Translate

Showing posts with label Lutfur Rahman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lutfur Rahman. Show all posts

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

BRITISH JUSTICE: Family Court Judge declares man guilty of a crime WITHOUT A CRIMINAL TRIAL


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/conclusive-evidence-judgement-against_27.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/if-police-dont-find-sufficient-evidence.html



Justice Jackson - not a criminal judge sitting in criminal court - off his own bat decided that Worthington is guilty, and that the Worthingtons' five surviving children should *not* return to them. 

 I invite you to consider the injustice of this assuming just for a moment that Paul Worthington is entirely innocent.

 What punishment does Justice Jackson deserve for forgetting fundamental legal principles and obviously having it in for Paul Worthington?
Why do we even need social workers anyway? If parents want to kill their children then they don't deserve any children, do they? Problem solved. These useless women cannot prevent children from being killed by their parent(s) and when they try they always end up committing a gross injustice such as the "satanic panic" children in the 1990s. 
In 1990, families on a council estate in north Manchester woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. With no warning, police and social workers had come to take their children.
Sixteen youngsters from the Langley estate near Rochdale were taken in to care - for what was to be a total of 34 years and four months. It was alleged they had been forced into devil worship and sexually abused.
At the time, there was a steady stream of newspaper stories based on rumours of secret satanic abuse taking place in Britain. But, after a year long investigation, the Rochdale parents were proved to be completely innocent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4602302.stm

Allegations ranged from the sacrifice of human babies and robed devil worship to locking the children in cages and caves. None of the claims were ever proved.
It was Britain's Salem Witch Hunt.
This programme reveals the real story of how, at the end of the 20th Century, hysteria swept through our social services.
This was a total failure of "due process" and common sense with horrific results.
Sixteen children were kept in care without any contact with their parents for months and it took 10 years before the last child was released from care back to his family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

Was Justice Jackson gallantly trying to protect these women by sacrificing the family life of the Worthingtons - who have five surviving children - for the sake of Social Services, better known as the SS?
    141. This is a more than usually troubling case. I have given anxious consideration to the question of whether the court's inquiry has been so degraded by the deficiencies in the initial investigation as to make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions. In the end, I have concluded that this is not the case in relation to the anal injuries. Unlike the position in relation to the broken leg, there is still a mass of contemporaneous information about the events of the night on which P died, even though procedures fell far short of good practice.

     142. Shorn to its essentials, the situation is one in which a healthy child with no medical condition or illness was put to bed by her mother one evening and brought downstairs eight hours later by her father in a lifeless state and with troubling injuries, most obviously significant bleeding from the anus. Careful assessment of the meticulous pathological and paediatric evidence has clearly established that the injuries were the result of trauma from outside the body.

     143. While, as already stated, the father is not called upon to prove anything, I cannot accept his evidence about the events surrounding P's collapse. I was not impressed by his account. His description of being woken by a cry and then removing P from her cot in a most unusual condition (clenched teeth, rigid body) before loosening her nappy and leaving her on the bed was puzzling. It is hard to understand why he should have loosened her nappy or why, having gone downstairs to get another nappy, he should have begun to go back to sleep without changing P while leaving her on the bed. There is also no explanation as to why he would then have reached out to touch P, when his whole object would on his account have been to keep her asleep as long as possible. Moreover, in the overall circumstances, the fact that this was the only occasion (according to the father) when he and P were in the bed together raises concern when taken together with the fact that P suffered injury on that very occasion. Overall, the sequence of events that the father describes is unconvincing as an account of a parent comforting a distressed child in normal circumstances.

     144. I have observed the father, not only in the witness box but in the courtroom. In contrast to the mother, who became emotional at understandable points during the hearing, the father's presentation was unusual. He spent large parts of each day in tears and took every opportunity to make eye contact with me from the back of the court as a way of emphasising his predicament. I do not attach much significance to this behaviour during an undoubtedly emotional hearing, but it was nonetheless unusual in my experience.

     145. It is not possible to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that led to P's collapse without a truthful account from the father. All that can be said is that at some point after 2 am he removed P from her cot and took off her pyjama bottoms and her nappy. He then inserted his penis or another object into her anus, causing her injury. He probably replaced the nappy, which P filled with faeces at some point before or at the time that she collapsed. The father then realised what he had done and sought help.

     146. While it is true that what has happened in this case is extremely unlikely, the position is not to be compared with cases of sudden infant death that occur without any clear signs of abuse. As has been said elsewhere, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. The improbability of the father assaulting P in this way must give way to the evidence that establishes that she was in fact assaulted. As to the argument that this was a crowded house, the fact remains that the father had the clear opportunity to carry out the assault, however risky it might have been. On his own account, the presence of two very young sleeping children in his own bedroom did not stop him from watching pornography.

