Translate

Friday, 31 January 2014

Tories claim people who believe in God are "whacko"

2Like ·  · 

How to deal with false rape allegations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549106/Up-one-three-rape-claims-written-police-Four-day-reclassified-no-crime-huge-variations-different-forces.html

http://muslimvillage.com/2014/01/06/48240/saudi-man-sentenced-for-false-adultery-accusation/

024.004
YUSUFALI: And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
PICKTHAL: And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -
SHAKIR: And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors,


If you accuse a woman falsely of being a fornicatress or an adulteress for which she would be punished with 100 lashes if found guilty, then you would receive 80 lashes.

The converse would apply to women who falsely accuse men of rape.

If his punishment is 1000 lashes if convicted of rape, then she would get 800 lashes.

If his punishment would be to pay her £10,000 in compensation for personal injury if it were established that he did rape her, she would have to pay him £8,000 if it were later established that her rape accusation was false.  Sorted.  

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Should rape be treated as a personal injury for which damages are payable?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547727/Women-drunk-men-risk-rape-says-agony-aunt-Irma-Kurtz-faces-backlash-latest-advice.html

and for which contributory negligence is also attributable?

How typical of Jane Garvey of Woman's Hour to imply that women must always right, even when they are clearly wrong.  That programme does more to lower and corrupt the morals of this nation than any kind of pornography.

A quantum of damages could be established.

How should damages be calculated and assessed?

It should always be enough to make the woman half hope that the rapist would do it again.

Should all rape victims be compensated at the same rate?  Surely it is insulting to award a rape victim who is a virgin the same amount as a prostitute? It is after all the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally.

Many interesting questions are raised by this proposal and I am sure lawyers will have fun discussing and solving this problem.  

Friday, 24 January 2014

Order of Judge Blackett refusing me permission to seek judicial review received today

THE ARGUMENTS I USED IN COURT

The Conservative Party is far from being a club, since it exercises powers that affect the rights of individuals and society.

Not only that, the Conservative Party has a role in choosing who becomes a member of the Legislature (ie Members of Parliament) and the Executive (ie Prime Minister) and these have the power to start wars as well as change the meaning of marriage.

Saying that a political party is like a club is to totally misunderstand the nature of both.

A club exists solely for the benefit of its members and of course members of a club should be able to remove any of its members if they decide for any reason at all that they don't want him any more.

A political party has the purpose of promoting a political ideology. What then is the political ideology of the Conservative Party?

Nobody knows.

There is actually a shocking Australian case of a sitting Premier of Victoria, who was expelled from his own party.

 He sued them in 1934 but received no satisfaction.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596/96rp21

The Tory Party does indeed exercise the functions of a public body and Datafin supports this.

http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/RVPANE_1%20DOC.pdf

Donaldson MR:

“No one could have been in the least surprised if the Panel has been instituted and operated under the direct authority of statute law, since it operates in the public domain. Its jurisdiction extends throughout the United Kingdom. Its codes and rulings apply equally to all who wish to make take-over bids or promote mergers, whether they are members of bodies represented on the panel. Its lack of a statutory base is a complete anomaly."

Lloyd LJ:

"It is helpful to look not just to look at the source but the nature of the power. If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its powers have public consequences, then that may be sufficient to bring the body within the reach of judicial review. The essential distinction is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand, and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other."

Part IV 17.7 of the constitution.

17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall oversee all activities within the Party and in particular be
responsible for –
17.7 the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party Member or prospective Party Member; 

Yet on page 28 of the constitution, it states:

Natural Justice
28 Any removal of rights of membership of, or removal of office or other position from, any Association or other body within the Party will only be made after due consideration of natural justice.

To say that any member can be expelled without warning or explanation can only mean that that provision excludes the exercise of the rules of natural justice.

It is clearly a very confused and capricious piece of drafting. Perhaps it just means that only certain members will get a hearing that adheres to the rules of natural justice, but only if it feels like it, and it is a blue moon.

Below is what they said when they dismissed my appeal:

Decision of the Conservative Party Disciplinary Committee in the matter of the appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against her expulsion from the Conservative Party by the Board

The Committee met at Conservative Campaign Headquarters, 30 Millbank on Wednesday 27th March 2013 to consider an appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against the decision by the Board to expel her from membership of the Conservative Party.

Members of the Disciplinary Committee who heard the Appeal on the papers were:

Simon Mort (Chairman)
John Flack
Pauline Lucas
In attendance: Marcus Booth

The Committee DISMISSED the appeal.

