Posts Tagged ‘Justice’

Former RAF sergeant, 60, revealed as transsexual named Foxy Roxy is jailed for offering kinky sex with boy – By Daily Mail Reporter – Last updated at 9:06 AM on 8th February 2012

In advocacy, organic psychedelics advocacy, Prostitution, psychedelics, red light district legalisation, Sexuality, social freedoms, spirit of the law on February 10, 2012 at 7:52 am

A transsexual former RAF sergeant has been jailed for eight months after he was discovered offering sex services with a 15-year-old boy.

Martin Shaxted, 60, who used the name Foxy Roxy, appeared at Canterbury Crown Court yesterday to admit a charge of keeping a brothel and three counts of making and showing 32 indecent images.

The court heard that police officers had raided his home in Cliftonville, Kent, in December 2010 and discovered the boy.
Jailed: Martin Shaxted has been locked up for eight months after admitting keeping a brothel and three charges of making and showing indecent images

Jailed: Martin Shaxted has been locked up for eight months after admitting keeping a brothel and three charges of making and showing indecent images

But the prosecution accepted that Shaxted believed the boy was 19, rather than his real age of 15 after he confessed to police.

The youngster also admitted smoking cannabis and taking ‘legal highs and poppers’ and engaging in sex.

Police who raided the home also found child abuse pictures on Shaxted’s computer and took away objects including sex toys.

During the hearing Oliver Saxby, prosecuting, told how Shaxted had advertised his services online

Military past: Shaxted, who used the alias Foxy Roxy, served in the RAF for 23 years

He admitted meeting the youngster at a bar but denied encouraging him to take part in sex with other men.

Diaries revealed his services had earned him annual totals of £5,620 in 2008, £5,180 during 2009 and £5,955 in 2010.

The court heard Shaxted was a former RAF sergeant but no details were given of his military records, apart from the fact he served for 23 years.

John O’Higgins, defending Shaxted, said: ‘He became associated with a person who masqueraded as a much older person.

‘He took up escort work five years ago. But he did not entice this young man into providing the services.

‘He is not in the best of health and is now a recluse and is very embarrassed.’

Judge Adele Williams rejected a call from the defence to suspend the sentence because ‘of the kind of experiences he could expect in prison’.

Judge Williams then sentenced him for eight months after telling him: ‘The mischief here is this, that even though you believed him to be 19, he was in fact 15 at the time.

‘You are 60 years old. You allowed a very young man to be providing these services. But I accept you did not exploit him’

Shaxted was also ordered to sign the Sex Offender’s Register.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Whats so illegal about a brothel per se? Brothels offer sex workers safety in numbers and create a sense of community, a communicative atmosphere and camaraderie of companionship with people doinmg the same work. What is so offensive? Whats so illegal about making and showing indecent images especially to persons obviously matured enough ‘appreciate’ the images? Some people subsist on a diet of porn, others exist off making porn. What’s criminal here?

The judgment on the teen is good, but the sentence of 8 months is meaningless, which taxpayers want to pay for that jail stint? Porn is everywhere (actually it’s just art in nature of people unclothed in general . . . ), enjoyed by not everyone but a democratic and human right for those who do enjoy porn. Finally brothels in spirit are harmless! This judge is wasting taxpayer funds and colluding with prison contractors.

‘Benevolent state’ to return power to the people – Harakahdaily – Tuesday, 13 December 2011 08:32

In 1% tricks and traps, democratisation, Malaysia, media traps, Muslims, non-Muslim Rights in a Muslim country, PAS, Wealth distribution on February 10, 2012 at 7:50 am

PAS has unveiled its concept of benevolent state by calling for power to be returned to the people and placing government as trustee to public funds.

Launching a book on the concept in Shah Alam yesterday (pic), PAS president Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang stressed that the benevolent state was in line with Islamic teachings.

“We want to change the current concept in which the government treats the people as business tools, and revenue is taken from the people through fixed taxes.

“The government should be the people’s protector, the leaders are the trustees, so we want the people’s right returned,” said Hadi.

The 59-page book outlines 10 points and also functions as PAS’s election manifesto, serving to complement the Pakatan Rakyat common policy stated in the Orange Book.

The Islamic party gave an undertaking that it would deliver its promises in its first term in power should it win the next general election.

Hadi said the current administration, instead of chanelling the country’s wealth to the people for development, was only interested in circulating wealth among the few while ordinary citizens were left to suffer.

“The country’s wealth should be channelled to the people besides allocating it for development. In fact, if the government wants to find new funding, then taxes will be imposed, but not all people must pay taxes,” he added.

A highlight of the benevolent state is reviewing the Federal Constitution to enshrine the separation of powers. This involves reforming public institutions such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the police.

It also calls for higher quality education, efficient health services, eradication of poverty, affordable housing schemes, direct welfare and a bigger role for civil society and social businesses by reducing taxes and excise duty, and the setting up of a National Dialogue Council.

“If the people evaluate the benevolent state, then it will smoothen Pakatan Rakyat’s path to Putrajaya,” Hadi said.


[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

This would be far much more benevolent if that same Trustee’s post was rotated among established criminal record free professionals from private sector for a limited term.

This way, more people not within political parties or bureaucracy would have the experience and thus more members of the public would have familiarity with the government. Politicians, much less leaders of political parties, even currently working bureaucrats, are unsuitable to be Public Trustees as conflict of interest, and if unlimited terms are unconscionably allowed, VESTED interests can again occur.

