Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Today in Britain

Today in a British court, and in a highly politicised case, a judge quashed a "Not Guilty" verdict in order to allow the state to have another go at convicting a man cleared of murder 15 years ago. 

In so doing he showed us that the protection granted to Englishmen by the Magna Carta in 1215 AD no longer applies in this land. Again we see that, today in Britain, none of us are safe.


alanorei said...

Thank you for the warning, Sarah.

As John Charles Ryle, the first Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, said back in the 1890s, his emphases:

"A sapping and mining process has been long going on under our feet, of which we are beginning at last to see a little. We shall see a good deal more by and by."

We are.

Franz said...


sorry to veer off-topic, but I'd like to ask a politically minded yet sane lady like yourself something...

Is it just my impression, or is it true that with regards to the rape allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the feminists, and women in general have been rather silent?

Normally, when a man of high stature is accused of doing violence to a woman, the high pitched shrieks to "castrate him, kill him" are deafening.

This time, there is certainly much noise from the chattering classes, suspecting all kinds of conspiracies, but the feminists seem rather reluctant to attack that particular globalist-champagne-sipping-$3000-dollar-a-night-socialist-Hebrew. Is it a class thing? A PC thing?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

P.S. I concurr with your thoughts expressed in "Today in Britain". What happens on your side of the channel is replicated in all of Europe and the USA. That, I have seen coming. For two years or so politicians have droned on about the coming "post-democratic-age". It is here now.

Anonymous said...

The future of England - no this is contemporary England.

Forget the past maybe?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...


I don't know the answer, I sometimes think that some women who call themselves feminists have an agenda, which is less pro-women than it is anti (white) men.

They will shout about rape, and then in the same breath lie about who is committing the rapes.

If it had been a right wing politician accused of raping a black chamber maid, they would be screaming their heads off. But Strauss Kahn is their guy so the situation is very different.

It is like all those anti-war journalists who are all applauding the bombing of Lybia, because Obama is doing the bombing.

These people are not what they claim to be, and they never have been.

misterfox said...

Sarah, Don't get caught up in this paranoid lunacy about the Magna Carta, Its been superseded dozens of times. I told you in private correspondence, ask a lawyer. He would laugh at these certifiable nuts.

misterfox said...

Having said that, these lads have been persecuted for years. The barrister who hounded them Mansfield - his wife made a TV documentary attacking them. These are the rich, bourgoise lefties who persecute working-class people for trying to preserve their communities but live in rich, exclusive areas themselves. Vile, disgusting hypocrites.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

I am aware that the provisions of Magna Carta has been subject to revision over the centuries, however, its core substance, the protection of the subject from his rulers, has remained. The Double Jeopardy protection is a vital part of that and one which has existed throughout the centuries.

This protection still exists in many of those countries, such as America, Canada and even India, whose justice systems are based on British law. Indeed it is not uncommon for Magna Carta to be referenced in US courts to this day.

Britain did away with the double jeopardy protection in 2003 for one single purpose, and that was so the state could have one more go at convicting the Lawrence suspects in order to satisfy a political ideology. It is outrageous and it is very dangerous.

What if this jury acquits them, will they carry on being tried until some jury comes up with the “right” answer?

Are there other acquittals the establishment might like to revisit?

Anonymous said...

so wait, we're rooting for the guy who maybe killed someone? if you know anything about law maybe you know its pretty much vague evidence and guess work, if new evidence came to light that shows the not guilty is maybe false, we're suppose to say "oh well, 12 unemployed people didnt think he did it based on old evidence, nevermind he might have done, a 1000 year old document is more important than justice being carried out"

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

No, I am not asking you to root for anyone, What I am saying is that we in this country are no longer protected from repeated prosecutions by the state.

American citizens still enjoy the protection granted as a result of magna carta, so are Canadians and Indians, all three countries base their law on British law. Even in Mexico you can not be tied twice for the same crime. In Britain, after 800 years. we now can be.

The law was changed for political purposes and for the sole purpose of prosecuting these men in order to further a political agenda.

Beverley said...

Legal judgments can and often are wrong. Sometimes so wrong that, despite all claims that judgments are based of "logic" and "evidence" to the self-satisfaction of the legal machine, one has to wonder if many decisions are not random walks to a “conclusion”..
However, what can be considered an absolute is that if the legal process has been allowed to run its course, at a particular time and in a particular context, it is enormously unfair to subject an individual to the "unusual and excessive punishment" of a further inquisition.
There has to be an end to retrospective accounting. This was catered for in the double-jeopardy concept. Better to let some escape punishment (often having suffered the punishment of an initial inquisition already) than punish the innocent repeatedly, and cause them to live under threat indefinitely.

misterfox said...

We know that. In fact I mentioned Double Jeopardy in an article but to keep quoting the Magna Carta is silly. Take proper legal opinion on this rather than mislead people which is what you and Lawful Rebellion are doing.
Americans have their rights enshrined in constitutional law and amendments. To say their law is based on Magna Carta is pushing it. Why not get a proper legal opinion? When Albert Burgess and Dave Barnby did over their idea that the EU was an act of treason it was scoffed at. You bloggers have a lot of responsibility to your readers and you must not mislead them.