Based on the evidence provided (including by Ms Khaw), the Committee concluded that Ms Khaw's publicly stated views and values, together with her conduct (that the Committee were in a position to appraise) are such that they are not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party, which is not an absolute right.

The aims, objectives and ******policies************* of the Conservative Party are freely available to read and Ms Khaw should have reasonably appraised herself of these before applying to join the Party.

The Defendant is referring to its POLICIES when what is at issue is its PRINCIPLES.

The Defendant is being misleading or is genuinely ignorant of the difference between a policy and a principle.

A policy is what you say to others you do, and your policies should conform to your principles, if you are a political party.

To persistently conflate their principles with policies found in their manifesto, which are but mere promises which they may not even keep, and which would change every 5 years, made for the purpose of inducing voters to vote to them, is evidence of a fundamental philosophical error as to the nature of what a principle is and what principles are for.

Such a party is a fraud its members as well as a fraud on the voting public.

That is bad enough, but there is worse to come. It gives its members NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

In theory, even the Prime Minister himself could be expelled from the Conservative Party!

This was what in fact happened to the Premier of Victoria, Edmond Hogan in 1932.

Who are the members of the Board of the Conservative Party?

It seems they have the power to topple the Prime Minister!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#Organisation
The Conservative Party Board is the party's ultimate decision making body, responsible for all operational matters (including fundraising, membership and candidates) and is made up of representatives from each (voluntary, political and professional) section of the Party.[91] The Party Board meets about once a month and works closely with CCHQ, elected representatives and the voluntary membership mainly through a number of management sub-committees (such as membership, candidates and conferences).

I did go on about Lord Rennard a bit to the bemusement of the court, saying that how he was being treated is in fact typical of how activists are routinely abused by the leadership.

3 important legal principles were being set aside in the case of Lord Rennard:

1. The retrospective nature of his punishment. Retrospective legislation is against the rules of natural justice because it punishes someone for a crime that was not a crime when it was committed. It has already been admitted by Lord Greaves that half the members of the House of Lords have pinched the bottom of a woman. When they did they had no idea that they would be taken to court and their names dragged through the mud for so doing.

2. The principle of double jeopardy. How many investigations and hearings are they going to have in order to find him guilty of something or other?

3. The principle of being treated as innocent until found guilty, after a fair trial.

The other point I raised was that the legal fiction of a political party not being a public body and therefore subject to judicial review should now be finally done away with.

The Conservative Party constitution allows any member to be expelled without warning or explanation. This means the PM himself could in theory be expelled if the Board of the Conservative Party decide to get rid of him.

This did indeed happen in Cameron v Hogan when a sitting Australian Premier of the State of Victoria - Edmond Hogan - was expelled from his own party in 1934.

I pointed out that if that happened it would provoke a constitutional crisis, and this cannot be denied.

After lunch, all he could come up with was that if the every member of the Conservative Party left the party, it would be no more.

I still have no idea what point he was making.

Of course he went on about the Tory Party being a voluntary association and how precedent has always treated it as such, blah blah.

But nothing substantive.

He said he was refusing it on the ground of legal precedent.  I believe, reading between the lines, he was hinting that he was minded to accept my arguments but felt tied down by about a century or so of precedent.

He asked me if I would appeal if it went against me and I said yes.  Knowing that the Conservative Party certainly would appeal it if it went against them, and their advocate had hardly prepared for the hearing, and would have sought an adjournment if compelled to argue it properly, he thought the best way forward was to refuse my application, leaving it to me to appeal.  I agreed that this would be the best way forward.

I tried to persuade him to grant me my application and leave it to the Tories to appeal, but he was having none of it.


Judge Blackett's Order

Request for Reconsideration



Justice Ouseley's Order


A proposed three-pronged attack for Lord Rennard's consideration

I.  See to it that Nick Clegg pays for being so wrong about how he mishandled everything.  He obviously should have got the complainants and Lord Rennard together and told the complainants that anyone who says anything more about the matter would be expelled from the party for bringing it into disrepute.  If Lord Rennard did do it, he should not do it again, or there would be Big Trouble for him.  
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf
A. Leadership election rules 
The rules for the election of a leader of the federal Liberal Democrat party are set down in its
Constitution. The Constitution was agreed in 1988, on the formation of the Liberal
Democrats.  
No changes were made to the leadership election rules between the formation of the party and the 2004 edition of the Constitution, which specified: 

10.1 The Leader of the Party shall be elected by the members of the Party in
accordance with election rules made pursuant to Article 8.4.