“The government should be the people’s protector . . . ‘ is true to a point but when this Government/People dichotomy exists, oligarchies and nepotistic family blocs tend to result. I will not criticse Hadi’s views as these are doubtless from that golden Islamic era, where there were few people and eductade people were rare, and Hadi’s insular religious background itself affecting his encompassing of ALL and sundry including non-Muslims and non-political party persons (which are in fact even better to ensure checks and balances).

There are MANY people now and everyone should have their day in the sun, perhaps with retired civil servants with spotless records though professionals from the public sector would be best.

Hadi should consider that benevolent state by calling for power to be returned to the people should best have that same public trustee post being held neither by politician (especially committee members), nor bureaucrat (unless there is no qualified person), but rather PRIVATE sector professionals of spotless repute.

The benevolent state should also consider the proclivities of non-Muslim citizens via legalisation, and the prevention of monopolies of licenses gambling venues other than 4D as well as adult service industry zones for those inclined. That way PAS could become votable instead of frightening even Muslim Malays who doubtless have no open recourse to choice of religion or apostasy.

These are the aspects of benevolent state that any responsible Islamic country or political party should consider – so that all citizens are free to choose – the basis of term limited electorates will be based on meritocracy and good policy instead rather than anything else. This article has been somewhat mistitled and should read :

” Some Disparities in PAS’s Understanding of Benevolent State and Actual Benevolent State “. How about a reconsider and rewrite PAS?

Ramos and Compean: Not Brown Enough? – By: John Lillpop (circa 2006) – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 10th February 2012

In Abuse of Power, Apartheid, racism on February 10, 2012 at 7:48 am

Pity poor souls Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Owing to poor career and lifestyle choices and just plain rotten luck, the two have been cheated out of twelve and eleven years of freedom, respectively.

In reality, Ramos and Compean have only themselves to blame. Each foolishly chose to serve America in law enforcement, which meant a commitment to secure borders, the rule of law, and American sovereignty as agents of the Border Patrol.

Obviously terrible choices, especially for young Hispanic men better suited for flipping Big Macs, mowing lawns, washing cars and marching to protest the rule of law.

Even more incredible, the two actually chose to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. That really pushed the envelope.

The final straw came when Ramos and Compean chased illegal alien Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila back across the Mexican border, thereby preventing the thug from smuggling drugs into America.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila left America sans a few grams of brown buttocks blasted off his criminal being by a single shot from Ramos or Compean.

However, Aldrete-Davila was not injured too gravely, as he attempted to smuggle a “second load” of drugs into the U.S. on November 15, an indiscretion for which he was arrested.


Unfortunately, last year our government was able to convict Ramos and Compean based on testimony provided by the drug smuggling illegal alien, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. That conviction lead to the brutal sentences imposed on the two in October 2006.

If only Ramos and Compean had been illegal aliens, things would have surely worked out differently.

To begin with, Ramos and Compean would have been defended by the ACLU, La Raza, the Democrat candidates for president, Hispanic civil rights activists, and stoked by Hispanic apologists Gerald Rivera and Rick Sanchez in the media.

Charges of racism and bigotry would have been levied against the prosecutors, and the sentences would have started a political firestorm of rage from coast to coast.

If the two had been illegal aliens, that is.

But Ramos and Compean are not illegal aliens. They are responsible American citizens who took their law enforcement responsibilitites seriously. As a result, the silence coming from the ACLU, La Raza and other Hispanic advocacy groups has been downright deafening.

Want to drive your blood pressure off the charts? Compare the injustice imposed upon Ramos and Compean with the fate of illegal alien Hector Velazquez-Nava.

This vermin from Mexico slammed his SUV into a car driven by director Bob Clark, famous for his award-winning film, A Christmas Story, in 1983. The crash killed both Clark and his 22-year-old son, Ariel Hanrath-Clark.

Hector Velazquez-Nava, an illegal alien from Mexico, had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit.

For killing two Americans while in a drunken stupor, illegal alien Hector Velazquez-Nava was sentenced to six years in prison.

For doing their sworn duties, Ramos and Compean were sentenced to twelve and eleven years.

Perhaps they are just not brown enough?

Why I work and stay overseas — A Bumi – 19th May 2011 (Series of NLP Articles Attacking Minorities)

In Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, Democracy, Equality, non-Muslim rights, non-Muslim Rights in a Muslim country, social freedoms on January 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm

MAY 19 — I am a Malay working overseas. I find working in Malaysia unattractive due to the following reasons. I don’t want to belabour the points, so I list them down in point form: Chinese chauvinism/racism • Most private organisations including TMI are dominated by the Chinese and/or their political agenda.

