real bruiser as you will see, and I really urge you to look at the video assuming it’s still up and running.

Anyway, the thug bites a chunk out of the other guy’s tongue. Now how the heck he managed that I don’t know, but he did.
So the victim is bleeding badly and thug runs off.  Victim goes after him, catches up and proceeds to beat him up, after which he goes to a hosp. Where it is found, they can’t reattach the bit that’s been bitten off.  So now the poor guy speaks with an impediment.

So when the case comes to court …. and btw the guy who did the damage has a long record of violent behavior … well the judge, a skank named Gillian Matthews who we can only wish the worst upon, let the creep off because, she trusted him to stop his violent behavior. This in spite of previous convictions for same.

This same judge freed a paedophile because he claimed that his seven year old victim, came on to him.  You couldn’t make that up.
In 2011 she told a serial criminal he could do jail, “standing on his head.” So she gave him s suspended sentence saying he needed tougher punishment.  ??????  Yeah. I don’t understand that either.

He’s seen here mugging for the cameras outside the court after being freed.

Be sure to catch the video and see the idiot lemmings who support him. It’s all a funny joke.
I think the victim should find a gun, shoot the SOB and then claim diminished mental responsibility. He might luck out and get the same judge. I’ll tell ya true, if I were ever on a jury deciding a case like that, no way in the world would I ever vote to convict the victim.  Yeah, yeah the law.  Well F*** the law. Most of the time it’s an ass anyway.

Poking a tongue out at the law… Thug laughs as he avoids jail for vile attack

Grandfather David Greaves began headbutting and punching Kevin Dufton
When Dufton grappled with him, Greaves bit off chunk of his victim’s tongue
Window-cleaning firm boss admitted causing grievous bodily harm and given a two-year suspended jail term and ordered to pay £2,000 compensation

By Eleanor Harding

A thug who bit off a man’s tongue mocked his victim outside court after he was spared jail by a judge.
David Greaves, 50, pumped his fist and shouted ‘tongue’s twisted!’ as he celebrated avoiding custody for the sickening assault.


The window cleaner has a string of previous convictions for violence and was expected to be locked up for attacking father-of-two John Dufton.

But Judge Gillian Matthews instead handed down a suspended sentence because she ‘trusted’ him to stop his violent behaviour.

Scroll down for video

The same judge sparked controversy last year when she refused to jail a convicted paedophile who claimed a child made sexual advances towards him.

Yesterday, victim Mr Dufton, 33, was ‘furious’ with the leniency of the sentence and is demanding a review by the Attorney General.

A family friend said: ‘This man has done this sort of thing before on a number of occasions. A suspended prison sentence for biting off someone’s tongue just doesn’t make sense.’

Teesside Crown Court heard how Greaves started the trouble inside a pub in Chester-le-Street on May 25 by head-butting and punching Mr Dufton. As the fight spilled outside, Greaves tried to gouge his victim’s eyes with his thumbs.

Prosecutor Peter Sabiston said: ‘He pulled his head down, inserted his tongue, shook his head and somehow managed to latch on to Mr Dufton’s tongue.

He was horrified as the defendant then bit him.’
Despite his injuries, Mr Dufton chased his attacker and gave him a ‘comprehensive beating’ before going to hospital.

Surgeons were unable to re-attach the missing part of the tongue, which had been taken to hospital in ice.

He said: ‘The pain was unbearable, I was in agony, the worst pain I have ever known in my life. The fact that he celebrated like he did outside court, sticking his tongue out, just shows what kind of man he is.’

Greaves, who has convictions for violence going back to 1997, said he had no memory of the biting.
He admitted causing grievous bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years.

Judge Matthews called it a ‘truly horrific’ attack, adding: ‘How he behaved to you in advance did not justify your disgraceful conduct, which must have been a truly horrendous thing.’

However, she said she was ‘trusting’ Greaves, of Pelton, County Durham, to stop his violent behaviour and handed down a two-year suspended jail term.