10.2 An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
(a) the Leader asking for an election;
(b) the death or incapacity of the Leader;
(c) the Leader ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons (other
than a temporary cessation by reasons of a dissolution;
(d) the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a
declaration of intent to resign upon the election of new Leader;
(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of
all Members of the Parliamentary party in the House of Commons;
(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75
Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated
Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students)
following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or
(g) the first anniversary of the preceding general election being reached
without an election being called under any of paragraphs (a) through
(f), provided that:
(i) the Federal Executive may postpone such an election for no
more than one year by a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting; and
(ii) this paragraph (g) shall not apply if the Leader is a member
of the Government. 

II.   Applying for judicial review which, if successful, would subject the LibDems' actions (and the way they rode roughshod over established and important legal and liberal principles) to scrutiny by the judiciary. They are:

(i)     the rule against retrospective legislation (Lord Rennard could not possibly have known that touching a woman's knee all those years ago could have landed him in such hot water now.)

(ii)    the rule that we have the right to be treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

(iii)   the rule against double jeopardy

III.  Issuing defamation proceedings against his accusers, and their running dogs.  This would include the leader as well as the party itself, for

(a)   implying that Lord Rennard had committed a crime by putting this matter in the  hands of the police

(b)   insisting that he had something to apologise for, even when they knew they could not prove in a court of law that he was guilty, either to a criminal or civil standard

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

Whom do you think would be more upset in the Lord Rennard affair?

In the Lord Rennard affair, whom do you think would be more upset?


  • The Lib Dem women and their running dogs complaining about Lord Rennard
  • Lord Rennard

Of course, the blatant betrayal of this activist is counted for absolutely nothing.  The women are upset claiming they were groped years ago, and the man accused must be punished, whether it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that he is.  How liberal is this of the Liberal Democrats?  Have you noticed that these women and Nick Clegg don't care

Is Nick Clegg a fair representation of the moral quality of man that emerges from Westminister School these days?  If so parents might as well save their money and send their sons to the local comp instead.   

Let me say this, appeasing these women would have worse consequences than appeasing Hitler.  Hitler would have stopped at France before going East, and then invited Britain into the New World Order of Pax Britannia et Germania. The women make clear that they wish to do away with following hard-won but established principles that protect us against tyranny:

  1. the rule against retrospective legislation because it retrospectively criminalises something that was not a crime at the time it was committed  
  2. double jeopardy
  3. the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial

If I were a man I would be very worried indeed.  After all, there is no telling what kind of malicious and false accusations that could be made against you years after the alleged event, once you become rich and famous, is there?  Does Operation Yew Tree ring any alarm bells?  

The Lord Rennard affair has wider significance than just the LibDems, and it is hoped that Lord Rennard will not weaken in his resolve to seek a legal remedy to this spectacular betrayal of a loyal party activist and benefactor at the behest of a few mediocre and malicious women.  

If this is not evidence that most women are not fit for politics, I really do not know what is.  If this is not an argument that women should henceforth have their influence in politics sharply limited, I do not know what is. 

How odd that no one gets this or is prepared to make this point.  If the leftist female-dominated media won't make this point because they are an amoral tribe of wailing banshees with no sense of fairness and justice, and the men are too afraid to offend them, then this point must be pursued vigorously in the courts.

If the feelings of this man is to be dismissed as nothing by everyone, then worse acts of betrayal and abuse of party activists will be treated with equal indifference.  

If this continues to happen, the already small and shallow puddle of political talent will become even smaller and shallower, and will soon dry up altogether.  

Let us hope that the British judiciary still works well enough to address such matters of manifest injustice, and will be called upon to do so, even as everyone else's marbles are rolling around the floor.  

Thursday, 23 January 2014

What I would like the political parties of Britain to do for me

FIRST UNDERTAKING

The Conservative Party can go and get itself some principles. If they are having difficulty formulating any, I propose the following:

"The Conservative Party supports, first and foremost, the principle of free speech and of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest. The national interest includes solvency, social stability through the promotion of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, stable prices through fiscal prudence as well as the maintenance of standards of morality and education that would be considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next.  It is the intention of the Conservative Party to use the Koran as its guide."
SECOND UNDERTAKING

The Labour Party should change their constitution and allow Lord Mandelson to become their leader even though he is not an MP.  Or perhaps just get Diane Abbott to do it, if they can't quite manage that.

THIRD UNDERTAKING

The LibDems can expel Nick Clegg for bringing their party into disrepute and replace him with the legally-trained Simon Hughes.