• Chinese people have a tendency to assign negative stereotypes on other races (especially the Bumiputera races).
• They exhibit cliquish, insular, secretive and calculating behaviour.
• Chinese people favour fair-skinned people even though fair skin is disadvantageous in Malaysia’s sunny climate.
• They admire China’s achievements, despite China’s oppressive regime.
• Malaysian Chinese use the Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien etc.) to isolate their discussion from others while in their presence.
• The Chinese are not honest about failures of ethnic Chinese leaderships in Philippines and Thailand.
• Tokenism is rife in Chinese companies.
• Chinese will use changing criteria to judge people of other ethnicities; one day it is academic merit, another day it may be “character.”
• The Chinese favour their own kind over others, even when other kinds are of equal stature.
• Malays fear to voice out against Chinese for fear of repercussions especially with respect to their employment prospects in the private sector.
• The Chinese still hold strongly to their ethnic heritage.
• They diminish the achievement of other races, especially the Malays.
• Harp on Bumiputera affirmative action even though Chinese people still continue to succeed at all levels of Malaysian life (even government).
• Any Malay who has strong academic background is denounced as attaining it due to “Bumiputera privilege”, even though he graduated overseas with his own money.
• Use their overseas Chinese connection to gain unfair advantage, but pretend the advantage is minimal.
• The Chinese always make unfair comparisons of Malaysia with other non-Muslim, post-industrial countries.
• Chinese people don’t recognise the special position Islam has in Malaysia.
• Enjoy talking bad about Malaysia (even when working/living overseas) as if Malaysia is on the same level as Zimbabwe even though Malaysia is far from it.
• Highly critical of institutions that are Bumiputera-dominated (ie. government), but non-critical of institutions that are Chinese dominant (like gambling).
• Show no desire to partake in patriotic activities (e.g. serve in army), but cry foul when other people point out their lack of patriotism.
• Show lack of understanding about Islamic religion, but enjoy taking Quranic verses out of context to further their argument.
• If pushed to think “outside the box”, the Chinese would favour Western ideals above Islamic ideals.
• The Chinese show lack of respect toward Malay leaders, but accord unnecessary respect to their Chinese community leaders, even though they hold no significant position in government.
• Always speak about “brain drain” but still keep Malaysian passports.
• Willing to spread disingenuous claim that Bumis have already achieved economic parity with the Chinese.
• Use Indians who have achieved to further their claim that Indian community is ahead of the Malay community.
• Comments in support of Chinese chauvinistic agenda are allowed to be posted in TMI, while others are censored.

I can go on and on with more example, but I grow tired and annoyed. PAS religionists :

• Holds only their interpretation of Islam to be the truth.
• Willing to associate themselves with and be used by non-Muslims while creating enmity toward other Muslims.
• Use religion as a political tool to win arguments and foment discord.
• Ritualistic mentality.
• Have a simplistic idea/concept of the world and its affairs.

Umno nationalism

• Partake in bully politics.
• Enjoy seeing minor issues such as sexual improprieties take over the national discourse.
• Willing to give in to fervent Malay nationalism.
• Must “ampu” within Umno hierarchical structure to get to higher positions.
• Anti-intellectualism.
• Unwillingness to adapt and change to satisfy changing political climate.

Indian shiftiness

• Willing to change their allegiance due to changing political tide.
• Belief that Indian subcontinent will help them, like mainland China helps Malaysian Chinese.
• Dishonest about their caste and other internal problems.

Malaysian culture as a whole

• No proper understanding of logic and reason.
• Has not understood to segregate religious thinking from secular reasoning.
• Lost sensitivities towards other religions/races.
• Still admire Western culture, without studying their obvious weaknesses.
• Always sidetracked by minor issues rather than seeing bigger picture.
• Media not mature to show all sides of the story, media is all very partisan.
• Partisanship is being promoted at all levels from the family microcosm to the national level.

* A Bumi who chooses not to provide his identity, and who has worked in a China-man company as a token executive. * We asked readers who have migrated to tell us in their own words why they left. This is one of the stories.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Good list of reasons why Malaysia fails. But :

Chinese chauvinism/racism – they did not throw the APARTHEID Constitution and APARTHEID Law punch first. I’d say that the Chinese were just returning the favour.

As for the rest of this crafted diatribe posed as reasoned judgment and justification of APARTHEID, I will let the readers decide whether this is a carefully crafted NLP article by the Info Ministry or if there was any ‘Bumi’ at all, as if ‘Bumi’ is an acceptable term at all, given it ensconces the acceptance of APARTHEID albeit subtly.

There is no such thing as BUMI. All humans are sovereign citizens of the world. This article is  just **annoying**. Also just look at the other disgraceful NLP type titles on Malaysian Insider, just shameless and absolutely in need of retaliation against or debunking. Those with the networks and strength here please act.

DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT THEY DO TO THE MINORITIES non-Malay political parties in BN? ACT OR BE DAMNED AS COWARDS, ALL THE WEALTH AND POWER DOES NOTHING FOR COURAGE . . . Other bad ‘minority hate’, ‘demoralize the minority’ articles in Malaysian Insider worth taking a second look at :

Where is home? — GLB

I am an unwanted step-child — Henry T.

Those real Malay leaders who believe in citizen equality by ending BUMIPUTRA APARTHEID rather than being manipulative via the media, PLEASE step forward and make your intentions known. The Orang Asli, Indians and Chinese, UNHCR and real Muslims who do not want to sin from Asabiya just can’t wait to vote for you !