She also ordered him to pay £2,000 in compensation and imposed a two-year restraining order. Last year, Judge Matthews outraged children’s charities after freeing paedophile John Thompson, who accused his seven-year-old victim of ‘coming on to him’.

In 2011, the judge told serial criminal James Wanley he could do jail ‘standing on his head’ and needed ‘a tougher punishment’ – so she gave him a suspended sentence.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 09/13/2013 at 09:00 AM   
Filed Under: • CrimeCULTURE IN DECLINEJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - August 24, 2013

lawyers confer to decide if muslim will be offended.

Is there anyone here who can’t recall a time when first of all, anyone trying on this crap in court would end up behind bars and none of this rights crap?  And second, do you recall as I do, that nobody appearing in a courtroom would even think of this nonsense?  But these days, rights trumps all.  True, the slag didn’t get away with it entirely. But come on.

The judge must allow lawyers to argue whether the defendant has to remove her veil?  Where’s the argument?  It should be an automatic NO for the reason given by the judge, and as common sense would dictate.
So once again everyone must go the extra mile for a member of the rop.
It’s all in the interests of rights though. ( gags) Never mind that it isn’t a natural part of a western country, and the host country at that.
She may have been born here, I have no idea. But even if she was, I consider her and her kind as a wedge being driven under the culture of a host country.  OK, maybe I can’t tell anyone what being English means.  But I know what it ain’t when I see it and hear it.  It’s kinda like the duck thing. Innit?  They don’t bark or go meow but if they quack, well then.

Take a look.  Typical of the times.

Judge orders Muslim woman to remove burkha during court appearance then bans her from entering plea after she refuses

· Judge Peter Murphy said open justice overrides religious belief in court

· Woman, 21, said she cannot remove her veil in front of men at all

· Judge said there is a risk someone could pretend to be her in the dock

· Case adjourned so lawyers can argue whether the defendant must remove her veil

· Defendant, who cannot be named, is charged with intimidating a witness


A judge told a Muslim woman she must remove her burkha in court before she can enter a plea after she refused to reveal her face.
Judge Peter Murphy said the principle of open justice overrode the 21-year-old woman’s religious beliefs, and warned there was a risk a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.
The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, appeared before Blackfriars Crown Court today charged with intimidating a witness.
She said she cannot remove the veil in front of men because of her religious beliefs.

Judge Murphy told her: ‘It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognize the defendant.  ‘While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.

‘I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.’ He added: ‘It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant.
‘The court would have no way to check on that.’ Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room.

‘In front of women, it is not an issue’, she said. ‘It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face.’
Ms Burtwistle suggested herself, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it is the same person as in the police arrest photos.

Prosecutor Sarah Counsell added that the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burkha.

But Judge Murphy rejected the suggestions, saying: ‘It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with.
‘Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.
‘In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first.’
The judge added: ‘There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.
‘I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues.’

Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.

It will be heard again on September 12, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial.
The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, north London, in June.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/24/2013 at 09:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyersmuslims •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - August 22, 2013

pay attention people. here’s how to run a place …

Right straight into the freekin ground.

What nonsense this is.  People who screw up in a criminal way deserve what they get.  If they were not dishonest, if they weren’t thrives to begin with, they would not find themselves in the position this Paliswine did.  What a scag.
This rights thing has really gotten way, way outta hand.  And countries like this one are prime suckers for the bunco artists.
To make things even worse if that’s possible, this was all funded by the Brit taxpayer. 

Why is it that these folks never end up getting an acid bath?  They live charmed lives.  Nothing ever seems to happen that’s bad enough to this sort of life form, that makes other vermin think, “whoa” .  “Maybe I better not go there.  It ain’t safe for my kind”. 

But no, it’s open doors and when you foul up there’s always the hard put upon Brit as back up to your plight.  Sheesh. What a system.

Take a look at this one.  And btw ,,,, that payout in American dollars would work out to $56,489.00, just to give you an idea.  Jackpot for the swine.