     147. Nor am I influenced by the mother's description of hearing the father going to P. In the circumstances, this is the only normal interpretation that would be likely to occur to her. The most that I gather from the mother's evidence is that the father was moving about. Further to this, I think it likely that the father did experience P going rigid and gritting her teeth, but sadly this will have been in the context of an assault upon her.

     148. The father's arguments about the absence of evidence deserve serious consideration. In fairness to him, I approach matters on the broad working assumption that any inquiry that should have been carried out, but was not, would have produced a negative result. For example, that nothing concerning would have been found on his laptop, that his DNA would not have been found in the last nappy, and that other items were properly preserved and tested with negative results. In the circumstances, he is entitled to these assumptions. Likewise, there is a credible innocent explanation for the presence of DNA on the shaft of his penis.

     149. Nevertheless, even though Mr Scarborough would have expected further positive results following an act of anal rape, the forensic evidence does not exonerate the father in the manner claimed. Rather, it affects the probabilities and has to be set against all the other evidence.

     150. With regard to the absence of P's DNA from the tip of the father's penis, this does not negate penetration by the penis as any DNA may have been lost by washing or ordinary movement; nor of course does it negate penetration by other means. The non-production of sperm that may have followed the father's vasectomy could reduce the likelihood of seminal fluid being detected, particularly as five days had passed before the swabs were taken in a suboptimal way. The absence of any report of P's blood in the bedroom or living room would seem at first sight to be highly significant, but has to be taken along with the evidence that clearly establishes that she was bleeding in the ambulance moments later.

     151. These matters weigh heavily in the father's favour, but I find that, when placed in the balance, they are ultimately outweighed by the fact that P suffered injuries causing substantial bleeding from the anus and that she collapsed for no plausible reason. The only explanation for those stubborn facts is that she suffered anal penetration and the only person who could realistically have done this to her was her father.

     152. I find that the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object.
Is Justice Jackson some sort of legal authority on the correct way of changing nappies?

 Is this what passes for "the rule of law" in Britain?

 Is "the British rule of law" changing the rules while the game is still being played?

 What is the most important rule of law that you can think of?

 Surely it must be the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial?

 Shall we allow members of the judiciary who seem to know more than they should about changing nappies than is thought proper for a High Court judge who forgets which court he is sitting in to ignore long-standing English legal traditions such as a trial by jury and the criminal standard of proof to convict a man of a crime?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, 18 May 2015

Former BNP man says he intends to vote for Rabina Khan to be Tower Hamlets Mayor

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/10_candidates_running_for_tower_hamlets_mayor_to_replace_deposed_lutfur_rahman_1_4075822




Rabina Khan - eloquently praising Lutfur Rahman who endorsed her candidacy while declaring that she is very much her own woman.


Nicholas McQueen the UKIP Tower Hamlets Mayoral Candidate


A former member of the BNP, no less, says:

Here is the choice.
Elaine BAGSHAW (Liberal Democrats)
John BIGGS (Labour)
Andy ERLAM (Red Flag–Anti-Corruption)
John FOSTER (Green)
Peter GOLDS (Conservative)
Vanessa Helen HUDSON (Animal Welfare)
Hafiz Abdul KADIR (independent)
Rabina KHAN (independent)
Nicholas MCQUEEN (UKIP)
Md Motiur RAHMAN NANU (independent)
I suppose I should say Nicholas MCQUEEN (UKIP). However, this time I think I would like to vote for someone who might actually win. 
I remember Peter GOLDS (Conservative) screaming at police officers near a polling station in an local election once that I was passing out 'seditious literature' (i.e BNP leaflets) and that I ought to be stopped. The police responded by asking me to move about 3 feet. I think it would be difficult to give such a man my vote. 
John BIGGS (Labour) is a boring Labour machine politician, forever burnishing his 'anti-fascist' credentials whenever necessary. And there is no point in voting for any of the others except - Rabina Khan. 
Why? 
(1) I have already had two leaflets from Khan's team, whereas the others have delivered none to me whatsoever. The Rahman/Khan team do seem to be the most serious about winning. 
(2) I don't think on reflection that Rahman received a fair trial, for a number of reasons, one of which is that criminal matters should not be tried in a civil court. 
(3) Even if Rahman is as corrupt as they say, his management of the Muslim vote is in many ways no worse than the manipulation of the Muslim vote practiced in the past by Labour. Labour are, of course, annoyed that they can no longer rely on this automatic caucus. 
The tribal and divided state of race relations in Tower Hamlets is largely the creation of the Labour Party, not of Lutfur Rahman. It was Labour that alienated the white vote, especially in the 1990s when they wanted to defeat the BNP as well as the Liberals. 
So I shall vote for Rabina Khan on the basis that her victory will weaken the Labour Party - a thoroughly anti-British party which supports unlimited immigration and is thus far more dangerous than Rahman's Tower Hamlets First group could ever be. 
The best way to stick it to Labour is to vote for Khan.