Three to hang for kidnap – by SRI VIGASHINI – 28th June 2011

In Justice, Law, Malaysia, spirit of the law, word of the law on January 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm
( JOHOR BARU: The High Court here sentenced three men to the gallows and two others were detained at the pleasure of the Ruler for kidnapping a schoolgirl three years ago. P. Steven, 26, P. Vicknes, 29, and R. Ravikumar, 22, were handed the death sentence for abducting a 13-year-old girl with the intention of getting a ransom of RM500,000 in Tampoi at around 11.20am on April 28, 2008. However, Judge Kamardin Hash­im ordered that two others, both 19, be detained at the pleasure of the Johor Sultan under Section 97(2)(b) of the Child Act 2001 because they were underage when the offence was committed. To the gallows: The accused being escorted out of the Johor Baru High Court after the sentence was delivered. According to the facts of the case, the victim was abducted while she was on her way to school.
The victim’s dad subsequently paid RM80,000 to the accused at a petrol station in Sungai Besi. S. Vijayaretanam represented Vicknes while Mohd Haijan Omar represented the other four. Both lawyers appealed for a lighter sentence. Mohd Haijan said the accused had not harmed the victim. “The victim was not injured and they provided her with food and clothes,” he said. Vijayaretanam said the victim was not sexually harassed. However Deputy Public Prosec­utor Muhamad Iskandar Ahmad said the offence was serious. They were charged under Section 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961, which carries the death sentence or life imprisonment, as well as whipping. Earlier, nine accused were charged with abducting the girl but four were acquitted in April after the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against them. All the accused were silent while the verdict was read out while some of their family members were seen weeping. The girl’s father M. Paramasivam, 48, who was present in court, said that he was satisfied with the judgment. “I accompany my daughter whenever she goes out as she is still afraid to step out of the house alone,” the businessman said. He added that he had also moved out of his old home as he was afraid for the safety of his family.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
The judge should punish according to the final ending of the situation. In this case the victimised family had a shock they would recover from in a few years at most. All were unharmed. But collectively these 3 people have up to 200 years of life taken away from them in a somewhat violent manner (hanging means that the neck is broken in a manner that kills via a noose). Is that a fair judgment, do the offenders learn anything?
To be lenient and even politically correct, the offenders could be required at very least to pay for any emotional or psychological stress quantifiable by some psyche personnel within the policeforce (this should not be  more than the entire value of the offender even if calculated by qualified panels of experts – we can’t have people demanding 100s of millions nor can people without the money pay damages that are impossible to foot , but we can ensure that the victims are protected from further abuse and compensated for any losses from the incident from any and all parties involved), offenders be put on probation having to report to a probation officer for a few months with a lifetime restraining order, preventing them from approaching the victims without permission from the court. At worst exile the offenders after a public apology at a public venue at Tampoi witnessed by any person’s interested in this case, probably media and judges, some relatives and busybodies.
Then extract some sort of compensation to the family, not more than will affect a reasonable living standard for the offender, as long as the victims require or as audited by some expert panel. Instead of imprisoning at taxpayer expense and making the offenders lose their lives quite meaninglessly with a fairly violent method, they could be made to pay out of their pockets (to some people loss of cash does not hurt them so for these people a tit for tat event could be more appropriate) or have the same done to them.
The offenders were greedy but not violent, nor did they imprison the victims so they should not be imprisoned in turn at cost to the taxpayer. This is a bad judgment IMHO as it is not equitable or commensurate with the suffering of the victims. Only the prison contractors benefit here. And conditions in jail are not necessarily appropriate unless we have fake ‘prisoners’ put into jail to mete out specifically tailored punishments – in which case the taxpayer loses again. Don’t hang, rehabilitate and let them live out the course of their lives, their mulling of the issue will be beneficial compared to a violent hanging and meaningless death.

Alasdair Thompson, New Zealand CEO, Fired for Sexism – Huffington Post – 6th July 2011

In Uncategorized on January 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Alasdair Thompson, New Zealand CEO, Fired After Linking Women’s Workplace Productivity To Menstruation, Childbirth The head of a major New Zealand employers’ group has been fired after implying that women were paid less than men because they took more sick leave due to menstruation. As the BBC is reporting, Alasdair Thompson of the Employers’ and Manufacturers’ Association (EMA) made the controversial comments on June 23 radio program. “Who takes the most sick leave? Women do, in general,” he said during a debate on recent figures that showed New Zealand women were paid about 12 percent less than men. “Why? Because once a month they have sick problems. Not all of them, but some do. They have children that they have to take time off to go home and take leave of.
Therefore it’s their productivity. It’s not their fault.” Thompson then went on to note, “I’m sorry, I don’t like saying these things because it sounds like I’m sexist, but it’s the facts of life.” Though Thompson reportedly apologized for the comments, that wasn’t enough for EMA, which was quickly bombarded with calls to ax the CEO. “After having considered this matter for some time the board believes Mr Thompson is no longer able to continue as CEO of the organization,” EMA official Graham Mountfort said in a statement, according to the National Business Review. “We regret that Alasdair’s role with the EMA is ending in this manner, especially considering the contribution he has made over the past 12 years. However under the circumstances the board has had to make this difficult decision.” New Zealand Women’s Affairs Minister Hekia Parata told the BBC on Wednesday that people would be pleased there had been a resolution. “I think that it’s been pretty clear from the response that the remarks made were unacceptable to a wide range of people and my own experience of talking to businesses and across the country is it was a generally felt view that they were unacceptable,” she said.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Morally correct, ethically wrong. A week’s suspension and formal apology maybe would have been better? Though CEOs are overpaid and deserve no sympathy for their sequestration of wealth, this treatment of Mr.Thompson is extreme and should result in a lawsuit by Alasdair Thompson who should use the analogy of ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘a tooth for a tooth’. In this case a private apology for a slight would be appropriately equitable and a public apology would be more than enough. Taking away the man’s job is just wrong and far more than ‘an eye or a tooth’.

