SHOULD THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NOW BE PROSECUTED FOR MIS-DESCRIPTION?

SHOULD THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NOW BE PROSECUTED FOR MIS-DESCRIPTION?

At the Liberal Democrat Conference, Jo Swinson, their new Scottish Leader (when was the last time they had an English one?) breezily called for the votes of 17.4 million British voters (15,188,400 English voters) to be disregarded.  The “Liberal Democrats”, if elected to Government, would simply now revoke the Article 50 Notice served by Theresa May on 29^th March 2017 under the EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017 (which by rights should have got us out of the EU at 11.00 p.m. on the 29^th March 2019!).

Following this policy shift by a woman whose husband is apparently in receipt of millions of EU money (see article below), the mask has been dropped by this Party of being willing to abide by democratic decisions.

As their former Leader Paddy Ashdown put it on 23rd June 2016 on the TV referendum vote programme:- “I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% of 20%, when the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you do not.”

The “Liberal Democrats” also show by their addiction to Europhile Statism that they are against the bedrock of liberalism, which is “Free Trade”.  Rather than Free Trade what they want is EU State regulation. 

The “Liberal Democrats” do not even adhere to Liberal values on Free Speech.  They are amongst the keenest to ban people from writing, saying or speaking anything critical either of multi-culturalism or of the various restrictions on Free Speech which multi-culturalism insists upon. 

In short they are a Party which is completely devoid of either Democratic or Liberal values. 

In addition to this the “Liberal Democrats” are very much a Party which is globalist and hates the very idea of our traditional nation and our nation state.  This is at the root of why they are not willing to recognise a democratic vote because they would deny that the People of our country are even a “demos”.  The Liberal Democrats particularly loath the idea of England as the above quotation from their former leader Charles Kennedy vividly demonstrates. 

So Liberal Democrats are not merely a blight on our national politics but their whole way of thinking is actually a vicious cancer within the heart of our Nation eating away at its very existence.  So the question arises what can be done about them?  Clearly we can campaign against them and should do so.  We should of course also campaign against their multi-culturalist, globalist values, but can we bring the law into the equation? 

It is of course particularly important for the English Democrats to stop the Liberal Democrats from besmirching and misusing the word ‘Democrats’ in their Party name!

In the circumstances we have an interest in prosecuting them if at all possible. 

The relevant legislation is the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 as amended by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  An issue is whether politics is a trade.  I don’t think that question has been legally tested though and after the “Liberal Democrats” behaviour would you call their politics a profession? 

The way to bring a prosecution is I think that we could prosecute their Party for selling something which is using their false description.

What do you think?

Here is an article about Jo Swinson’s husband’s sizeable financial interest in supporting the EU:-

“IT LOOKS LIKE JO SWINSON’S PASSION TO STOP BREXIT OR A NO-DEAL BREXIT “AT ANY COST” HAS TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLIED.

Swinson’s point blank and quite illogical refusal to join the cross-party coalition to prevent a no-deal Brexit has a 3.5m euro explanation. And the irony of the whole context goes to show that the LibDems are as insincere and deceitful as they ever were.”

This is political dynamite. The European Union gave a 3.5m euro donation to Transparency International, which in peak irony is supposed to be an anti corruption watchdog with a mandate to foster, erm, transparency.

It is run by Jo Swinson’s husband. Has Jo Swinson declared this conflict of interest to the House of Commons? No.

Is that a breach of House of Commons protocol? Yes.

Is it a breach of the law? Yes.

So who is Jo Swinson’s husband? His name is Duncan Hames. He is the director of policy at Transparency International UK.

He also used to be the Liberal Democrat MP for the Chippenham constituency in Wiltshire, holding the seat during the disasterous Cameron/Clegg coalition government responsible for the deaths of 130,000 poor, sick and disabled people under their deadly “Welfare Reforms”.

The same Welfare Reforms Iain Duncan Smith justified with the phrase “Work Frees People” – a sentence last seen, in German, above the entrance gates to Auschwitz.

Unlike Lib Dems we aren’t prone to calling our opponents “Nazis” simply for disagreeing with our political opinions but in this instance, if the cap fits…

During this period Mr Hames was Parliamentary Private Secretary to none other than David Cameron’s number 2, Nick Clegg.

So as you can see, the Swinson family household has its fingerprints all over the social degradation our nation suffered during that horrendous 5 year period.

The idea that the Liberal Democrats under Jo Swinson are the answer to our nations’ current predicament does not stand up to a single moment of scrutiny.

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-fails-to-declare-family-company-was-given-3-5m-euro-by-the-european-union/

The purpose of the creation of the 'Supreme Court' was to entrench Blairism into the Constitution

So now we have had the decision of the “Supreme Court” on Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.  In which, on very thin grounds, the Supreme Court has dismissed one of the key provisions in our Constitution.  

This is Article 9 in the Bill of Rights which says as follows (the significant bits of which I have underlined):-

“Bill of Rights1688 CHAPTER 2 1 William and Mary Session 2:-

".....That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament...."

To understand why the “Supreme Court” has ruled in this way it is necessary to consider its purpose. 

The purpose behind the creation of both the Judicial Appointments Commission & Supreme Court was to entrench Blairism into the UK’s Constitution.

The members of the Supreme Court are of course also appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which was specifically and openly set up by Tony Blair and his friend Lord Irvine, his Lord Chancellor, to, as Lord Irvine, put it to “ensure that nobody with Reactionary Views can be appointed or promoted” as a Judge. 

In order to achieve this, the Judicial Appointments Commission has made it clear that, in order to get appointed or promoted as a Judge, you must “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  This of course means that every appointment is likely to be of a Left-wing, Multiculturalist, Internationalist, Europhile.

It was as part of this drive that the now Lord Justice Hickinbottom when he was the “Judicial Lead for Diversity” gleefully told the solicitors Law Society Gazette that he suggested “Creating a judicial career fast-track (to) help improve diversity on the bench”

Ever since 2004 the Judicial Appointments Commission has continued to appoint and to promote wherever possible only those who are multi-culturalist activists.

The effect of this can easily be seen if you look at the backgrounds of the eleven Supreme Court “Justices”, as reported in The Slog, as follows:-

“Lady Brenda Hale (Chair) is a lifetime academic and former Law Professor who went straight into being a Judge with no history in commercial law at all. She is a feminist, a great believer in diversity, and a lifelong liberal. I would be amazed if she voted any other way than Remain.

Lord Robert Reed (Deputy) is a Scot who also sits on the EU’s European Court of Human Rights. He was an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe Joint Initiative with Turkey. No prizes for guessing where Rabbie’s sympathies lie.

Lord Brian Kerr is the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the first Catholic ever appointed to that post. In 2014, he had this to say in a lengthy interview:

“The Law has changed enormously since the enactment of the Human Rights Act. The central point about the Act is that it has given judges free access to the rich vein of jurisprudence that is provided by the Strasbourg Court…..we now have the ability to draw on jurisprudence from all over the Council of Europe on matters that critically affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state and I think that that can only be a good thing.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Lord Nicholas Wilson is left of centre and on the record as saying, ““In pursuit of its economic policy, the UK government has recently felt the need to dismantle much of our welfare state, namely social security and the National Health Service.” He is a passionate supporter of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The activist site Divorce & the City is currently preparing to impeach Lord Wilson for alleged corruption and ‘pro State’ bias. He is, reputedly, not a fan of Boris Johnson or Brexit.

Lord Robert Carnwath is an unknown quantity who appears never to have expressed an opinion about anything, except he sits on the advisory council of the English School in Poland.

Lord Patrick Hodge is another Scot. He was a civil servant in the 1970s, and then Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996. Ergo, chummy with the unelected State, 99.99% of whom are anti-Brexit. I’d imagine he’s also a wow at parties.

Lady Jill Black is unique in the Supreme Court in not having been to Oxbridge. You can see from this just how inclusive the Court is, and thus totally in touch with the average person.

Lord David Lloyd-Jones is another scholar who wound up a judge. He was a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge from 1975 to 1991. From 1999 to 2005, he was a visiting professor at City University, London, and was then put onto The Bench. He has always specialised in international  and EU law. Only two months ago, in a Supreme Court hearing involving Kuoni Travel, Lloyd-Jones ruled that EU Law had primacy in the case. He gave the judgement in Welsh, which was a first. Highly unlikely to have voted to leave a Union in whose law he specialises, one could reasonably argue.

Lady Mary Arden became a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2011, and sits as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg blah blah yawn etc. In 2015 she published a book about the impact of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the domestic law of the UK. In his preface to the book, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales noted:

Not a Leaver then, we suspect. This is all getting terribly predictable, isn’t it?

Lord David Kitchin coxed the team that won the 1975 Boat Race for Cambridge. More pertinently, he has for many years been a strong advocate of more harmonisation of the Law between EU jurisdictions. In May this year, he gave an interview offering the following opinion in relation to patent law, in which he is a specialist:

“The situation is improving and that is because there is now much more discussion and communication between judges in different countries. Judges now meet regularly to discuss these and other difficult issues. We consider each other’s judgments; all of us attach importance to the decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Convention….there might not be jurisdiction to make references to the EU Court of Justice in these cases, or any cases after Brexit.”

And so this would be a bad thing, wouldn’t i? Get real: Lord Kitchin is a Good European who lectures about legal alignment in the EU.

Lord Philip Sales really is a case of leaving the best until last. Sales has had something of a meteoric rise: he is the youngest of the Supreme Court judges, and was a practising barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk – according to The Guardian ‘a network of old boys and cronies’ that enabled him to be appointed First Counsel at the Treasury…a department of State with a long and grubby history of undying support for the EU. The recommendation that he be appointed came from Lord Irvine and Tony Blair’s old chambers.

Philip Sales is New Labour through and through. In 2016, he was a member of the Court of Appeal which ruled that 130,000 Labour members who joined the party after 12 January 2016 would not be able to vote in the leadership contest. This overruled the previous High Court decision to allow the 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election. In short, it was a bid by the Blairites to keep Corbyn out.

Finally, he was one of the three judges forming the High Court in proceedings concerning the use of the royal prerogative for the issue of notification in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. His role in this judgment meant that he appeared in an infamous front-cover of the Daily Mail  – Enemies of the People – as a solid-gold Remainer.”

(The original of this useful article can be found here >>> https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/ )

It is also being said that many of the 11 “Justices” are in receipt of salaries from the EU.  If true then this is a very serious scandal!

I have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Conservatives are grumbling about the decision of the Supreme Court, but they have only their own Party to blame! 

It's no use Conservative MPs now complaining about the same europhile multiculturalists whom their Party had appointed to the Supreme Court making Europhile Multiculturalist decisions.

The Conservatives have had nearly 10 years in power to change the Judicial Appointments system but they have chosen not to do so!