FOURTH UNDERTAKING

UKIP can propose an EU referendum and the repeal of the Equality Act 2010

FIFTH UNDERTAKING

The BNP can propose the reintroduction of fault into divorce to show that they support sensible things such as marriage, which undeniably does have a bearing on the quality of your race. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
'The whites have become black' says David Starkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517
Democrats' (in the UK, substitute Labour for Democrat) idea voter: illegal alien, single mother, convicted felon
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html
“Victim of a crime? Thank a Single Mother.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html

SIXTH UNDERTAKING

See to it that Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill gets Royal Assent. http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

SEVENTH UNDERTAKING

Become a unicameral one-party state and use the Chinese Communist Party constitution mutatis mutandis. Their Article 4 gives party members rights that are to die for. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/229722.htm#2

EIGHTH UNDERTAKING

Suggest to the Chinese government that they might like to follow the British model for their one-party state viz allow judicial review of party decisions affecting the rights of party members.

NINTH UNDERTAKING

The Lower House in particular to take an interest in Khaw v Con Party 
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-conservative-party-has-filed-its.html and cheer me on when it gets to the Court of Appeal.  If I win this one, it will mean that I have negotiated for all MPs of all parties better working conditions, because it means that their leader and their party can no longer abuse them and kick them around any more. They will no longer be abused by their party and their leader if the courts can judicially review any decision made by their leader and his cronies to unfairly and irrationally demote, suspend or expel a member, or in any way unfairly deprive him of his rights.

TENTH UNDERTAKING

Discuss the truth or otherwise of what Schopenhauer said about women after subjecting the women who made the complaints against Lord Rennard to rigorous and vigorous cross examination to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard was indeed guilty of what he was accused of.

 "The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women





If MPs want to think of me as their Shop Steward, I will certainly not stop them from doing so.  My dear mother was a union representative in her time, so it could be said that a family tradition of speaking up for people too stupid and scared to speak up for themselves runs in my veins.

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos shall be my motto.

"Roman! let this be your care, this your art;
to rule over the nations and impose the ways
of peace, to spare the underdog, and pull down
the proud."
— Aneid VI. 851 

Who are the proud that shall not be spared?  The ones who have no principles, and who say:

"The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." 

Who are the strong?  The party leader and his cronies including his nagging wife.

Who are the weak?  The individual party member.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0200:book=5:chapter=89:section=1

I dedicate my legal action to Lord Rennard - the worst-treated party activist in British history - who has been in his party for 40 years and joined as an adolescent.  It is now being proposed that he be expelled to satisfy the implacable demands of a bunch of malicious women if he does not apologise and leave himself open to legal action.  It would probably be kinder to assassinate him with an ice pick, methinks.


Who should be the next LibDem leader after Nick Clegg is expelled for bringing the party into disrepute?

I like that Simon Hughes, who is at least legally-trained and will know what I am on about when I propose electoral reform.

I remember him to be a terribly nice chap when he interviewed me as his potential parliamentary secretary, years ago. The silly LibDems didn't choose him because he was neither handsome nor charismatic, but he would have been a safe pair of hands and would never have allowed the LibDem shit to hit the fan in such a spectacularly excremental fashion.

Very sensibly, he has refrained from taking sides in the Lord Rennard affair, which shows a degree of character and old-fashioned mental discipline.

Simon Hughes MP : a safe pair of hands, and the next LibDem leader?  

We also know he cannot be pussywhipped by his wife, being gay and all.  

A statute of limitations on sexual assault


What is the statute of limitations on statutory rape? 

The statute of limitations on statutory rape varies from state to state and depends on whether the crime is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is considered less serious than a felony and in most states it carries a shorter statute of limitations. Whether an incident of statutory rape is prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony often depends on the age difference between the two parties. For example, in California the statute of limitations on misdemeanor statutory rape is one year and is charged when the two people involved are less than three years apart in age at the time of the crime, if the two people are more than three years apart at the time of the crime the charge become a felony and the statute of limitations increases to three years. To find out more about the differences between misdemeanor and felony statutory rape, including the statutes of limitations on each, contact your state Attorney Generals Office.

I rather think Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, the late Jimmy Savile, DLT, Lord Rennard et al and other men who might be looking over their shoulder now might just be supportive of my proposal.

If I were leader of a political party, this is what I would propose, though I imagine not even Nick Griffin (and most certainly not Nigel Farage who is such a moral coward that he refuses to contemplate proposing the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 even when the constitution of UKIP would certainly support his doing so) would touch this with a barge-pole, such is the cowardice of effeminate British male politicians these days.

Who has brought the Liberal Democrats most into disrepute as a party?