Ambiga: Explanation for instant citizenship not acceptable – by Malaysia Chronicle – 5th August 2011

In 3rd Force, Equality, Ethics, Justice, Law, Malaysia, Straw-women, Strawmen on January 29, 2012 at 10:58 am
The National Registration Department (NRD)’s explanation of the ‘Mismah-gate’ is unacceptable as it fails to address the public’s concern, said Bersih 2.0 chief Ambiga Sreenevasan. Therefore, she supported Pakatan Rakyat MPs’ call for an emergency parliamentary sitting this month in order to seek answers for the many questions the scandal’s raised. “We haven’t actually have had any meaningful answer… there has to be accountability on this issue,” Ambiga told Malaysiakini during an interview yesterday. “The answer that they have given us so far is really quite unacceptable.”
In a statement on Wednesday, NRD director-general Jariah Mohd Said explained that Mismah, a name found in the latest supplementary electoral roll draft, was granted permanent residency on July 17, 1982, and later citizenship on Jan 31, 2011. However, the statement failed to shed light on the question of how the NRD online verification system could have categorised Mismah as a permanent resident on Tuesday morning but ‘upgraded’ her to citizen four hours after a Malaysiakini report. Jariah was also silent on the PAS allegation of there being 1,597 such cases nationwide. Ambiga said that Bersih 2.0 had received similar complaints prior to the expose but not proven until the Malaysiakini report was published. “What I would have expected from the authority is for them to say ‘we think this is serious, we think it must be investigated and we will come back to the public on the issue’, but unfortunately all those who have spoken appeared to be defending the indefensible.”
Misgivings over biometric system Ambiga described the issue as something that requires urgent attention and transparency from the authority, failing which the affair could largely undermine the introduction of the biometric system by the Election Commission (EC). “It was one of the reasons why we have misgivings about the biometric system, because if we can’t even get the database at the NRD right, and there are questions about its integrity, then I really don’t know how it can progress to a biometric system.” The issue coupled with the failure of the authority to provide a satisfactory answer, has deepened the confidence crisis faced by the government, warned Ambiga. “Trust is something that they have to build and the way they can build trust is by being honest with us, it is really quite simple, and by being absolutely transparent with the public.” She reiterated that the EC has to involve the public at every stage of the implementation of the biometric system and keep them updated throughout the process. “In today’s Malaysia, it is not enough for the authority to say ‘just trust us’,” she stressed. – Malaysiakini
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Instead of talking and asking questions from the outside, file a lawsuit (which would doubtless be blocked by the judges but at least ‘realer’) get yourself voted into power then deport all the ilegally legalized immigrants all you want. We all know it is illegal, and that there is no way anything can be done unless people run for MP. After all that Bersih b.s. you still don’t want to run for election? Bar Council stint must have ruined your sense of justice. Keep insisting on demanding corrections for high profile things in a manner that cannot be solved without political power – fnal result? Waste of Rakyatr’s time and belief in you Ambiga. Run for candidacy, win, THEN solve the NRD or EC issues. Stop asking stupid questions of the government (you know they can ignore you, so what if you appear smart and knowledgeable) or making establishment blockable demands, you should be preparing to campaign in your constituency so you can actually make a difference. Also stand for :
1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.

Blair signed ‘secret deal’ to hand over Gibraltar to Spain and end UK’s 300-year control – by Tim Shipman Last updated at 8:29 AM on 24th January 2012

In Abuse of Power, Apartheid, England, Equality, Ethics, Native Rights, Uncategorized on January 24, 2012 at 10:53 am

Tony Blair agreed to a secret deal to hand joint sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain, according to explosive claims by a former Labour cabinet minister.

Peter Hain reveals in his memoirs that he struck the deal with the Spanish government in 2002 to end the UK’s 300-year control of the vital strategic outpost.

He makes clear that he and Mr Blair were both prepared to ride roughshod over the objections of the people of Gibraltar in order to get their way, describing Mr Blair’s attitude to the inhabitants as ‘contemptuous’.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was prepared to ride roughshod over the objections of the people of Gibraltar in order to get his way, Peter Hain has revealed

Deal: Gibraltar has been a British overseas territory since 1704

The former Europe Minister revealed Mr Blair sanctioned the deal because he wanted to win the backing of the Spanish government – then led by Jose Maria Aznar – to help Britain take on France and Germany in EU negotiations.

The agreement was only shelved when what he called ‘hardliners’ in the Spanish government – who wanted only full sovereignty – objected.

In Outside In, published yesterday, Mr Hain says he joined forces with then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to make private overtures to Spain during 2001.

Mr Hain and his Spanish counterparts looked at an ‘Andorra solution’ which would have seen co-sovereignty between the UK and Spain.
Rock’s role

In February 2002, Mr Hain says he was given the green light by Mr Blair to proceed.

He quotes Mr Blair as saying: ‘It is really important to get a better future for Gibraltar, to secure a better relationship with Spain and to remove it as an obstruction to our relations within Europe.’

But Gibraltar’s first minister Peter Caruana told Mr Hain: ‘There is no prospect of me agreeing with such an approach.’

Mr Hain accused Gibraltarian leaders of being ‘stuck in the past’.

The deal unravelled with Spain’s ‘conservative, nationalist government getting cold feet at the last moment’, he says. Mr Blair then urged him to ‘park’ the agreement.

Gibraltar then held a referendum in which 98.48 per cent voted No to a deal with Spain.

Labour’s willingness to sell out the people of Gibraltar stands in contrast to the firm line taken by the Coalition. David Cameron has repeatedly said Gibraltar should stay British.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: ‘Tony Blair has never said or thought Gibraltar should be “run by Spain”. Nor was he “contemptuous” of it.’

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Blair is MORALLY and ETHICALLY right here, not necessarily correct in an expansionary or colonial sense though – which is hateful and wrong and inapplicable given the state of ffairs and level of civgilisation the world is at now. But actually this is not even Spanish territory. Gibraltar is correctly owned by those of South American Indian tribal ancestry if true ownership is to be considered. The natives were living there probably since 20,000 bc until the 1700s when the colonial BULLIES arrived.

The existing citizens there who are not tribal could come under tribal governance as per the UNHCR considerations and oversight (we don;t want to see scalpings etc. despite the terrible butchery that occured 300 years ago), after all holy sites or lands considered unsuitable for building are returned. Gibraltar natives should demand their right to representation at the UN and perhaps reservation of the President’s post though the Prime Minister’s post and other cabine type posts should be based on meritocracy. This is aother ‘First Nation’ that the United Indigenous Nations should address the woes of. These 30,000 natives should be given avery possible affirmative action being the minority and also the original peoples of the area.

Reinstate Chieftain/Shamanism Aztec style or whatever native style in Gibraltar national day or Assembly displays, with their own native Gibraltan language becoming the national language (anyone can speak anything but their language could be used in identifying documents and institutions of the country) – neither Spain nor England who butchered their way into these simple peoples’ lives should hold Gibraltar hostage, with appropriate reparations from both colonial powers to every single ‘native’ this day. They are owed that much!

***Commentator comments : Morally and ethically skewed imperialist comments on above article :

Blair is a Traitor there is no other words to describe him

– Ed, Bham, 24/1/2012 10:04
Rating 3

Is treason still a hanging offence?.

– gus, colchester, 24/1/2012 10:03
Rating 2

Does treason still carry the death penalty? – Stephen, Aylesbury, 24/1/2012 10:48++++ Stephen,I think you’ll find that even for Treason there can be no death-penalty carried out in the UK..It is a EU ruling which was agreed to by the UK and endorsed by,yes…Tony Blair.

– One Hand Clapper, Lye Meadow,Alvechurch., 24/1/2012 10:03
Rating 4

How much would he have sold it for? Phoney B´Liar never did anything without lining his own pockets. Jail him!!!!

– Josephine, Hard up State Pensioner who has never claimed a penny, 24/1/2012 10:01


Toll Charge For The Rock Of Gibraltar say’s La Linea’s Mayor Alejandro Sánchez

The only people guaranteed exemption from the tax on Gibraltar traffic, which he compares to London’s congestion charge, will be the people living in La Linea itself.
Toll Charge For The Rock Of Gibraltar say’s La Linea’s Mayor Alejandro Sánchez

Workers and visitors to The Rock of Gibraltar could so be paying a €5 toll charge in plan to fill neighbouring La Linea’s town hall coffers

The people of Gibraltar could soon find themselves having to pay to leave The Rock of Gibraltar as the Spanish mayor of La Linea plans a toll charge on traffic to The Rock.

Mayor Alejandro Sánchez says he will introduce the toll charge scheme within the next two months.

The only people guaranteed exemption from the tax on Gibraltar traffic, which he compares to London’s congestion charge, will be the people living in La Linea itself.

Visitors to Gibraltar and, especially, commercial traffic in and out of The Rock will have to pay €5 or more.

Mayor Sánchez has still not said whether he will exempt the 30,000 native people of Gibraltar, many of whom live on mainland Spain and commute through La Linea daily to work, or who live in the peninsula but travel to Spain at weekends. “That question is still on the table,” Sánchez said last week.

The move was bound to add tension to the already thorny relations between Britain and Spain over the Rock, which it claims sovereignty over despite being in British hands since 1713.

Sánchez says town hall of La Linea Financial resources, hit by Spain’s falling economy and government pay cut plans, are in need of refilling and that visitors who pass through the town to get to Gibraltar must contribute.

It is still not clear whether his plan to tax traffic is legal, however, as Spain’s central government and not the town hall controls most of the roads leading into Gibraltar.

Local newspaper reports suggest the toll booth will be erected next to the frontier crossing between Spain and the two-and-a-half square mile British dependent territory.

Residents fear that rather than reducing the traffic jams by the frontier, the toll booth would simply make them worse.

The economies of Gibraltar and La Linea are inexorably linked, with many local Spaniards employed on The Rock.

“Do not impose a toll,” the Social and Cultural Association of Spanish Workers in Gibraltar protested.

“La Linea benefits hugely from Gibraltar’s prosperity with 12,000 mouths fed by wages earned in Gibraltar pounds.”



