Sunday, 25 January 2009

Impeachment Now

The following should be named and Impeached with Corruption and Abuse of High Office

Lord Truscott

Lord Taylor

Lord Moonie

Lord Snape


Failure to bring these Four Lords to account before the Courts for corruption would be tantamount to bringing the Law into disrepute, undermining the Rule of Law in favour of access to Political Influence, and would mean that nobody in this country should be charged with any corruption offences unless its provisions extend to the highest and lowest in the Land

The Corruption Bill 2006 laid before Parliament stated


15 Powers of Serious Fraud Office

In the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (c. 38)—

(a) after “fraud” wherever it appears except in the expression “Serious
Fraud Office” insert “or corruption”;
(b) after section 1(2) insert—

“(2A) In this Act, any reference to “corruption” includes any offence
under Part 1 of the Corruption Act 2006 and the common law
offence of bribery”.

16 Penalties


(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
the term specified in subsection (2) or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6
months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(2) The maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment is—
(a) 5 years for an offence under section 4;
(b) 2 years for an offence under section 9 or 10; and
(c) 7 years in any other case.

Sadly and what a surprise the Corruption Bill 2006 was not passed by our Lords and Masters in 2007.

Home office minister Baroness Scotland of Asthal responded on behalf of the government and said that “since we all agree that corruption is a threat to the very foundations of democratic society and that constant vigilance is needed to ensure that we maintain our high standards domestically and play our full part in combating corruption overseas, the problem has been how to deliver that change”.

It is quite simple commence Impeachment Proceedings

Erskine May, ‘the Commons, as a great representative inquest of the nation, first find the crime and then, as prosecutors, support their charge before the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury, try and also adjudicate upon the charge.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

We should spread this message as a campaign, if the Law does not apply to the wealthiest it does not apply to us either

Anonymous said...

Read the attached:

Labour's leader in the House of Lords is to investigate allegations that four peers offered undercover reporters information for cash.

The Sunday Times named four Labour peers who it claimed offered to help its reporters for a fee, two of whom the paper said were secretly recorded.

The House of Lords Code of Conduct states that peers 'must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence'.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Labour leader in the Lords, said she was 'deeply concerned' by the claims, which she said would pursue 'with the utmost vigour'.

And Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said he would raise the claims with the House authorities, saying: 'Legislators in the Commons and the Lords are there to pass legislation on behalf of the country, not to change the law in return for financial favours.'

But two of the peers spoken to said that they did not believe they had done anything wrong.

The Sunday Times said that its reporters approached Lord Taylor of Blackburn claiming to be acting on behalf of a Hong Kong businessman who was concerned at the impact of the Business Rate Supplements Bill on his company.

The paper said Lord Taylor agreed to work 'behind the scenes' to try to ensure that the bill was amended and negotiated a £120,000 annual fee.

He was quoted as saying: 'I will work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent sometimes.'

Lord Taylor said he had been approached by two people claiming to work for a lobbying firm and looking for help with a bill they wanted amending. He said that they had suggested taking him on as an adviser at a fee of between £5,000 to £10,000 a month.

'It was their suggestion, not my suggestion,' he said. 'I never said I would accept it.'

He said he told the supposed lobbyists that he was not working as he had retired. No contract was signed and no money changed hands, he said.

The Sunday Times also said that former defence minister Lord Moonie offered to assist the undercover reporters in return for an annual fee of £30,000.

Lord Moonie said: 'Nobody in their right mind would offer direct help in making an amendment. But there is no reason why you shouldn't offer people advice in how you go about it.

'Nobody would agree to work with anyone except on the basis of a proper written contract and after checking up with the registrar that what you are doing is OK.'

Lord Moonie said he had an 'informal conversation' after which a ballpark figure was suggested of what it might cost if they were to take his advice.

But he insisted: 'No contract was offered and I have not had a chance to speak to the registrar about it, as I would have done had I intended to take on work of this kind.'

In a statement, Lady Royall said: 'High standards of ethics and probity are central to the work and members of the House of Lords. The House has a high reputation, and I expect members to abide by its high standards.

'The House of Lords has a code of conduct for members which clearly states that members 'must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence'.