Who has brought the Liberal Democrats most into disrepute as a party?


  1. Nick Clegg
  2. Lord Rennard
  3. Lord Rennard's supporters
  4. The women accusing Lord Rennard
  5. The supporters of the women accusing Lord Rennard

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

Why the rights of MPs *must* be protected, so they can do a better job

About Lord Rennard, yes, I do know that he


  1. is a politician.
  2. is a LibDem politician. 
  3. is on the heavy side, though I imagine he might have lost a bit of weight from the stress his suspension has caused him.
  4. probably did do it, but in my view deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

It is only now that brings home to mind this liberal saying that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than that a single innocent man is punished.  

This is of course an extreme expression of principle.  Even if he probably did do it, should be be treated as if he had not?  Does such a man deserve justice?  He is after all a politician, and we know how despised they are.  

Their rights and liberties count for nothing, because they are so hated.  The fairness or otherwise of their punishment is neither here nor there.  They common view is that they deserve to be punished just for being politicians, and this hatred is visceral and implacable.  

They are hated as much as the way people used to hate blacks and Jews, I imagine: believing them to be either obviously inherently inferior and to be pitied and avoided or too cunning to be ever trusted.  

They are these days hated because they are too afraid to do their jobs, which is to express the views and acknowledge the preferences of those whom they purport to represent.

If they ever say anything interesting or remotely truthful, they will invariably be apologising for it before too long.  

It is probably this apologetic reflex that made Nick Clegg think saying sorry is nothing more than standard procedure to get oneself out of trouble and had expected Lord Rennard to follow suit. To say sorry was, for Nick Clegg, just like saying it when you had bumped into someone or trodden on their foot.  It is instinctive and just basic good manners, he said, suggesting that Lord Rennard was in some way uncouth and ill-bred for not laying himself open to civil action by vindictive LibDem women who want him punished more because he did not have the instinctive servility to obey immediately and without question.

Because most people hate politicians and it is an occupational hazard of politicians to say things that will be considered offensive to another who holds the opposite view is precisely why the rights of politicians must be protected, in order that they can do their jobs properly.  Otherwise, we would be sending in soldiers into battle without weaponry, or sending sewage workers into sewers or firemen into fires without proper protective clothing.  

At this time, politicians are either too stupid or scared to even think of protesting about their working conditions and their employer - their party leader who routinely abuses them - because to end up being expelled from your party means you are shop-soiled as far as any other party is concerned.  

Being expelled from our party is a bit like having potential spouses find out that  one has been a victim of rape.  People who discover this will simply assume that you are a trouble maker (calling into question your morals), or joined the wrong party (calling into question your judgment).  

Yep, I know all about that, and how career-ending it is for most people to end up being expelled from their party.  

When Peter Bone MP proposed the abolition of the office of the whip in the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wondered how many MPs took that seriously enough to even understand its purpose. I know mine did not, or he pretended he did not understand it, and said he was too busy to take the time to do so.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm

And so we add to the list of why we hate politicians denial as well as incompetence, corruption, cowardice and hypocrisy.

While I would stand up for the right of BNP supporters to complain about immigration, I think standing up for the mostly rotten political classes is one step beyond the pale.  

But if one unashamedly unsuccessful activist - me - who supports unpopular causes won't stand up for them, then who will?  They are the ones most in need of support and improved working conditions, and I have the solution for them as well the road map to electoral reform.  

What do they have to do in return to get this?

Why, take an interest in Khaw v Con Party, of course, all the way up to the highest court in the land, because this is a matter of the gravest constitutional importance while discussing it amongst themselves.

I really hope I will get a few intelligent questions from time to time after all the sacrifices and risks I am taking on behalf of a class of people whom I suspect fear to be seen to be associated with me and probably doubt my sanity.  

Free legal advice for Lord Rennard

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/this-is-becoming-a-disastrous-mess-lord-rennard-hires-top-lawyer-as-sexual-harassment-affair-escalates-9075757.html

Do not seek an injunction to restrain the LibDems from behaving illegally, Lord Rennard.

What you should do is allow the LibDems to get as much rope they need to hang themselves.

What they have done is behave with manifest unfairness and trample over long-established legal principles of


  1. the right to be treated as innocent till proven guilty
  2. retrospective legislation being vindictive and arbitrary as well as going against the Rule of Law
  3. double jeopardy

Just let them do it and even expel you, which they will.  Can there be any doubt about what the LibDems will decide when they "investigate" whether you have brought the party into disrepute?

