Today’s first letter is on a burning issue – that of Justice. It is from our reader Jim Makin:
Today in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker reports on the case of Mrs Teresa Kirk: “a 71 year old grandmother who had been secretly sentenced by the Court of Protection to six months in prison”. In deference to the Daily Telegraph’s copyright I shall quote no more here but readers can find the report here (behind a paywall).
Those who read the Sunday Telegraph will know that this is by no means the first case involving secret proceedings that Mr Booker has reported on, even though he is legally prevented from reporting on most of them.
Shocking though the details of this case seem, to my mind the most shocking aspect of all such cases is that our most elementary and powerful legal protection from the miscarriage of Justice – the right to be tried in public – has been so widely removed since the Blair government came to power.
Supposedly this secrecy is required in order to “protect the vulnerable”, especially in the family courts where the custody of children is decided. However, is it not even more vital that the proceedings of such courts should be held in public? Is is more important to protect the vulnerable from publicity, or to protect them from the miscarriage of justice at the hands of official bodies who are funded from the public purse?
We as taxpaying citizens do not want miscarriages of justice perpetrated in our name.
Now that Paul Nuttall has appointed his new Justice spokesman, will Peter Jewell uphold our proud UKIP tradition of saying loud and clear that which everybody knows but which the establishment would rather not talk about? I would suggest that he has an open goal, and I look forward to hearing about his untiring efforts to turn this pernicious tide of legal secrecy around.
Respectfully, Jim Makin
The second letter comes from a reader in North Yorkshire, who asked us not to publish his name – he needs to stay anonymous for professional reasons – and takes another look at the results of the Sleaford by-election:
I have just read the most recent article on the Sleaford by-election and noticed that we actually reduced our voting percentage despite what Paul Nuttall says. I am baffled as to why and cannot understand why UKIP are not promoting “their support in the last General election”. No one seems to have been appointed to do this! At some time, when you get a chance or when your colleagues have a moment, could you give some thought as to why UKIP do not seem to be concentrating on promoting a change in the voting system, such as that in the EU elections? I realise there are other systems than First Past The Post. No one in the hierarchy ever seems to mention this. At present we can quote the 4 million votes we received in 2015, but if we leave it too long another election will be upon us when maybe we may not have that many (hopefully we could have more), but is it not a risk leaving this issue out of the public debate and not taking it up? Should we not try campaign to change the system now, before the next general election? Next time that chance may have gone and in fact as time goes by and results come in like Sleaford, our chances to change the system will be reduced.
Respectfully, North Yorkshire Man.
And finally, the letter from our contributor Jack Russell picks up on a timely threat:
We’ve read in articles hidden inside the papers about the increasing possibility of brown-outs and even rolling black-outs in our country because our electricity-generating capacity has been cut and cut so as to comply with the insane proposal to make our energy supplies ‘carbon-free’. We see windfarms covering our landscape, and just driving along the M4 recently I noticed ‘sun-farm’s: formerly agricultural land and pastures covered with solar panel arrays. Well, we all know that the wind doesn’t blow every day, and we surely know that the sun doesn’t shine every day – and never mind that it ain’t there every single night either.
But that’s what TPTB prefer nowadays …
In the wake of ‘La Nina’, a very cold winter is predicted. Given that the really cold months are now upon us, the fact that we are scraping close to energy disaster every night is worrying. But even more worrying are the thoughts published today in the Daily Telegraph by a ‘senior partner’ at Ofgem, the energy regulator body. He proposes that in the near future it could well be desirable that those who are willing and can afford to pay more for their domestic energy supply (Electricity, Gas) could have their supply safeguarded – while those who cannot afford this will have to sit in the dark. Yes, there will be an outcry, as there should be, but I see this as a transparent attempt to prepare the way for even more exorbitant energy costs to all of us: after all, we have a heart, we don’t want to see our elderly neighbours sit in the dark and cold!
This is not fanciful, when one sees this remark by Chancellor Philip Hammond as quoted in the article: “Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has previously said that Britain will need to invest “eye-wateringly large sums of money” just to keep the lights on.The Chancellor put the cost at around £100 billion in the next 20 years to ensure the country meets its energy needs.”
It is high time UKIP starts campaigning rigorously for the repeal of the unspeakable Climate Change Act, whose implementation has already brought so much misery to our elderly and is destroying our industry!
Respectfully, Jack Russell