'If allegations are made that members are in breach of these rules, and complaints are made about members' conduct, then their conduct will be investigated in accordance with the procedures laid down by the House.

Anonymous said...

More about the House of Lords:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024571.php

British Parliament caves to Muslim demands, calls off screening of Fitna

Craven Cringing Shameful Dhimmitude Alert: "British Parliament calls off screening of controversial film," from APP, January 23 (thanks to Robert):

LONDON, Jan 23 (APP)‑The British Parliament has cancelled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right‑win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community.

The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords.

The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community.

The film has created huge controversy around the world, especially in Europe. The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second‑highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service, which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made “in the context of public debate”, a position that was endorsed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat.

But on Thursday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Wilders’ right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Far‑right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

Indeed it is, but it is a defeat for all those who want to resist jihad and Islamization.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, it's all da Muslims faul't. Classic Daily Mail "reader" stuff who no doubt think that Zionists are all perpetually innocent victims. Rather irrelevant to the house of "Lords" though.

Point is, there has been a complete breakdown of law for politicians and upper management which means it's up to us, the citizens, citizens to restore order.

Andy said...

Umm, As libertarians, the rule of law is important to us. Even Lords and MPs deserve a fair trial. Impeach them if they're found guilty by all means but all of us are innocent until that is the case.

Anonymous said...

Depressingly and from past form, there will be an enquiry or investigation initiated (Reporting back in 2010) which will cost an extraordinary amount of time and money.

The findings will be that no one did anything wrong at all-these will be announced at the same time as another “Major News” event. There will be no resignations and no further action taken.

Mitch said...

None of these crooked bastards should be allowed more than one term and the penalty for this sort of crime should be penury and banishment they are traitors and should be treated as such.

electro-kevin said...

http://electro-kevin-electrokevin.blogspot.com/2009/01/blair.html

Anonymous said...

More pressing matters at hand :

We are all Criminals Now

Funambulist said...

Rather irrelevant to the house of "Lords" though.

No, what he wrote was very relevent in showing how certain groups (well, one in particular) have a lot more influence on the House of Lords than us mere citizens who exist only to be bilked endlessly of our money and told what we may or may not do, see, read etc.

No one mentioned Zionists. I smell taqiyya!

Harrithebastard said...

Where's Chief plod Quick when you need him?

Oldrightie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oldrightie said...

I'm not sure what happened to my last comment. I meant to say that cynicism is understandable but the blogosphere does give us a chance to have a go at fighting back.

Anonymous said...

At least with hereditary peers, we had an idea of what was going on.

After the cancer that Blair out in place, it's pick and mix in th HoL.

Cancer on Blair and cancer on everyone who voted for him,

Mitch said...

CONSERVATIVES 43% (+2)
LABOUR 28% (-4)
LIB DEMS 16% (-1)
Brown’s party now trailing by 15 points?

ho ho fucking ho goodbye brown you sad gimp.

Anonymous said...

One law for us, another law for them. Bastards!

polaris said...

Anybody up for writing for www.nofourth.co.uk? I have registered the domain with a vague idea of countering comedy duo Prescott & Campbell's new improved Labourshit.

If you are email me.

The Penguin said...

"One of the Lords implicated in the lobbying scandal boasted to an undercover reporter that there was nothing that the Parliamentary authorities could do "but jump up and down". "

Burn them at the stake!!

it's either banned or compulsory said...

I expect that they were just trying to recoup the cash they had paid for their peerages, poor things.

The Penguin said...

If you have a strong stomach and something to hand to mask the smell, check out Craig Murray's website and his work in exposing Lord Taylor and Jack Straw's cosy and corrupt links to sleaze and death merchants BAE Systems.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon.html#comments

The Penguin

Harrithebastard said...

Now look here all you oik's . lets not hear anymore about US lords being corrupt? ( we are by the way) but know your place in life .. not only do us Lords agree , but my good " Lady " as well ..

Now back to the grindstone for you . whilst i will carry on quaffing my fine and paid for ( by you ) fine wines .


Now ..where was i ? oh yes , Jeeves make it the 1954 port and be fucking quick about it ... bastard peasants , just can't get the staff now a days can ... one

Best £84 i have ever spent.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails