As you may have noticed the site hasn't been active during the last month in this time we have been hard at work on the new site which we are now pleased to present

Thanks to all the supporters we've gained here at it is now time to move to a new battlefield to continue the fight.

"England is no longer controlled by Britons, we are under the invisible Jewish dictatorship, a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life" - Nesta Helen Webster (1876 - 1960)

The Jewish Question Media Control Banking Control Crime Families
Jewish Lobby Terrorism Holocaust™ History
The EU Question Big Brother Tyrannical Laws Immigration EU History
General Films Enviro-marxism Brave Citizens Jew Lists Famous Quotes Other

Key News Stories

Man Arrested for sending out 7/7 DVD's

Gordon Brown Admits UK is in an Economic Depression

Face Scanners in Schools

All Emails to be recorded says EC Directive

Big Brother State goes after 4 Year olds

Western Apocalyspe, New World Order

MI5 say we are all potential terrorists

Poisoned Tap Water

Vermin Infested NHS Hospitals

Boycott Israel

Recent News

Rise in Attacks on British Jews

Jew owned Google up to their usual tricks

UK says no to Euro

Jews turn British Goyim into gambling addicts

Another Day, Another Retail Chain Collapses, Zavvi Eats Dirt

BBC fined for fraud again

Woolworths' Last Christmas, 30,000 Unemployed

Goldman Sachs swindle us again

Zionist Watch

Jews campaign for more asylum seekers

Why Do People Hate Israel ?

Ben Bradshaw MP 'Israel has history of bullying BBC'

Just Another Jewish Banking Scam

Trainee Rabbi accused of sexually assaulting 12-year-old boy

Rampant Rabbi Breeds again

Jew Scum Winehouse degrading the Caribbean

Psycho Jews Murder more innocent children

Crypto-Jew childrens TV actor jailed over child porn

Crypto-Jew Jack Straw to Jail Preachers for reading Bible

Britain's Top EU Cheerleader, Crypto-Jew Peter Mandelson

Britain's Top commercial campaigners for ID cards, Jewish Saatchi and Saatchi agency

British Jew Pervert has 7 wives and 8 children

Dictionary Corner




Health Info

Fluoride is detrimental to both physical and mental health and is known to be the root cause of many medical conditions and ailments, Non Fluoride toothpaste is available at most health stores and online and some brands can even be found in various supermarkets.

NHS Hospital Patient is starved to death

Gender Bending Chemicals in Plastic Bottles

Mobile Phones Causing Cancer

Overcrowded Hospitals Spreading Diseases

UV Radiation From Energy Saving Bulbs

Defend Your Home

Learn Archery

Buying and selling Crossbows and Airguns is not illegal in the UK, after the global economy collapses in 2009/2010 the crime rate will explode, your home will not be safe unless you are prepared to defend it, you have been warned.


Official Documents

Click the Image below to get Adobe Reader

POLICE CORRUPTION IN ENGLAND AND WALES: An assessment of current evidence 2003

UK DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE DOCUMENT Titled - DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036

Titled - Understanding and preventing police corruption: lessons from the literature 1999

A judge speaks up for British laws but when will we wake up to the REAL folly of human rights?

Note: This story highlights the latest in a long line of attempts by the Jews to encourage us to believe that they are against the EU, in this article not only does the writer Jewess Melanie Phillips encourage us to think that Jewish Judge Lord Hoffmann is our champion she also attempts to trick us into rejecting our rights, it is true that the EU human rights law is nothing more than a scam to allow criminals to escape conviction although it must be noted that the EU is in fact a Zionist front group that is slithering it's way towards transforming all of western Europe into a giant federal communist state, the EU themselves are an unelected group of criminals and it is for this reason that the human rights concept has been perverted to allow the EU administrators to escape conviction, don't allow the Jews to make it look as if human rights are bad, basic rights are what prevent normal countries like ours being turned into communist states.
Jews such as Phillips, Hoffman and others are not against the EU they are trying to co-opt and control the opposition to it, if they are that concerned about the effects the EU is having on national sovereignty they should have a word with Britain's top EU advocate Jew Peter Mandelson

Daily Mail 8th April 2009

Now he tells us! One of this country's top judges has torn into the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lord Hoffmann, the second most senior Law Lord, has questioned the court's constitutional legitimacy, ridiculed its judgments and said it should get its nose out of our national affairs.

Given the fact that human rights law has effectively become a secular religion for the higher judiciary, this is what you might call a flying wig moment.

Some of us, after all, have been saying for years what Lord Hoffmann has now proclaimed.

But before anyone gets carried away with elation that common sense has at last broken out among the judges, it should be realised that these comments stop well short of tackling the real problem.

Certainly, Lord Hoffmann lobbed some well-aimed hits at the Strasbourg court, saying it had gone beyond the boundaries of its own jurisdiction and that it should not be allowed to intervene in this way in the detail of domestic law.

He ridiculed the intellectual sloppiness of its rulings and the absurdity of deeming political or economic matters to be 'human rights' issues.

As he scoffed, what possible business is it of the Strasbourg judges to decide, for example, whether the elected government of the United Kingdom has struck the right balance concerning night flights at Heathrow?

And as he asked, since the actual application of 'universal' human rights varies from country to country, what is the point of the Strasbourg court at all? The court does actually provide some modest leeway to individual countries.

But as Lord Hoffmann said, it has nevertheless been unable to resist the temptation to impose uniformity and effectively lay down 'a federal law of Europe'.

He also ridiculed its legitimacy, claiming that the judges are elected by a committee chaired by a Latvian politician - on which the UK representatives are a Labour politician with a trade union background and no legal qualifications and a Conservative politician who was called to the Bar in 1972 but has never actually practised law.

Amen to all of that. It is, indeed, grotesque that unelected European judges - some of whom do not even come from countries adhering to the rule of law - should lay down what we can or cannot do.

But the Strasbourg court was set up in 1959. So why has Lord Hoffmann only now realised it is wrong for European judges to interfere with the right of individual countries to live according to the laws passed by their own democratically elected governments?

A clue might possibly be that the law lord - whose previous five minutes of fame occurred when he failed to declare an interest in Amnesty International while hearing the extradition case against Chilean dictator General Pinochet in which Amnesty was a party - is shortly to retire and therefore feels able finally to speak out.

But if he's always thought this way, then it's a pretty poor show that he's gone along with this travesty all these years.

For this country has seen its laws and values turned inside out because of the obeisance paid to the rulings of the European human rights court.

In some cases, these have unilaterally challenged moral norms without public opinion even being consulted, and have undermined concepts such as family life, truth, social order, citizenship and law itself.

So two cheers for Lord Hoffmann - certainly not the full hurrah, because he has stopped well short of following his own argument to its logical conclusion.

He has no problem with the Human Rights Convention, nor with Britain's Human Rights Act; he objects only to the Strasbourg court.

But the issue is much deeper than how the European judges have behaved. The real problem lies with human rights law itself.

The liberties of this country traditionally rested on the fact that rights were not codified but grew out of English common law. As a result, everything was permitted unless it was expressly prohibited.

Once codified into statute law, however, rights became dependent on what the courts said they were. So, far from expanding our liberties human rights law has diminished them.

The justification is that human rights are universal principles to which no reasonable person could object.

But the fact is that these are all abstract rights which have to be balanced against other rights. So these 'universal' principles are actually the product of the highly subjective prejudices and whims of the judges who conduct this trade-off process.

And forget Latvians or legally unqualified trade unionists at Strasbourg - our own judges operate human rights law through a highly ideological and even dictatorial prism.

Lord Bingham, the former senior Law Lord, actually declared that the Human Rights Convention existed to protect vulnerable minorities against the majority. So majority opinion, it seemed, was essentially illegitimate and the judiciary would use human rights law to do it down.

As a result, it has been used as a judicial battering ram by those determined to up-end this country's core values. The police and even the security service have been paralysed by the fear of damaging the rights of one 'grievance group' or another.

Christians have come under the human rights cosh for expressing a preference for heterosexual couples to adopt children.

Most egregiously of all, human rights law reduced asylum and immigration policy to chaos and destroyed this country's control over its own borders.

This was the result of the uniquely zealous way in which English judges interpreted Strasbourg's rulings against torture, making it impossible to deport suspected terrorists to any country suspected of abusing human rights.

No less devastating to the fabric of British society, the human rights culture galvanised special interest groups to make endless demands on the basis that these were 'rights' enshrined in law.

This created in turn a burgeoning industry of human rights lawyers and - despite acknowledging the ultimate supremacy of Parliament - effectively transferred much political power from Parliament to the courts.

The widespread public anger all this has caused has provoked first the Tories and then the Government into loose talk about reforming human rights law. Ministers prattle fatuously about a new law of 'rights and responsibilities'.

The Tories - who have rushed to embrace Lord Hoffmann's criticisms as their own - talk no less absurdly about a new British bill of rights which would repatriate human rights law from Strasbourg to Britain.

But this is nonsense, since as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights Britain would remain bound by Strasbourg's rulings - the very thing Lord Hoffmann has denounced.

There are two reasons why politicians are squirming in this way over reform of human rights law. First, they don't want to be portrayed as abolishing human rights. And second, they can't tinker with this law without repudiating the Human Rights Convention - and although the Convention has separate origins from the European Union, no country can be a member of the EU unless it is also a Convention signatory.

To some of us, of course, that is precisely why we should leave the EU, in order to restore our powers of self-government and democracy as expressed through our own laws.

Without facing up to that fact, all the huffing of Lord Hoffmann and puffing of politicians about the iniquities and imbecilities of human rights law will fail to right our culture of human wrongs.

No comments:


- Return To Main Menu -

My Zimbio
Top Stories
Hit CountersBlog Hit Counter