The Attorney General...

23 November 2012

... Dominic Grieve, is intelligent and an experienced and highly analytical lawyer and he is wrong, totally, completely and utterly wrong over most issues.

He thinks too much, he is a lawyer's lawyer and is far too keen on applying the letter of the law regardless, even when, as is often the case, the law is a total ass.

He is wrong over knuckling down to do what the European Court says over prisoner votes, he also has the wrong attitude to the jailed SAS officer.

What we need is to return the law to some form of common sense and perspective.  The first thing is to get remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court, to restore sovereignity to Parliament, repeal the Human Rights Act and sack idiot judges.  

Our discredited joke of a so called criminal justice system need a root and branch reform.

• Guest 670 wrote:
  Firstly as I have said many times before, Parliament makes thelaws, the judges intrepret them. The jailed SAS officer clearly broke the law and duly paid the penalty, are you suggesting that Government should interfere with the sentence, if so you are creating a constitutional crisis and undermining the independence of our judicial system.
  Iwould be interested to know your interpretation of a criminal justice system and how you would reform it.
• Guest 710 wrote:
  You seem to be pressing yourself forward to the Bench, Barry. Your every expression speaks volumes from the Library of the Loon.
  While it is indeed a sorry cur that has two masters, it is your avowed need for somebody else to blame that conjures-up the spectre of the ECHR as it does away with the separation of Legislature from Court and Civil Justice from Military Justice.
  The shame of having to follow the direction of the ECHR is that we have failed to address these important matters independently. As with so much that is progressive and forward-thinking, the UK has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from the darkness of our paternalistic subjugation and political subservience out into the light of Democratic Day.
  As with the deportation case, the root cause of which was again the too-fast Military Justice System, the issue of the imprisonment of the SAS 'hero' must also be undone within the Military System that brought it about.
  [Matters generally are set to change in regard to how the Borders' Agency treats Courts Martial offences, by the way.]
• Guest 655 wrote:
  Dave1 - no not interfere with the courts but to re-establish the supremacy of parliament against activist judges and to make sure poorly drafted legislation is repealed. I have mentioned two things before, get rid of the Human Rights Act and get out of the European convention, the latter having long lost its original purpose and is trying to find a role for itself by trivialising human rights.
  
  As for our criminal justice system - real criminals are treated far too leniently and others who are not real criminals are treated far too harshly, the SAS man being a prime example. No doubt he broke the law but intent and his character were forgotten, at the same time as a worthless scumbag repeat burglar found guilty of multiple offenses gets off free to burgle yet again. Our values and priorities are wrong.
• Guest 725 wrote:
  Egypt's Mohammed Mursi would welcome you with open arms Barry.
• Guest 670 wrote:
  I must say I haven't been following the case of the SAS man but I gather he was tried by a military court and is now in Colchester Glass House. Military law is black and white with very, very few grey areas, in other words you either did it or not. If you did you are sent for "retraining" after which you are normally discharged. Character and past good record hardly enter in to the proceedings.
  I am not sure what you mean by activist judges, judges are not appointed by governments and they cannot be sacked.
  Finally I would like an example of a persistent burglar who was set free to burgle again.
• Guest 698 wrote:
  Try this:
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198621/It-takes-huge-courage-burgle-somebodys-house-What-judge-told-intruder-raided-homes-letting-walk-free-court.html
  
  Sorry you will have to cut and paste it, I can't see how to put urls on here.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  works ok peter, i was trying to track that earlier.
• Guest 725 wrote:
  It occurred to me that you're not being very consistent here Barry. You describe Dominic Grieve as being completely and utterly wrong on most issues but checking out his voting record he seems to chime with you in terms of how he voted in the commons.
  Methinks you overstate your case because you're angry.
  Take a chill pill and try again.
• Guest 696 wrote:
  Barry, you can't have it both ways.
  "remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court, to restore sovereignity to Parliament, repeal the Human Rights Act", you say!
  
  But, you also say that we must not have a referendum on EU membership.
  However, EU membership requires all that - quoted from your blog post - which you stated should be abolished.
  
  In effect you are being contradictory.
• Guest 725 wrote:
  I think Barry needs educating when it comes to things concerning any renegotiation with the eu. I'll leave this bloke who knows a thing or two about such things:
  
  [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9700241/The-only-way-we-can-renegotiate-is-by-asking-to-leave-the-EU.html[/URL]
• Guest 725 wrote:
  Sorry that line should be:
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9700241/The-only-way-we-can-renegotiate-is-by-asking-to-leave-the-EU.html
• Guest 710 wrote:
  The chap writing, under the link you give PhilipP, does himself no favours in equating the amount we pay to the EU with the amount 'we' have borrowed recently to shore-up our finances. 'We', in various and not all together edifying ways, get most of this sum back from the EU.
  What is required Politically in our immediate future is a refocussing of our National endeavours towards the benefit and well-being of our population:In the way we Tax and the way we spend, in the way we order industry and commerce within our own economy and in the way we trade with the world outside our borders. As much of this is bound to bring us into conflict with the EU and run counter to the present overall Plan of the European Union, to the furtherance of which 'we' have signed away so much, the day must come - sooner or later - when our path and that of the EU (as currently envisaged) shall diverge.
  In the medium to long term this will neither mean the end to the EU or to our playing our central and pivotal role within a renewed EU. We have, and the other EU members have, been trudging through an ever grimping-mire in the search for firmer ground, the process of de-clogging must begin. If it is to commence with our going our separate ways, so be it.
  Strengthening Democratic Control over our own affairs is a process that must also take place in order to point the way to how a renewed EU can be fundamentally re-connected with it's citizens.
  This is the point where I again begin to bleat-on about increased voter-registration and determination to play an active part in Politics. I shall spare the reader from further comment on this for the moment.
  
  
  [BTW, it is bright and blowy here and more than a bit 'brrrr', for those that have missed my weather reports.]
• Guest 725 wrote:
  I think you miss the point of the article Tom. It's not about the small matter of how much we contribute but the political project as a whole and how talk by Cameron on repatriating powers is very silly indeed. Cameron and those like him give the impression that he can go to a meeting or two and hey presto the eu will cave in and all will be well in the world. As the article states it's nowhere near that simple in fact it's an impossiblilty.
  Personally I'd like nothing more than to be rid of this despicable cabal of failed politicians who run this joke shop but what really worries me is that we too have our government run by equally inept clowns who expect to take the helm and steer us to fame, fortune and peace on Earth.
  The eu would do their level best to cause chaos to the UK economy because they're like that - vindictive and extremely immature.
  Of course the blame lies in the hands of labour, liberals and conservative politicians who have basically sold us down the river. Outside of the eu we will within a few years become insolvent and more akin to a third world nation than the one we live in now.
• Guest 655 wrote:
  Lots to answer there and little time to do it...
  
  A few points though.
  
  Alexander - as always you fail to grasp EU reality. If you had your way we would lose our sovereignty to the EU forever more.
  
  Philip - renegotiation would be difficult but it is not impossible. The EU have more to lose than we have. This is where the David Davis approach is so good, a referendum to provide a mandate followed by a full referendum after renegotiation that includes an option to accept any renegotiated settlement or get out all together. It will work if grasped by the government.
  
  This is is, of course, nothing to do with the EU directly but is all to do with judges and a judicial system that is a total joke.