I shall certainly be appealing against the refusal to grant me permission to seek judicial review at the Court of Appeal,  paving the way for you and others like you, who will - should this application succeed - give politicians a legal remedy when their rights are routinely abused by their leader and their party.   

Once I receive the judgment it will be straight to the Court of Appeal with this on whether a political party is amenable to judicial review.

Do not compromise, because yours is the worst case of member abuse I have ever heard, ever, if you don't count actually physically assaulting and murdering party members.

If you compromise, you will have given back party leaders carte blanche to piss and shit all over members and activists.  

Your career with the LibDems is now over, but you can still make a political point by refusing to back down.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/khaw-v-con-party-renewal-hearing-on-21.html

Khaw v Con Party Renewal hearing on 21 January 2014 at the Royal Courts of Justice

I am sorry, but I really can't be bothered to write this up properly.


Claire Khaw, what precisely is expected to happen in court tomorrow regarding your case against the Conservative Party?
  • Claire Khaw 20 minutes for me, 10 minutes for the Tories. 

    I am representing myself, the Tories will be legally represented.
  • Andy Kimber looks like you are 3rd on,and if the first one is at 10.30,you would on at about 11.30?
  • Leon What precisely will you do? Lay out the skeleton of your case, nothing too in depth?

    Where can the court case times be found?
  • Andy Kimber the RCJ website
  • Leon Could you post the link on here, please?
  • Claire Khaw http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-rcj

    COURT 27

    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    COURT 27
    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    CO/2822/2013 The Queen on the application of Masoud v Westminster City Council 
    CO/9046/2013 The Queen on the application of Ukaegbu v Middlesex University
    CO/8019/2013 The Queen on the application of Khaw v Conservative Party
    CO/7762/2013 The Queen on the application of Tank v Secretary Of State For The Home Department


    www.justice.gov.uk
    Administrative Court at the RCJ daily cause listShare thisCause list Friday, 17 ...See more
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoe It makes no sense for any sane person to want Claire put performance for tomorrow's court hearing here for what ? Somebody to evaluate or what ? Her blog has indicated enough of her case and what she deems senseless about her removal from the Conservative Party. In the blog a lot of so called violations against the party by her are shown. And Claire refutes them. She asked questions about what constitutes violations , free speech and when the violations were committed.
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party constitution does indeed give them the right to remove any member without warning or explanation at its absolute discretion.
  • Andy Kimber i cant get there til about 12.30 and i think that will be too late 
  • Claire Khaw This would exclude the right to being heard by an unbiased tribunal according to the rules of natural justice. 

    They will no doubt argue that the Tory Party is not a public body and therefore not subject to judicial review. It is only a private club and the courts must not interfere, they will say.
  • Claire Khaw You can always meet us for drinks later!
  • Leon Actually, Anthony, I wholeheartedly support Claire's actions here. The Conservative Party does not seem to know what a principle is. If I were around, I would be in the court early in excitement!
  • Andy Kimber the court bit is the bit i wouldnt want to miss!
  • Claire Khaw I will say it is far from being a club, since it exercises powers that affect the rights of individuals and society. 

    Not only that, the Conservative Party has a role in choosing who becomes a member of the Legislature (ie Members of Parliament) and 
    the Executive (ie Prime Minister) and these have the power to start wars as well as change the meaning of marriage. 

    Saying that a political party is like a club is to totally misunderstand the nature of both. 

    A club exists solely for the benefit of its members and of course members of a club should be able to remove any of its members if they decide for any reason at all that they don't want him any more. 

    A political party has the purpose of promoting a political ideology. What then is the political ideology of the Conservative Party? 

    Nobody knows.
  • Claire Khaw There is actually a shocking Australian case of a sitting Premier of Victoria, who was expelled from his own party.
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoehttp://tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com/logic-and-justice.xhtml

    tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com
    Logic and Justice are related. There Can be no Justice without Truth. Logic is a way of knowing certain Truths. Spiritual Truth escapes domain of
  • Claire Khaw He sued them in 1934 but received no satisfaction.
  • Claire Khaw I will say that the Tory Party does indeed exercise the functions of a public body and Datafin supports this. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/.../R_(Datafin_plc)_v_Panel_for...


    en.wikipedia.org
    R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc is a 1986 case decided...See more
  • Leon I have just read out Claire's intentions to my grandmother, and she SUPPORTS her! Ahoy Khaw!
  • Claire Khaw Donaldson MR

    “No one could have been in the least surprised if the Panel has been instituted and operated under the direct authority of statute law, since it operates in the public domain. Its jurisdiction extends throughout the United Kingdom. It
    s codes and rulings apply equally to all who wish to make take-over bids or promote mergers, whether they are members of bodies represented on the panel. Its lack of a statutory base is a complete anomaly.
  • Leon “Conservatives KHAWnered and KHAWterised in KHAWt by sure KHAWrageous Khaw!”
  • Claire Khaw Lloyd LJ:

    "It is helpful to look not just to look at the source but the nature of the power. If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its powers have public consequences, then that may be sufficient to bring 
    the body within the reach of judicial review. The essential distinction is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand, and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other."
  • Claire Khaw Part IV 17.7 of the constitution. 

