WHO RULES BRITAIN: MPs or Judges? The Home Secretary and the ‘EU Right to Family Life’

Theresa May, the Home Secretary in the Daily Mail – regarding the deportation of foreign criminals:

It is not for the judges to be legislators.

It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country – and not the judges. Yet some seem to believe they can ignore Parliament’s wishes.

… how to balance the foreigner’s right to family life against our nation’s right to protect itself…

… the central idea of our constitution which is that Parliament makes the law, and judges interpret what law is and make sure the executive complies with it.

… our democracy is subverted when judges decide to take on that role for themselves.

I need to write to her, asking about all those foreigners who are kept in prisons – apart from their children – after Local Councils managed to get judges to sanction what they are doing in secret family courts: take their children and hand them to foster carers, paedophiles or adoptive parents…

Who are the real criminals

  • everybody who knows what’s dishonest with our money system but doesn’t change it?
  • white collar criminals paid for working in public authorities, such as Police, IPCC, NHS who commit more crimes to cover up instead of apologising?
  • judges who sanction what white collar criminals get up to?

Do note what Tom Watson MP writes about the 2 kinds of fraud victims have been observing for decades:

  1. fraud by false representation
  2. fraud by failing to disclose information.

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in EU, Government, Human Rights Convention, Mainstream Media, Parliament and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to WHO RULES BRITAIN: MPs or Judges? The Home Secretary and the ‘EU Right to Family Life’






    • Dear Ismail

      Every victim hopes to get justice by going one level higher. As Edith Piaf sang: as long as there is life, there is hope.

      And you must keep trying on your own, while we are also trying to do something by helping each other and by grouping cases.

      Maybe, maybe we’ll get there some time, eventually! One success at a time!

      Keep the Faith and do your best, so that you can look yourself in the mirror!!!

  2. We have somehow to distinguish between what is proposed; what is perceived; and what is actually done in the name of the law and justice. Not quite as straightforward as one would hope, and as too many can testify.

    • You know, Maureen, it’s that hypocrisy that hurts me more than anything else:

      · The ridiculousness of the allegations against the Musas

      · The farce of lawfulness when we were told that the Jury was rigged

      · The veneer of legality when we knew the judge was following orders of his senior colleague who had told the Police they must not get bail!

      That’s what Montesquieu called TYRANNY:


  3. peter oakes says:

    We at Victims Unite know the judges usurp parliamentary democracy !

    There are no Human Rights in the UK because Article 1 ECHR along with
    Article 13 are missing ( by fraud-omission by british judges) from the UK
    Human Rights Act.

    The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Mirror all main stream media are fully aware
    of the facts and they lie to and mislead the UK Public.

    But perhaps the worst offenders are Shami Shakrabati and other fraudster
    at and in the Human Rights merry go-round based in London

    Forget law & justice there is non available to british European Citizens only
    criminals get their Rights ! just to confuse and to wind-up the general public

    Snag is the internet is educating the mass of citizens to these judicial fraudsters

  4. obsesiverights says:

    ANSWER; Directly the Judges Rule and they will continue to rule until each of the separated powers are transparent and answerable to the law and not above it;

    Government of the people, for the people, by the people. The separation of the powers without transparency has created an inability for the elected representatives of the people to Guard the Guards. Each separated authority has been allowed to self regulate and this self regulation is doomed to failure as the people at the top of each will ensure that they remain answerable only to themselves.Let nobody be above the law. The instant that any one of these individuals fail to ensure obedience to the legislation set down in statute by legislators acting in the public interest by democratic directions they betray democracy and their Oath of Office, and they will move heaven and hell to close ranks to keep their own breach of duty secret. By this means and under the perverse way they persuaded the legislation to be agreed in order to permanently protect themselves in parliament through the legislation that protects them from being exposed as lawbreakers. The rule of integrity is simple believe truth, do right and fight wrong. The rot has already set in. The Quango s that have been put in place have hardly any ability to Guard the Guards they are under resourced and even in the last resort they have no teeth. The only way to Guard the Guards is for everyone to be held responsible to the people under the law for their actions. It is not the law, and it is not loopholes in the law, that allow criminals to escape punishment. The weakness is in the adversarial legal system and the abuse of the use of discretion, where although common law defines discretion and the abuse of discretion, ruling that it should be used to support the rule of law. Judges, may be either misled or intend to use it to get the result they prefer rather than, ensuring the discretion is applied as the law intended. This behaviour challenges the integrity of the individual judge or judges, and the integrity and ability of the regulating authority to regulate.