A political system that is not dysfunctional would allow its participants to vote positively for what they do want, not voting to to stick it to the party they hate most.

Unfortunately, we are all reduced to this. If we cannot decide whom we like most then we will decide on whom we hate most.

It is only the smaller parties that can be used to tell all the big parties who created all the problems in the first place that they got it wrong.

If I lived in TH it would be a toss up between the UKIP candidate and Rabina Khan - an attractive, eloquent, passionate and apparently sincere woman who is clearly very competent - against a middle aged man who is not attractive, not eloquent, not charismatic and who does not inspire confidence.

This does highlight the kind of power an attractive woman has over "mere" men. If the candidate Lutfur Rahman endorsed candidate had been middle-aged, Muslim and male, voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate who best represented their political principles, rather than be distracted by the candidate they would rather be having sex with ....

This is probably the real reason why it is said most women should not be allowed the vote (they would vote for the most handsome male candidate or a female candidate) and why most women should not be allowed to stand for election (because beta males would much rather vote for a woman they find attractive than another beta male).

There is a rule that candidates and activists who visit polling stations must always remove their rosettes, which I discovered when I was shadowing Tim Rait in 2008.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/26-june-2008-henley-by-election.html

At first I thought this rule unnecessarily strict and then revised my opinion. All it takes is a beautiful and silent woman wearing a rosette to influence the choice of most voters in a polling station.

Out of rational self-interest you would choose the most able candidate to be your mayor. Khan would put TH on the political map while it is impossible to imagine McQueen as mayor.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 27 April 2015

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE judgment against Lutfur Rahman an establishment stitch-up




http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html

"Lutfur Rahman is only banned from participating in the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election, I believe." - According to the press, he might also be disqualified from practising as a solicitor, his pre-politics profession.

How do you know he was tried in the Civil Division?

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-alternative-lutfur-rahman-election-petition-1

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/electoral-fraud-responsibilities#police

The police and prosecutors

The police are responsible for investigating any allegations of electoral fraud. Every police force in the UK has an identified Single Point of Contact Officer (or SPOC) for electoral fraud, who provides specialist support and advice to investigators.

Prosecuting authorities (the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland) are responsible for taking cases of alleged electoral fraud to court. They work closely with police forces to examine evidence about alleged electoral fraud before deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution.

None of this happened while the conditions for setting aside an election are stated below:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf

12. The legislation provides that the outcome of an election may be challenged on
the grounds of an undue election, an undue return, that the candidate was at the
time of election disqualified or that the election was voided by corrupt or illegal
practices.

13. In summary, taking into account Part 3 of the RPA 1983 and relevant case law, the grounds for challenging an election are that:

• an error was made by an electoral official that affected the result or at least
meant that ‘the election was not conducted so as to be substantially in
accordance’ with the rules (under this ground, the election court is able to
conduct a scrutiny of ballot papers to ascertain which candidate has the majority
of lawful votes);

• corrupt or illegal practices were committed by a candidate or his or her agent or
‘such practices so extensively prevailed in an election that they may reasonably
be supposed to have affected the result’;

• the successful candidate was disqualified.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/part/III/crossheading/prosecutions-for-corrupt-or-illegal-practices

None of these were satisfied either, yet Lutfur Rahman was "convicted" anyway.

Now, the police are busily gathering evidence.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tower-hamlets-scotland-yard-probe-new-allegations-after-lutfur-rahman-corruption-verdict-10218909.html

This is rather like eating your cake before you have even got the ingredients and then baking it. 
at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, 25 April 2015

Lutfur Rahman's Grounds for Appeal



Mr Mawrey's 200 page judgment against Lutfur Rahman


I should have said "If the police do not CHARGE him after finding no evidence".


http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/24/judge-disqualified-tower-hamlets-mayor-reform-election-law-richard-mawrey-electoral-fraud

In his 200-page judgment on Rahman, Mawrey pointed out that although the election court is a civil hearing, “the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt” is applied. Candidates, unless “a mitigating factor is established”, are deemed responsible for the acts and omissions of their agents.