    17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall oversee all activities within the Party and in particular be 

    responsible for – 

    17.7 the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party Member or prospective Party Member; 

    Yet on page 28 of the constitution, it states:

    Natural Justice 

    28 Any removal of rights of membership of, or removal of office or other position from, any Association or other body within the Party will only be made after due consideration of natural justice.
  • Leon After the Secular Koranist revolution, I will insist that ‘court’ be re-spelt as ‘khawt’ thereafter.
  • Claire Khaw To say that any member can be expelled without warning or explanation can only mean that that provision excludes the exercise of the rules of natural justice. 

    It is clearly a very confused and capricious piece of drafting. Perhaps it just means that only certain members will get a hearing that adheres to the rules of natural justice, but only if it feels like it, and it is a blue moon.
  • Claire Khaw Below is what they said when they dismissed my appeal:

    Decision of the Conservative Party Disciplinary Committee in the matter of the appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against her expulsion from the Conservative Party by the Board


    The Committee met at Conservative Campaign Headquarters, 30 Millbank on Wednesday 27th March 2013 to consider an appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against the decision by the Board to expel her from membership of the Conservative Party.

    Members of the Disciplinary Committee who heard the Appeal on the papers were:

    Simon Mort (Chairman)
    John Flack
    Pauline Lucas
    In attendance: Marcus Booth
    The Committee DISMISSED the appeal.

    Based on the evidence provided (including by Ms Khaw), the Committee concluded that Ms Khaw's publicly stated views and values, together with her conduct (that the Committee were in a position to appraise) are such that they are not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party, which is not an absolute right.

    The aims, objectives and ******policies************* of the Conservative Party are freely available to read and Ms Khaw should have reasonably appraised herself of these before applying to join the Party.

    [It is interesting, is it not, that the Defendant is referring to its POLICIES when what is at issue is its PRINCIPLES.

    The Defendant is being misleading or is genuinely ignorant of the difference between a policy and a principle.]
  • Claire Khaw A policy is what you say to others you do, and your policies should conform to your principles, if you are a political party.
  • Leon Principles are underpinned by ideology. If the Conservative Party has no principles (or does not know what this word means), it has no ideology at all — least of all conservative principles derived from a conservative ideological foundation.

    The party should be renamed.
  • Claire Khaw What should it be called?
  • Leon I can think of a few suggestions:

    (i) No-Principles Party;

    (ii) Blank Party;
    (iii) Nothingness Party;
    (iv) Unsure Party;
    (v) ‘A Party’.
  • Claire Khaw The Whateverist Party.
  • Claire Khaw which supports Whateverism ...
  • Leon The Anything Goes Party.
  • Claire Khaw The Whatever the Voter Will Accept Party
  • Claire Khaw Such a party is a fraud its members as well as a fraud on the voting public.
  • Leon The logical conclusion of establishing that the Conservative Party has no principles, is that it can no longer be said to advocate or promote conservatism.
  • Claire Khaw That is bad enough, but there is worse to come. It gives its members NO RIGHTS AT ALL. 

    In theory, even the Prime Minister himself could be expelled from the Conservative Party! 

    This was what in fact happened to the Premier of Victoria, Edmond Hogan in 1932.
  • Claire Khaw Who are the members of the Board of the Conservative Party? 

    It seems they have the power to topple the Prime Minister!
  • Leon Will any representative from the Conservative Party, excluding their lawyer, make an appearance tomorrow?
  • Claire Khaw I have no idea.
  • Claire Khaw I hope so. I want there to be as many people as possible in court.
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party Board is the party's ultimate decision making body, responsible for all operational matters (including fundraising, membership and candidates) and is made up of representatives from each (voluntary, political and professional) section of the Party.[91] The Party Board meets about once a month and works closely with CCHQ, elected representatives and the voluntary membership mainly through a number of management sub-committees (such as membership, candidates and conferences).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)...


    en.wikipedia.org
    The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party and collo...See more
  • Leon How did it go, Claire?
  • Adrienne Hartley Yes I'd like to know too.
  • Leon Claire sent me a text earlier to say that the judge believed that whatever his decision, the other party would appeal, so he decided that the best way forward would be to refuse Claire's application on the grounds of legal precedent so as to allow her to appeal.