Failed Palestinian asylum seeker with conviction for fraud wins £36,000 payout for being deprived of her RIGHTS in a detention centre

Nemah Shehadeh, 58, was jailed after using fake passport to leave UK

Officials tried to deport her but Jordan refused to allow her into the country

She spent 19 months in detention but a judge has now ruled it was illegal

After launched taxpayer-funded appeal she has won £36,000 compensation



A failed asylum seeker and convicted fraudster has been awarded £36,000 of taxpayers’ money in compensation for being held in a detention centre.

Nemah Shehadeh used public funding to launch her claim for damages over the 19 months she spent awaiting deportation, which she said was a breach of her human rights.

The 58-year-old previously served a jail term for fraud after trying to use a false passport to leave Britain.

Shehadeh lives in taxpayer-funded accommodation in Glasgow and comes from Palestine, but apparently does not hold citizenship of any state.

She arrived in the UK in 2002, using what she said were valid documents issued by the government of Jordan.

However, she stayed in the country after her visa expired, and in 2005 she was caught trying to leave Britain using a fake French passport.

After being convicted of using a ‘false instrument’, she was sentenced to four months in prison and was due to be deported.

Although she claimed asylum, her bid to stay in the UK failed, and in 2008 she was flown to Jordan.

Authorities in the Middle Eastern country refused to let her in, so she was returned to the Dungavel detention centre in Lanarkshire for 19 months until granted bail.

Shehadeh claimed that the detention was ‘unlawful’ and breached her human rights - and now a judge ruled in her favour, awarding her £36,000 of the £100,000 she demanded.

Speaking at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Tyre said that officials had ‘grossly overestimated’ the chances of the asylum seeker going on the run, and ruled that she should have been released as soon as it became clear that it would be difficult to deport her.

In his judgement, he wrote: ‘I have reached the view that during the months following receipt of the Jordanian Embassy’s advice on 2 July 2008, a fair-minded assessment balancing the prospect of the petitioner’s successful removal against the risk of her absconding ought to have led to the conclusion that the respondent would not be able to effect deportation within a period that was reasonable in all the circumstances.

‘I accept that the respondent was entitled to take some time following receipt of the Jordanian advice to complete its review procedure and in particular to obtain official or perhaps ministerial authorisation of conditional release.

‘I also bear in mind, however, that this case concerns an individual whose liberty had been restricted and I consider that it is reasonable to expect the matter to have been addressed with some expedition. I do not regard it as reasonable that by mid-October 2008, no decision had been communicated.

‘In all the circumstances I consider that the petitioner’s detention had ceased to be lawful by the end of August 2008. Given that she was released on bail on 27 August 2009, I hold that she was unlawfully detained by the respondent for a period of one year.’


Too darn many breaks and rights handed out to ppl who willfully do wrong.  No wonder this place is a magnet for the type. Oh boy, just can’t wait for Jan. when the new ones arrive in a flood.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/22/2013 at 10:00 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINEJudges-Courts-LawyersUK •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - August 21, 2013

Strasbourg court ruled it was ‘inhuman’ for prisoners to die in jail

Deep down I do not believe that the Brits will accept this kind of ruling from the European court.  My guess is they will argue it and finally ignore it.  They could I suppose challenge it in the EU court.  But whatever happens I think it very unlikely that the Brits will cave in to this kind of insanity. 

I believe there are people in this world who can not ever be reformed, rehabilitated or saved. They are pure evil.  Which of course doesn’t mean they are all stupid and do not know how to manipulate the system to their advantage when they can.  That the system so often fails us all and gives in to those venomous creatures when they do, is more the fault of weak kneed criminal system than it is of the vermin.  It’s no different than a business taking advantage of all the legal tax loopholes provided. 

This particular bleeding heart, hand wringing lefty sob, is well beyond my meager command of the language. 

Take a look.  Unbelievable. To us.  Not to them.

Triple murderer becomes first Briton to challenge his ‘life means life’ sentence after Strasbourg ruled it was ‘inhuman’ for prisoners to die in jail

Arthur Hutchinson stabbed couple to death on eve of daughter’s wedding

He also killed their son and repeatedly raped a teenage guest in 1983

Strasbourg declared it was ‘degrading’ for prisoners to die in jail

Some 49 prisoners are currently in British jails serving whole life tariffs



A multiple murderer has become the first Briton to challenge his ‘life means life’ tariff following last month’s controversial ruling by European judges that it breaches human rights.