[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

All of Gibraltar’s lands rightfully belong to the natives and should be distributed to them for subsistence farming. A UN case for grants of allodial land, expulsion of whites from holy native sites, and seeking of reparations for occupation and colonialism and reinstatement of native persons in government can be won, much less any Western power daring to say the natives are being fed by whoever. These were their lands that were colonized and taken by force, they need to be given back what was stolen not insulted about how they are being fed! In fact ‘neurotech’ audits to expel those who did induleg in slaying or economic oppression of natives could be applied as well! Natives are sovereign peoples who deserve their own nations and representation at the UN too, follow Blair’s lead and do the right thing, the FREE NATIVE GIBRALTAR MOVEMENT !

One candidate, one seat — Kua Kia Soong – January 19, 2012

In 3rd Force, Apartheid, Bumiputera Apartheid, Equality, Ethics, Malaysia, Nepotism, Uncategorized on January 24, 2012 at 9:28 am

JAN 19 — Karpal Singh, Chairman of the DAP must be commended for his recent call to Pakatan Rakyat to practice a “one candidate, one seat” policy. At last, one leader in Pakatan Rakyat has finally spoken up against this undemocratic practice of the party elite monopolising federal and state seats … a lion amongst the lambs?

When I criticised this practice a few years ago (Mkini, 18.4.2008), the “seat grabbers” tried to justify the practice by saying they COULD handle both federal and state constituencies: “All you need to do is employ more secretaries to look after the seats for you what,” was their pathetic reply. They failed to see the contradiction and fallacy in this undemocratic practice while criticising the Barisan Nasional for not carrying out democratic reform.

Democratic reforms begin at home

A Pakatan Rakyat that champions democratic reforms should practice this basic democratic principle within their parties before talking about reforming the country. “Seat grabbing” of both federal and state constituencies in the general elections suggests that the politicians involved are brilliant multi-taskers and that there are too few appropriate candidates within their parties to do otherwise.

Democracy is about people’s participation and that means creating opportunities for MORE, not fewer people to engage in the democratic process of government. Are these politicians actively seeking and nurturing such potential candidates within their party?

Whatever their claimed intention, “seat grabbing” looks like an attempt by the power holders in the party to have as many positions and privileges as they can grab, a case of careerism and opportunism gone mad! It’s damn petty bourgeois if you ask me…

The Barisan Nasional, you may have noticed, does not practice such “seat grabbing” not because they are democrats but because they have too many parties between which, to divide the spoils. Furthermore, compared to the largely petty bourgeoisie in Pakatan Rakyat, they are the bourgeoisie who have the “discreet charm” to forego such cheap thrills of monopolising federal and state seats and go for the bigger economic stakes.

A retrogressive step

It has been mentioned that, now Pakatan Rakyat has so many candidates, they should think about implementing the “one candidate, one seat” policy. In fact, when I was in the Selangor DAP state committee in 1990-95, we already implemented this policy in the early 1990s, much to the chagrin of the power elite at the centre of the DAP. At the time, they had insisted that a part-time member of parliament who kept two medical practices was indispensable in the state as well. Even then, the rank-and-file in the DAP were opposed to power holders in the party monopolising both federal and state seats.

But now, this “one candidate, one seat” policy of the Selangor DAP state committee seems to have been rolled back in recent years obviously through the persuasive arguments by the power elite in the party that these politicians are indispensable at both federal and state levels. This example shows how political reforms can be rolled back with time…

There are other reforms that have not been implemented within PR including limiting the terms of office of the party leader, a democratic reform that has been achieved by even the retrogressive MCA. Has the never-ending feudal “dear leader” syndrome any place in a democracy?

Even at the expense of feminism?

Turning to PKR, the same practice has been carried out at the expense of very basic feminist principles. I am of course referring to the abdication of the Permatang Pauh seat by the president of the party, Wan Azizah for her husband, Anwar Ibrahim’s return to the federal parliament.

I was not opposed to the idea of forcing a by-election for Anwar to return to parliament but it should have been the MB of Selangor or some other ineffectual MP who should have given way for Anwar and not Wan Azizah. Hasn’t the mentri besar or the chief minister of state enough duties on their plate to also want to claim a federal seat?

In this case, we are talking about not just an ordinary woman leader but the president of the party and a possible Prime Minister of the country in the event of Anwar being imprisoned for sodomy 2.0.

But how was it that the feminists and the principled politicians in PR did not utter any dissension? It has become a standard feminist demand that there should be a gender quota of women representation in political parties, government office and other institutions. In this case, we have a woman president of the party who had already won her seat in parliament having to make way for a man!

It’s democracy, stupid!

Why do you think this grabby practice of wanting seats in both federal and state parliaments is not practiced in other democratic countries? Do you think it is because they cannot afford to employ political secretaries to look after their constituencies?

It’s democracy, stupid! To do so would risk being laughed at by the media and the public for being such petty bourgeois careerists! Democracy is a process that emphasises broad and greater participation of the people and the nurturing of new leaders in the political system. It is about the inclusion of women and young leaders in the exercise of power and decision-making throughout society.

This principle of inclusivity is crucial. It is not about placing a few token or high-profile women who are more interested in air-brushing their public image either! The role of women leaders is to push for deeper and more extensive models of democracy and participation for other women.

Thus, selection procedures within parties must be inclusive, transparent and democratic. Various structures such as the women and youth wings should be empowered to enable them to effectively participate in this selection process. As my example of the Selangor DAP state committee is instructive, intra-party democracy and inclusivity needs to be sustained. This requires the party to have in place structures and system that will ensure that all groups are catered for at all times and reforms cannot be simply undone.