Er, was there actually a jury to decide whether Lutfur Rahman was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or just Mr Mawrey alone deciding that the accused was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

Saying something doesn't make it so!

The whole affair is a nettle of nonsense on stilts.

But turning towards an even more serious matter, what sort of a curry dinner should Lutfur Rahman buy me for giving him all this free legal advice, and in which restaurant in Tower Hamlets should this curry dinner take place? In one of Mr Azmal Hussain's four esteemed restaurants in Brick Lane? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/restaurant-owners-midnight-curry-curfew-will-destroy-our-businesses-in-brick-lane-9108264.html It should be a late curry dinner and we should arrive at the restaurant no earlier than 22:55 hours and see what time Mr Hussain stops taking our orders and throws us out on the streets ...


https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-alternative-lutfur-rahman-election-petition-1
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, 24 April 2015

Claire Khaw's free legal advice to Lutfur Rahman



Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election - Thursday, 21st October, 2010

Lutfur Rahman Independent 23283 51.76%
Helal Abbas          Labour             11254 25.02%

Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election - Thursday, 22nd May, 2014

 Lutfur Rahman Tower Hamlets First 36539 43.38%
 John Biggs          Labour                            27643 32.82%

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/23/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-found-guilty-of-electoral

Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor, said he was “distinctly uncomfortable” with a court’s ability to remove an elected mayor. “If there is any illegality, then surely that’s a matter for the police.

 “I’m uneasy that a mayor who has taken on the political powers in a borough can be removed by someone who is essentially a bureaucrat. What I don’t understand is why he [Mawrey] found evidence of corruption that the police have so far failed to identify,” he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_%28politician%29

He was re-elected at the 2014 mayoral election, but the result of this election was declared void in April 2015 by the Election Commissioner after Rahman was reported guilty of electoral fraud under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
On 16 April 2014 the Metropolitan Police said there was "no credible evidence of criminality" to substantiate allegations made against Rahman, so they are not carrying out an investigation at this stage. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1983

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3052100/Mayor-Tower-Hamlets-guilty-electoral-fraud.html

- Rahman 'let loose a mob of excitable, politically committed, young men' who 'approached voters, particularly Bangladeshi voters and harangued them in a manner that appeared to some onlookers to be rather aggressive'. Some voters said getting into polling stations was like 'running the gauntlet'.

Is this illegal?

- Up to 300 votes were 'dubious' or the result of 'personation', an electoral offence where someone votes as someone else.

Is there proof that Rahman was personally responsible for this or could it have been done by his over-enthusiastic supporters? One also has to wonder how many elections might have up to 300 votes that are "dubious', whatever that means.

- Rahman 'ran his campaign on the basis that it was the religious duty of faithful Muslims to vote for him'.

Is it illegal for Rahman to say to the voters of Tower Hamlets "Vote for me because I am Muslim and you are Muslim than vote for a non-Muslim?"

- He ran his party, Tower Hamlets First, as a 'personal fiefdom', which 'had no other aim, objective or ideology beyond the continuation of Mr Rahman in the office of Mayor of Tower Hamlets'.

Surely it is the purpose of a politician to remain in office? Is this criminal now, if you are Muslim?

But most disturbingly, he had close links to an Islamic extremist group – the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) [which campaigns for a sharia state] - and allegedly channelled millions of pounds of council money to its front organisations, while diverting council grants away from secular bodies. 

Let us see how "extremist" they are at:



If you wanted to campaign for a sharia state, you would have to campaign for a change in the law. An example of this would be to campaign for the constitutional right of citizens not to be taxed more than a 20% flat rate tax, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums for example, or lashing unmarried single mothers 100 times in public for each illegitimate offspring, http://quran.com/24/2 both of which I myself advocate. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts


My ideas are undoubtedly radical which will of course have me labelled as an extremist, but I don't mind. But I would just ask this: Who is the zealot and fanatic?

The election court heard how, during his time as mayor, Rahman had siphoned public funds to IFE front organisations and presided over £2million in council funding for the East London Mosque and the Osmani Trust, a Muslim-only youth group allied with the IFE. Indeed, the IFE mobilised hundreds of supporters to achieve Rahman’s election victories.
Is any of this proven, and is any of this illegal?

It has links to the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ plot and, according to own leaflets, wants to change the ‘very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed…from ignorance to Islam’.

It seems reasonable for non-libtard parents of all races and religions to protect themselves from the abomination that is sex education for 5 year old children currently being proposed in the UK and about to be implemented in Canada. I suspect socially conservative non-Muslims who are usually Catholic and chauvinistically Islamophobic secretly envy the effectiveness and social cohesion of the "Trojan Horse" Muslim parents.



