Sir,

I wanted to post this comment on the last comment by “Mary” on my recent article but technical difficulties prevented it:

As for the “EAW keeps us secure from terrorists” remark, or indeed secure from any other sort of criminal, how can we be sure that they are targeting the right person when NO EVIDENCE is given?

This is the thing that our lawmakers have to have drummed into their heads – that on the continent people are arrested and imprisoned ON MERE SUSPICION at the OUTSET of an investigation, and kept inside with NO PUBLIC HEARING for months while the authorities try to scrape up some evidence. In Italy it is officially calculated that every year 1000 lives and reputations of innocent people are utterly ruined by the lengthy incarcerations generated by this dreadful system. Brussels wants to extend it to Britain (as per the Corpus Juris project), the EAW is the first step.

Once established, the system is a ready-made tool for political tyranny, charges can be easily trumped up, and “inconvenient” persons can be locked away for long periods, or “persuaded” by the threat of it to change their tune and play ball with the authorities. EAWs have already been issued for political purposes by EU states against persons in Britain – by Romania and Spain. The Spaniards wanted to get their hands on a 60-year old Catalan associate of Puigdemont, who is a university lecturer in Scotland, and lock her away for 30 years on a charge of “violent rebellion”; they have since withdrawn their EAW, but if she leaves the UK they may still get their claws into her.

The EAW is repugnant to Magna Carta (art. 38) and must be struck down.

Mrs May wants to keep it forever.

Respectfully, Torquil Dick-Erikson

 

~~~   OOO ~~~

 

Sir,

I note there is a story doing the rounds today (Thursday 4th Jan.), to the effect that Gerard Batten is plotting to have Tommy Robinson as successor as party leader.

Assuming that the NEC could be persuaded to admit Tommy to party membership (based on results of a membership poll?), there is a further obstacle in the rules:

“O.5 Eligibility: In accordance with the NEC’s criteria, applicants must have been a member of the party, in good standing continuously for at least two years from June 23 2017.”

And if THAT clause were amended in Tommy’s favour, a whole load of Johnny-come-lately’s might also stand, so I am pretty certain there is no majority on the NEC for change there – I can recall when ultra-newbie Winston Mackenzie tried to stand whilst still leader of his previous (self created) party, following a “chickenpox party” for nomination signatures in Surrey, as nobody had heard of him. Which is partly why the rule was instigated, and I see no good reason for changing it…

Respectfully, Rob McWhirter

 

~~~   OOO ~~~

 

Sir,

With people landing on the Kent coast from small rubber boats a current topic of great interest, today (Thursday 4th Jan.) on Radio 4 World At One there was an interview with Dame Pauline Neville-Jones. She explained that she had written to Theresa May, the then home Secretary, advising against the proposed cancellation of an airborne surveillance contract. May ignored the advice, and now there is a panic to increase coastal security.

So a bad decision by Theresa May. Bad decisions as Home Secretary are a recurring theme as more information comes to light.

The whole country must know that Theresa May failed dismally to implement Conservative Government Policy of reducing net immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Even worse, she did achieve a policy that removed people who the vast majority of us fair-minded Brits would have been very happy for them to stay – hence the Windrush Scandal.

Theresa May lectured the Police on what they should be doing, reduced numbers and put restrictions on “stop and search”; subsequently crime increased, numbers were insufficient  and knife crime created consternation, especially in London.

Theresa May’s prisons policy, if reports are to be believed, has resulted in staff increasingly less in control due to falling numbers.

Three years ago I came across a report from Reuters: “Specialist British police teams that guard against attacks on planes … are at risk of being disbanded because of cost-saving measures … Flight Path Protection Teams (FPPT), … were set up in 2008 to find and negate the threat from locations near airports”. As far as I can tell they were disbanded, and with “Gatwick” very much in mind this looks like another bad decision by the Home Secretary, Theresa May.

So, out of the Home Office and into No.10, and by far and away the single most important issue for Theresa May to deal with was BREXIT. We have been told repeatedly that what business needs is certainty so they can plan. And all have they got from this PM is uncertainty.

But given her track record as Home Secretary, as is being progressively revealed, Theresa May is the last person you would want to rely on for sound judgement. Could it be that is the “quality” those who put her in power found most attractive for their purposes?

Respectfully, Alan Wheatley

Print Friendly, PDF & Email