Arthur Hutchinson, jailed for stabbing a wealthy couple to death after breaking into their home on the night of their daughter’s wedding, then killing one of their sons and repeatedly raping another wedding guest, has launched the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

The 73-year-old was handed a whole life tariff nearly 30 years ago and was told he would die behind bars.

The Strasbourg court ruled last month it was ‘inhuman and degrading’ for prisoners to face death in jail.

The initial case was brought following an appeal by three killers including Jeremy Bamber, who shot dead five members of his family in 1985.

Some 49 prisoners are currently in British jails serving whole life tariffs.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘I have repeatedly made clear how profoundly I disagree with the recent ruling by the European Court.

‘Our judges should be able to tell those who commit the most heinous crimes imaginable that they may never be released.

‘To be told this breaches human rights is absurd - and an insult to those who wrote the original Human Rights Convention. What about the rights of the victims and their families?

‘I continue to strongly believe that whole life tariffs are appropriate for the worst murder cases. This is why I want wholesale reforms to our human rights laws.’

Hutchinson is going back to Strasbourg in an attempt to have his sentence declared a breach of his human rights. While his case could be ruled on by the court, any parole application could not take place unless the Government changes the law.

Previously under UK law, whole-life tariff prisoners had no possibility of a parole review or release. The sentence was reserved for offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society.

But, following an appeal by three killers, European judges ruled that a tariff which forces murderers to die in jail was ‘inhuman and degrading’ and proposed that cases should be reviewed after 25 years.

The killers who launched the challenge were Jeremy Bamber, who shot dead five members of his family in 1985, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore. The most recent murderers to receive a whole life tariff are Mark Bridger, who killed five-year-old April Jones, and Dale Cregan, who murdered two police officers.

The Government has already been asked to provide an official response to Hutchinson’s claim, which could lead to a full hearing next year.

Dominic Raab MP, who is campaigning for human rights reform, told the Daily Telegraph: ‘You couldn’t get a better example of a case where “life should mean life”.

‘UK democratic accountability over our criminal justice system is yet again being threatened by the insatiable appetite of the Strasbourg court.’

Hutchinson broke into the home of Basil and Avril Laitner in Dore, Sheffield, in October 1983, armed with an eight-inch knife.

His trial heard that he killed Mr Laitner, 59, a solicitor, and his wife, 55, whom he stabbed 26 times, hours after the family had celebrated the wedding of their daughter Suzanne.

Hutchinson also killed their son Richard before leading an 18-year-old woman at knifepoint to the marquee in the garden where the reception had been held, tying her up and raping her.

The judge ruled that Hutchinson should serve 18 years, but then Home Secretary Leon Brittan later ruled he should face the whole life tariff.

I don’t understand the original judgment of 18 years. I think that judge meant this animal could appear before a parole board and seek freedom. Something apparently the socialist court in Strasbourg think is reasonable.
And just so the reader knows,
Hutchinson had already brought a challenge against his sentence in the British courts.  But five years ago a Court of appeal turned him down.

You can see why his only hope is the court in Strasbourg.  And as I said at the beginning, I see little chance of that happening.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/21/2013 at 12:26 PM   
Filed Under: • CrimeEUro-peonsJudges-Courts-LawyersStoopid-People •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - August 07, 2013

no order, little law and no justice.

I guess this could be reasonably considered the Brit answer to law and order.
No order, little law and no justice.

I’ll bet there’s more than one police office who has already been in service for a long time but too short of retirement thinking, why the hell did I ever pick this job as a career move.

I guess it’s just my age and that of many of our readers here.  I don’t understand these things and I’ll guess you might not either.  There are some things that truly are black and white.  Or there was once upon a time when logic counted for something.

Having said all that, the headline is just a tad misleading.  There’s a reason the judge ruled that way, but hell.  The guy confessed to cops and then ran.
What else could he be but guilty?  Ah ... a case for Hercule Poirot. 