Rahman also got rid of his competent chief executive, and ordered that all grants over £1,000 must be decided by him. In 81 per cent of cases, council officer recommendations were overruled by Rahman or his cronies, who would cite ‘local knowledge’ as their reason for diverting millions away from non-Muslim groups.

Why did he get rid of his chief executive? What does he say and what do his opponents say? Is he not entitled to order that all grants of over £1,000 be decided by him? Were the reasons for overruling council officer recommendations irrational and unfair?

While mayor, he also appointed a 100 per cent Bangladeshi and Muslim cabinet – even though the borough is only 34 per cent Muslim.

Were the reasons for doing so irrational, unfair and not conducive to the good running of the borough?

Rahman ignored the non-Bengali media but diverted thousands of pounds to Channel S, an influential TV station broadcasting to nearly half a million Bangladeshis, in return for fawning coverage. Astonishingly, he even paid the station’s chief reporter, Mohammed Jubair, £1,050 a week as a part-time ‘community relations adviser’.

Are the British media complaining that thousands of pounds had not been diverted to them? Was Rahman breaking any rules when he did this? 

Rahman threatened to dispose of a Henry Moore artwork which offended Islamic sensibilities. The borough’s public libraries stocked large quantities of extremist literature.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lutfur-rahman/henry-moore-old-flo-sculpture_b_2093809.html gives Rahman's explanation for his reasons for doing so pointing out that his is not the only borough to sell off works of art. It is hideous anyway and you can imagine the vandalism that would be regularly wreaked on this monstrosity. Is Rahman to be held responsible for public librarians' choice of books?



He transferred valuable council property to close associates at far less than their true market value.
Which ones? What was the "true market value"? Who valued the property? What was the purchase price? Was any of this illegal or corrupt?

DID LABOUR ADD TO THE MESS? JUDGES SLAMS PARTY'S ACTIONS

 Despite multiple findings against Mr Rahman, the judge yesterday also criticised the Labour Party for its treatment of him in 2010.

 Labour sacked Rahman as its mayoral candidate on the basis of smears following an order from the party's National Executive Committee (NEC), which was attended by Harriet Harman.

 Rahman was left 'completely unaware' he had been accused of links to extremist groups by a party rival, Helal Abbas, the judge said.

 Commissioner Mawrey said there was 'not a shred of credible evidence linking Mr Rahman with any extreme or fundamentalist Islamist movement'.

 The judge said: 'The Committee did not even decide to hold an investigation. It did not summon Mr Abbas and ask him to justify his serious allegations. A resolution was passed to suspend Mr Rahman, unseen and unheard.

 'The upshot of the meeting was thus that Mr Rahman, completely unaware of the accusations and given no opportunity to counter them, was summarily sacked as candidate and his accuser substituted. '

 Condeming the party's actions, he added: '[Mr Rahman's] treatment by the NEC was, by any standards, utterly shameful and wholly unworthy of the Party.'

I am delighted Mr Mawrey mentioned this. Wouldn't it be nice to have political parties declared public bodies and subject to judicial review, as India has done? http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/indian-court-acknowledges-indian.html

When local Tory councillor Peter Golds phoned the Daily Mail in May 2010, he and a reporter visited east London addresses where large numbers of voters had been added to the electoral roll. At one Labour candidate’s home, five voters had mushroomed to 12 within a month.
When a reporter for The Independent knocked on the same door, he was badly beaten by a mob. No one was charged. Mr Golds said: ‘Why on earth have the police been arresting journalists [over alleged phone hacking and paying officials] … ?
‘We need a free press to expose things like electoral fraud … the police are too frightened to do it.’

Why are the police "too frightened"?





So, basically, Lutfur Rahman was convicted of a criminal offence in a civil court. If the CPS is dealing with it, then it is a criminal matter. Lawyers will know what I mean and so should Mr Mawrey. I would damn well appeal if I were Rahman. If they still stitch him up Muslims and non-Muslims would know what to damn well think about a government that ignores its own rules, wouldn't we?

... the then education secretary Michael Gove, said pupils must be made aware of fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different beliefs.

What is the rule of law? It means putting down your laws in writing and abiding by them, including your established legal principles and traditions.

What makes English law different and superior to other legal systems?

It is considered superior to other systems because a higher standard of proof is required to convict for those accused of criminal offences and is therefore more protective of the liberty and reputations of those who are subject to it.

Are the British going to throw out this rule of law now, in its mania to satisfy its Islamophobia?

We won't know till Rahman appeals and the judgement of the Court of Appeal goes against him. 


at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...