    Appeal Court, here she comes!
    8 hours ago · Unlike · 3
  • Claire Khaw Yes, he seemed quite encouraging. To say he refused it on the ground of legal precedent, if you read between the lines, was that he was minded to accept my arguments but felt tied down by precedent. 

    I tried to persuade him to grant me my application and leave it to the Tories to appeal, but he was having none of it.
    51 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw He did advise me to seek professional legal advice (which is standard procedure for litigants in person) even though he said there was nothing wrong with the way I had presented it, which was jolly nice of him.
  • Claire Khaw Jeffrey Marshall and Eddy Butler did say unkind things about my rather shambolic presentation, and in particular my failure to bring the judgement of Datafin with me. 

    When I got home I found it on my unmade bed.
    42 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw The other side was quite funny though. The solicitor advocate did a Manuel in court: "I know NOTHING. My clients have not been in touch with me all these months. I do not even have the papers the Claimant is referring to. I do not have the Conservative Party constitution the Claimant is referring to and is claiming is contradictory, confused and capricious. I have not prepared and was under the impression that the Claimant's application is certain to be refused. I shall seek an adjournment if this carries on!"
  • Claire Khaw Judge: "There, there. Would you like me find in your favour and advise the Claimant to go to the Appeal Court?" 

    Tory Party solicitor nods head eagerly. 


    Me, delighted that he seemed to be telling me that I should appeal: "I would be amenable to your suggestion, My Lord."
    31 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw I did go on about Lord Rennard a bit to the bemusement of the court, saying that how he was being treated is in fact typical of how activists are routinely abused by the leadership. 

    3 important legal principles were being set aside in the case of Lord Rennard:

    1. The retrospective nature of his punishment. Retrospective legislation is against the rules of natural justice because it punishes someone for a crime that was not a crime when it was committed. It has already been admitted by Lord Greaves that half the members of the House of Lords have pinched the bottom of a woman. When they did they had no idea that they would be taken to court and their names dragged through the mud for so doing. 

    2. The principle of double jeopardy. How many investigations and hearings are they going to have in order to find him guilty of something or other? 

    3. The principle of being treated as innocent until found guilty, after a fair trial. 

    The other point I raised was that the legal fiction of a political party not being a public body and therefore subject to judicial review should now be finally done away with. 

    The Conservative Party constitution allows *any member* to be expelled without warning or explanation. This means the PM himself could in theory be expelled if the Board of the Conservative Party decide to get rid of him. 

    This did indeed happy in Cameron v Hogan when a sitting Australian Premier of the State of Victoria was expelled from his own party. 

    I pointed out that if that happened it would provoke a constitutional crisis, and this cannot be denied.
  • Claire Khaw After lunch, all he could come up with was that if the every member of the Conservative Party left the party, it would be no more. 

    I still have no idea what point he was making. 


    Of course he went on about the Tory Party being a voluntary association and how precedent has always treated it as such, blah blah. 

    But nothing substantive.
  • Rafal Pruszyn-ski outline the positions, Claire Khaw: why are you in court?
  • Claire Khaw Because I want the Conservative Party to be subject to judicial review.
  • Claire Khaw So that when the party activists are routinely abused by their leader and party there is a legal remedy. 

    If I had sued them in contract they would just have given me back my £25, which is not what I seek.
  • Claire Khaw Poor Lord Rennard, who has done so much for his party, is just being thrown to the wolves for no other reason than the LibDem leader is a pussywhipped wimp and wants to please his wife and the vociferous, implacable and malicious female activists who want to be served with Lord Rennard's head and testicles on a platter.
  • Claire Khaw What I should have done was dispute the costs. 

    Even if I win and don't have to pay the costs of the Conservative Party, they shouldn't be paying nearly £1500 for what their solicitor did, which is precisely nothing. 

    He handed me a photocopied bundle of documents which I already had for which I thanked him, but that was the extent of his preparation.
  • Claire Khaw You should have come anyway at 12:30, Andy, which was when the hearing started.
  • Claire Khaw Oh, and I said that to persistently conflate their principles with policies found in their manifesto, which are but mere promises which they may not even keep, and which would change every 5 years, made for the purpose of inducing voters to vote to them, is evidence of a fundamental philosophical error as to the nature of what a principle is and what principles are for.