Or maybe Inspector Clouseau?

Take a look.

‘Career criminal’ walks free after two-month manhunt because his ‘wanted’ picture contaminated evidence

· Anthony Morrison, 32, faced robbery charges over £20,000 Asda ATM raid

· But prosecutors presented no evidence saying police mugshot had ‘contaminated identification by witnesses’

By Rosie Taylor

A criminal who was hauled to court to face robbery charges after a two-month manhunt has walked free after a judge ruled the ‘wanted’ picture of him issued by police had contaminated evidence.

Detectives had released a mugshot of career criminal Anthony Morrison, 32, when he was wanting for questioning over a £20,000 robbery at an Adsa supermarket.
But witnesses due to testify against him at his trial told police they recognised his face after seeing the wanted picture - despite all the robbers wearing balaclavas during the raid.

On the first day of the planned trial, prosecutors said there was ‘huge potential for contamination’ in the evidence against him.
Apart from the eyewitnesses, whose identification of Morrison was ‘contaminated’, the only other evidence was that his DNA was found on a distinctive jacket linked to the robbery.

But prosecutors said there was no evidence that Morrison was wearing the jacket at the time of the attack, and he could have worn it previously.
Simon Parry, prosecuting told Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court that he would offer no evidence against Morrison, adding: ‘Suspicion isn’t enough.’

Morrison, who had previously been jailed for six years for conspiracy to rob, was suspected of being one of four men armed with a sledgehammer and handgun who had attacked security guards filling ATM machines at Asda in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

One of the guards was punched twice in the face during the raid in 2011, while another heard one of the robbers shout ‘Just shoot him’.
The thieves made off with a cash box containing £20,000. Suspects Jason Butterworth, 33, and Michael Ford, 34, were arrested but Morrison fled to Spain in December 2011.

The following July he called police from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam to say he wanted to give himself up.

Arrangements were made for him to board an aircraft to Manchester because officers were legally unable to go to Holland to escort him back to Britain.

Morrison agreed to be arrested by officers when he arrived at Manchester Airport but when he touched down at Terminal One from his EasyJet flight he fled before he got to passport control.

Read the rest of this. Interesting.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 08/07/2013 at 09:05 AM   
Filed Under: • CrimeDaily LifeJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - July 14, 2013

Ya Sooze, Ya Looze


Yeah, well no kidding.
This morning: Protests Mostly Peaceful, Less Rioting Than Expected. How Everyone Reacted


* LZ: Trayvon could have been my son
* Anger, sadness but little surprise
* Martin’s dad: My heart is broken
*Analysis: The role that race played
* Zimmerman’s brother: Jury spoke Zimmerman’s brother: Jury spoke
* Defense: Prosecution disgraceful Defense: Prosecution disgraceful
* Prosecutor: ‘I am disappointed’ Prosecutor: ‘I am disappointed’
* Sports stars sound off on verdict
* Martin lawyer: ‘Be peaceful’
* Dr. Drew: Don’t let this divide us
* IT director who raised questions fired
* Photos: The trial The trial | Reaction

Did I miss something? Was I doing this wrong? Was I supposed to be glued to my television 24 hours a day for every last exciting tiny detail and nuance of this case? Was I supposed to believe this case was OJ.2?

Because, Horry Clap, the jury was still out on the evening news. Then we caught a couple of films On Demad and went to bed. Didn’t watch the 11 o’clock news, wasn’t watching one of the commercial networks to see their Breaking News ticker come across the screen.

And this morning, it’s all old news. At first I was a bit peeved - my God, how in the world can I keep up with the pace of things, the world is moving too darn fast - but now, after having breakfast and running a couple of quick errands, I’m coming around to believing this is the right way. Let this BS story sink into the dust just as fast as possible. It never was a story to begin with, it never was a crime to begin with. The whole thing was sensationalized, hyped up crap by the White House to somehow win the O more votes, or to at least keep the racial divide wide open and festering. And now, the morning after, it seems like not much of a reaction happened at all. So maybe, just maybe, all of us, white black yellow green and brown, can think a bit better than the agitprop stinkers in the media. And the agitprop stinker in the Offal Office. So now can we get past this?

