Tuesday 25 August 2009

Christian Aid Survey: Half of UK adults displeased with policing of environmental protests

A new poll by Christian Aid confirms what many of us suspected - that the tide of public opinion has swung against the police after their violent responses to legitimate protests over the past year.

Read the full article on the Guardian website.

1 comment:

  1. Christian Aid are hypocrites to do anything like this, if they also hide from the public anything that the public can use in their own aid in legal proceeedings, whether in criminal defence or if they sue for any of these experiences.

    Christian Aid has betrayed you. Like all the big aid charities, it has remained selfishly silent about, has not spoken out and ended the media cover-up of, the COURT CHANGE. This is, or would be if anyone got to hear of it, a massive advance in participative democracy, that results from illegal bent conduct by the European Court of Human Rights.

    The court change is: Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party". Despite the media silence, this is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. It follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels, a scandal that itself there has also been total media silence on ever since the mid 90s.

    My ECHR case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. the ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence. Hence, the European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist requires its member countries to create an ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final.

    It follows, this requires courts within the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in the 47 Council of Europe countries.

    The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

    World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system. So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. It has the potential to apply to most of the world if the people of each country wish to lay claim to it. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, and can include autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies. It will help all the poor world's struggles over debt and resources the multinationals.