    Judges have the power to make any order provided the order does not conflict with CPR or Statute. Victims of Legal Abuse have experienced Judges making orders outside the time limits set in statute and making orders that breach statute. Complaints have been made through the Judicial Complaint procedure where the matter is ended without being resolved. The statistics that show the numbers of complaints against the authorities speak volumes and if the people of this country are to be self governing then we must ensure that our MP’s take the appropriate action to regain control of the authorities they have allowed to get out of control. We hold the owner or person in charge of a company, a car, a dog, or property liable, if harm arises because of accident or negligence, we should therefore hold the government liable for the harm done by its authorities.

    The question asked is “Who shall Guard the Guards”: The answer is that we are each first and foremost responsible for ourselves, and that we all have a duty of care for each other. Therefore we all watch out for each other. For many years it has been acceptable for tennis, football, and other sports referees to make the judgment, but to satisfy the need to eliminate the questions of any doubt cameras recording the event use playback to ensure the decision is the right one. It is far more important to protect our legal system from “the negligent few” (a few is a few too many) and we can only do this if we make people liable for their own actions and decisions. This applies in all the separated powers.

    To be open and transparent, I remember in the 50’s we had gas and electricity meters and every so often the meter reader would come around to empty the meter and refund the overpayments in cash to my parents. From time to time we would get a different meter reader, I noted that when the meter reader collected the money and counted it out on the table in front of us we always got a bigger cash rebate than we did from the meter reader who was secretive when counting the money. I asked my parent about this and she said it was just a coincidence. But with the number of time this happened I was very sure that it was more than coincidence. I think that it must follow that we must have cameras and recording equipment in all courts and similar places where decisions are made that directly affect the public interest. (That is where decisions are being made in the name of the people). Those individuals that are responsible for the decisions will be making their opinion open and transparent, allowances will always be made for sincerely held beliefs even if they are wrong because they misunderstand, or have cause to doubt evidence. However the factors work in favour of recording for public view, include the influence of knowing that they will be held accountable for negligence, and findings and grounds for the findings will be made in the knowledge that the decisions must be seen to be based on the evidence and comply with legislation.

    John Love

    • This is exactly what many have been urging for so long. Judicial accountability with proof absolute of truth and integrity on the part of the judiciary and all their proceedings, so all may be assured that justice is done – and seen to be done. If those who dispense justice have nothing to hide; they have nothing to fear from cameras or other recording equipment.

  5. JM says:

    If you insist on writing to this nasty piece of work and can do so without laughing at the absurdity of what she says…actually, there is no point whatsoever trying to communicate with this ********. Those who do are threatened with official prison (never heard back from that guy, so i guess he is) or FTAC’d. This is the nasty piece of work that extradites people’s to be tortured after all, just for talking….at least what Gary McKinnon was alleged to have done is supposedly illegal, although not a crime…guess the fact that he is white helped him out there!
    & since when has a judge EVER held one of these ****** to account? never mind the executive…

    on the other hand I’m banned form leaving the country? what kind of sense does that make?

  6. We can identify the rackets we can identify the individuals controlling and taking part in these rackets. We have sufficient evidence to prosecute these people if we had a honest and legal Court system. My letter to PM Will explain why I think “our” legal system has failed and can no longer be trusted to act justly.

    Although this letter was written to support the Petition to return Bailie Kate Cooper to her parent, and does not refer directly to the Senior Judge that defied the International Court Order, it does show that the Courts are not adhering to the law and this manner of judicial “justice” is “justice at the whim of the Judge.
    Dear David Cameron,
    Re the attached Petition our democratic rights.
    Political dissent
    The protection of freedoms that facilitate peaceful dissent has become a hallmark of free and open societies. Let me first make clear that I only write material that I believe is true
    after considering the facts relating directly to the matter. I am not personally involved with forced adoptions, but I have a duty to my conscience to be candid and ask that you consider whether there has been fraud, error, or mistake, and consider the evidence
    presented in this petition and your own sources. You may then accept that the only honest and lawful action open to you is to immediately return Bailie Kate Cooper to her father and lawful guardian.

    The International Court Order has found that the UK government has sanctioned the removal of a child from her family’s place of residence, and taken her across international borders, using false documents, and against International, EU, and UK laws. These felons have been identified as a UK authority, acting under the unlawful protection of the UK judiciary.

    This International Court Judgement has Ordered the immediate return of Bailie Kate Cooper and has imposed the punishment of financial penalties for delay. The Judiciary and authorities have refused or failed to comply with this Order.

    The UK government has betrayed it’s Oath to administer justice according to the law. This is a betrayal of the Oath of office. The failure or refusal of the Judiciary to act according to law is breach of the Oath of Office and loss of the power to administer justice granted by the Crown.

    The British constitution, is based upon the power vested in HM the Queen, to whom The PM, Cabinet Ministers, and Judiciary swear or affirm allegiance before taking office.
    This gives the PM and the authorities power to govern the people according to law, in the name of the people, through the power invested in the Crown. All members of the Army swear (or affirm) allegiance to the Crown, and having served in the British Army I have taken the Oath of allegiance to the Crown.

    A breach by any of the consenting parties of the International Court Order is a matter of State, and you have a duty as PM to keep HM the Queen informed of matters of State and seek her advice. If you had previously understood the removal to have been lawful, the authority of English law was transferred to the International Court. The removal of Bailie Kate Cooper was executed under the UK policy of forced adoptions. The International Court has acted within the law to Order the return of Bailie Kate Cooper this is within the legislation common to all the High contracting parties and would remain consistent with the law for all families in respect the HRA.

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard has issued an apology to people affected by Australia’s forced
    adoption policy between the 1950s and 1970s. Tens of thousands of babies and many times that number of parents and relatives were caused harm from what she called; ”unethical, dishonest, and probably illegal practice”.

    The internet web site; www. telegraph.co.uk. Friday 5th April 2013. News ;- Australia’s scandal of forced adoption is happening here in Britain The forcible removal of children by social workers in Australia between the 1950s and the 1970s.

    The question was put by Florence Bellone to Professor Eileen Munro about whether in the future we may see an apology in the UK. Her response was: “I would not be surprised if a future generation looks back and thinks how horrific the quality of our work was and the damage that we did to families.”

    The Rt Hon John Hemming MP Chairman of Justice for Families Campaign Group has raised Early Day Motions attempting to reduce the number of injustices where families are damaged by false allegations, and have children taken from them by local authority.

    You will be aware that the International Court Order concerning Bailie Kate Cooper, has exposed this unlawful conduct as part of an abusive campaign for forced adoptions. In view of the shock, anger, bitterness, helplessness, loss of respect, and dignity, that festers forever in the mind. This evil practice which has been thoroughly condemned by Julia Gillard , Professor Eileen Munro, and MPs must be ended. As it tortures not just the victims, and families of victims, but the conscience of all right thinking people, and is recognised as one of the most severe personal injuries that can be inflicted on people.

    Politically and humanely you have a “Golden Opportunity” to recognise the problem and make your own “Positive Change”. Decide to act and reverse the massively destructive harm that has been done, and is being done through this corrupt practice, that has been going on for generations.

    I hope that you are able to act with honesty and integrity, and take immediate steps to rectify this matter which is of significant importance to many thousands of families . It is shameful, that some families have felt obliged to leave this country and seek refuge or hide themselves in a foreign country, rather than have their children taken away from them.

    I would be grateful to hear from you in respect of this petition, and I have attached copies of my emails to the Rt Hon Fiona Mctaggart.

    Yours sincerely
    John Love QFSM
    This part did not form any part of the letter but may explain my thought process;

    am not a lawyer but my understanding of what the words in an Oath of allegiance means; is a marriage of loyalty to the Queen as Monarch her heirs and successors and the officers appointed under her. The Oath is a binding contract, and the Contract of the Magna Carta was a signed contract.

    It does not take a signed document to make the Oath it is enough to know that the Office appointed by the Crown must take the Oath. (Otherwise he or she cannot take Office) and it is only HM the Queen and the Officers appointed under her that have the Power. Therefore any breach of the Oath is disloyalty, or treachery, and any power that is used in breach of the Oath is not, and cannot be said to be done in the name of HM the Queen, or by Crown authority. I welcome comments or likes to provide support for this my belief and point of view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s