It’s sad, but it’s over. Attack somebody in Florida in the middle of the night, knock them down and bash their head against the ground repeatedly, give them no room or chance to escape ... and you might just get shot. And that’s completely legal. End of story. Period. Except that some of us will remember that this is yet another failed plan from Obongowongo. He’s 0 for 300 at this point I think, from Obamacare to Green Energy to the Olympics to the Arab Spring to Coal to ... this.

MORE: Thoughts on this trial, and the general travesty of justice in court in modern America by Mark Steyn:

Ever since the president of the United States (a man so cautious and deferential to legal niceties that he can’t tell you whether the Egyptian army removing the elected head of state counts as a military coup until his advisors have finished looking into the matter) breezily declared that if he had a son he’d look like Trayvon, ever since the U.S. Department of so-called Justice dispatched something called its “Community Relations Services” to Florida to help organize anti-Zimmerman rallies at taxpayer expense, ever since the politically savvy governor appointed a “special prosecutor” and the deplorably unsavvy Sanford Police Chief was eased out, the full panoply of state power has been deployed to nail Zimmerman on anything.

Steyn ... as always, my hero.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 07/14/2013 at 12:38 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (7) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - July 13, 2013

Unequal Treatment

Bean Town Cop Busted With Army Issue Bombs


A Boston police officer is free on $1,000 bail after police in Plymouth say they found a cache of military grade explosives in a shed at his former home.

Kirk Merricks, 43, of Dorchester, was charged Friday with 11 counts of possession of explosives, along with theft and ammunition charges.

Police say they received a call on Thursday from the homeowner, identified as Merricks’ estranged wife, saying she was cleaning out a bedroom closet and found four ¼ sticks of TNT and assorted ammunition in a metal box marked “highly explosive.”

The bomb squad responded to the home on Paddington Way, where explosives experts recovered a briefcase from a shed outside the home that had “a bandolier that contained four military-grade M203 rounds, six detonator cords with attached blasting caps and two rolls of timed fused cord connected to non-electric fixing mechanisms,” District Attorney’s office reported.

Merricks is accused of stealing those explosives and storing them in the shed.

Plymouth Chief Michael Botieri says investigators think the items were stolen because they are military grade and not available for purchase by the general public.

While Merricks is licensed to carry Boston police-issued ammunition, ammo possession charges were also filed because the ammunition that was recovered was not police-issued, according to investigators.

Ok, a big FU to Assachussets first, for their NY/NJ level firearms laws that are so insane that having “other” ammo is a crime. Ammo not issued by the State or in calibers for which you have no registered weapons. And the “quarter sticks of TNT” sounds an awful lot like the large fireworks called blockbusters around here. The “1/4 stick” thing is pure urban legend and totally false ... because if you had REAL sticks of TNT, why on earth would you break it into little pieces and then store it?

But the detonators are a different story. And the 4 M203 rifle grenades are another, much uglier story altogether.

The guy busted in NJ the other day had “military grade explosives” as well. Maybe, don’t ya think, just MAYBE somebody somewhere ought to be looking into how these things are getting out of thought-to-be secure military storage, or snuck back from the wars by soldiers and sold on the black market? Because we’ve spent billions and billions “terrorist proofing” all those places, and the military absolutely can search every last package and duffle bag leaving the sandbox. No excuses for even a single bullet coming back in anyone’s footlocker.

Hey, I’m all for the Second Amendment, but I don’t want whackos having crew served machine guns, grenades, artillery shells, or commercial explosives ... unless the stuff comes on the open market for the rest of us to buy if we want. Yeah, like that will EVER happen.

So now that Crappy Nappy is quitting the DHS to go play School Marm, will the Swiss Cheese Ammo Dump be the next never-shoulda-happened scandal to push under the Obama-bus?

Oh, and dig this:

Boston police have placed Merricks on paid administrative leave and taken away his handgun and badge. He has worked for the department since 1999.

Merricks was released on [$1000] bail and the case was continued until a probable cause hearing on September 10.

Excuse me, what? What what what? The guy had stolen Army bombs and commercial explosives in his shed, and he gets TIME OFF WITH PAY and bail set at only $1000??? I call racism. RAAAAAAACIIIISSM!!! Because if he was some loner White guy, bail would have been $30 million and he’d be rotting in a deep dark cell, immediately fired from whatever job he may have had, and convicted by the media on every TV channel. 


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 07/13/2013 at 12:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-LawyersRacism and race relations •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - July 10, 2013

stabs and beats ex wife over dog loss and walks free

Well having had a rant of sorts with regard to the european court of human rights and the latest war of words and policy on that front, it’s time to return to things in English courts to show that justice isn’t in much evidence here either, and some judges here should perhaps sit on the euro court since they seem to have as little sense of justice as do the euro socialist do gooders. Case in point.
Take a look at this outrage.

‘I’ve given her face a good kicking… she’ll need plastic surgery’: What estranged husband said after stabbing former wife in the head but he is still SPARED prison

Martin Clarkson, 59, attacked Sarah Dowse, 34, in the street in Redcar
Given a 15-month suspended sentence after admitting inflicting GBH
Clarkson’s sentence has been branded ‘inadequate’ by victim

By Kerry Mcdermott

A man who stabbed his estranged wife in the head because she was given custody of their dogs following their split has walked free from court.

After attacking Sarah Dowse in the street with a pocket knife as she walked the terriers near her home in Redcar, Martin Clarkson, 59, was heard to say: ‘I’ve given her face a good kicking… she’ll need plastic surgery.’

Police initially treated the incident as attempted murder, but Clarkson was given a 15-month suspended sentence after admitting inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Ms Dowse, 34, last night told of her shock that her former husband was not jailed for the incident on January 24, which saw Clarkson repeatedly stab his ex in the head and fracture her cheekbone before he was overpowered by a passerby.

Teesside Crown Court heard he fled to the home of another former wife following the attack and asked: ‘Have the police been?’, before describing how he had given Ms Dowse’s face ‘a good kicking’.

Passing sentence, Judge Peter Moorhouse imposed a five-year restraining order preventing Clarkson from contacting his ex, but Ms Dowse has since said the ban ‘won’t stop me feeling in fear of him every day’.

‘I expected him to get a prison sentence, and I feel what he received was inadequate for the suffering he caused me,’ she said.

read more

Is there an old saying about coming between a man and his dog? 

Maybe there should be if not.  In any case, justice was surely denied here.  Oh come on.  A what? A restraining order?  Yeah. We also know how effective those are.  The lady maybe needs to find a gun and keep it close.  Screw the law.  She should make every effort to try and find one somehow, some way. Failing that, carry travel size hair spray.  I’ve read that some woman do carry those.


Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 07/10/2013 at 01:15 PM   
Filed Under: • CrimeJudges-Courts-LawyersJustice - LACK OFUK •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  
Page 3 of 34 pages « First  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 香港特首曾荫权和部分高管分别用步行或搭乘公共交通工具的方式上班
西安电加热油温机 香港盛吹“环保风” 专家指市民已从被动变主动 中新网9月29日 淮安导热油电加热炉 电 据香港中通社报道,9月29日晚由香港某环保团体举行的“无冷气夜”,吸引了5万名市民及超过60间企业承诺参加。这是香港最近环保活动不断升温过程中的大型活动之一。 进入九月,香港各界环保活动渐入高潮,层出不穷。特首高官与各界市民齐齐参与,是其中一个最大特色。…
On: 03/21/18 04:12

meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
On: 07/17/17 08:28

a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 07:07

The Real Stuff
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Candy Blog
On: 06/11/17 10:40

when rape isn't rape but only sexual assault
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Trouser Blog
[...] took another century of Inquisition and repression to completely eradicate the [...]
On: 06/07/17 03:37



Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
  1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
  2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
  3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
  4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.


Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner

GNU Terry Pratchett

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
free counters