If Pakatan Rakyat fails to carry out such intra-party reform, democracy will continue to be cynically interpreted — as my former comrades in the DAP used to joke about it — “Dia mahu kerusi”.

* The writer is a director of Suaram and former Petaling Jaya Utara MP

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

An intelligent article that is too pro-feminist for it’s own good. You’d think feminism was more important that mention of TERM LIMITS and NEPOTISM. Mention these Pakatan problems sometime too KKS, Pakatan is rife with it’s own form of undemocratic illness – with careerist behaviour particularly pronounced and well described here in Pakatan Rakyat.

Could MCA, MIC, Gerakan and PPP please leave BN to form a 3rd Force along with KITA, MCLM, PCM, Borneo Front, Konsensus Bebas, HRP, PSM that is not aligned to Pakatan? BN is too racist as of now. Pakatan is too ambiguous but more cosmopilitan, though likely corrupt and opaque when they entrench, even as term limitless politicians and nepotists throng the Pakatan coalition. The only safe option which the Rakyat can control to any measure, that could understand that limitless terms and nepotism is wrong, is 3rd Force.

Shameless quangocrats who jump from one state-funded gravy train on to another – by Leo Mckinstry – 19th August 2011

In Uncategorized on January 24, 2012 at 9:12 am

Famously, the Cabinet Office boasted that the Government had embarked on a ‘bonfire of the quangos’, which would see almost 200 organisations disappear, saving the taxpayer a fortune. Ten months on, however, these claims have proved grossly overblown. All we’ve had is a few flickering flames, rather than a mighty conflagration. As new research revealed yesterday, of the 192 bodies that the Coalition promised to abolish, 151 still exist, continuing to leech off the taxpayer. Failure to deliver: Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, leaves a television studio in Westminster on October 14, 2010 in London, after announcing the plans to abolish 192 Quangos and merge an additional 118 Failure to deliver: Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, leaves a television studio in Westminster on October 14, 2010 in London, after announcing the plans to abolish 192 Quangos and merge an additional 118 The gigantic, expensive quango-land has proved astonishingly resistant to the cuts. A host of outfits that were deemed a waste of public money, such as the Football Licensing Authority and the notoriously spendthrift National Policing Improvement Agency, continue to survive long after their death knell was supposed to have sounded. Even when an organisation is axed, it often reappears in another form — just like the hydra of Greek mythology, which would grow two new heads for every one that the mighty Hercules chopped off. Ministers have made much of the planned abolition of the eight Regional Development Agencies, set up by John Prescott to ‘enable local communities to fulfil their economic ambitions’.

A year on from the ‘bonfire’ of the quangos, three in four survive Fury over taxpayer gold card cover-up: Ministers blame head of the Civil Service for blocking exposure of abuse Yet the agencies have been replaced by no fewer than 23 Local Enterprise Partnerships which are suspiciously similar to their predecessors. Likewise, the functions of the Training and Development Agency for teachers are to be taken over by a new body called the Teaching Agency, while the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority is to be replaced — you guessed it, — by another unelected organisation: the Standards and Testing Agency. This kind of structural tinkering and name-changing is designed to give the illusion of radical action, but all the while maintaining the bureaucratic status quo. An instinct for self-preservation runs deep in quangoland, with top officials skilled at finding new berths for themselves within the embrace of the state machine. Removed from reality: Even actor and director Clint Eastwood weighed in to criticise plans to abolish the Film Council Removed from reality: Even actor and director Clint Eastwood weighed in to criticise plans to abolish the Film Council There was a tremendous fuss last year when the Government announced the abolition of the UK Film Council, a move that was presented by campaigners on the Left as a shattering blow to a key industry and even attracted criticism from Clint Eastwood. Yet the Government was not nearly as tough as its critics portrayed. In fact, no fewer than 44 of the Film Council’s staff, around half its workforce, were simply transferred to another quango, the British Film Institute. They included Tanya Seghatchian, the £135,000 head of the Film Council’s film fund; Peter Buckingham, the Film Council’s former head of distribution and exhibition; and Will Evans, former head of business affairs. It is the same story in many other areas. For example, there was more wailing in the arts world when the Government announced the abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), its duties to be taken over by the Arts Council.

All too predictably, several of the MLA’s top quangocrats made the smooth passage to the Arts Council, among them Hedley Swain, who is currently on £72,000 as director of programme delivery, and Nicola Morgan, who is programme manager of sector improvement at the MLA but from October will be director of libraries at the Arts Council. This merry-go-round can also be found in the NHS, where the abolition of the strategic health authorities has not hindered the careers of some top officials. Dame Barbara Hakin, former £200,000 head of the East Midlands Strategic Health Authority, will reportedly keep her salary in her new role in the Department of Health as managing director for commissioning development. The same good fortune has been experienced by Ian Dalton, the £195,000 chief executive of the East Midlands Strategic Health Authority, who becomes the DoH’s managing director for provider development. Nor has the imminent abolition of the London Development Agency, the discredited economic quango for the capital, come as too cruel a blow for its chief executive Sir Peter Rogers, who has become Mayor Boris Johnson’s £127,000–a-year economic adviser. Cocooned by their lavish subsidies and bloated with a false sense of self-importance, too many quangocrats refuse to face the economic realities of life in austerity Britain. They think they are entitled to the maintain the same profligate culture that existed under Labour — and the Coalition is too enfeebled to challenge them. Despite a supposed recruitment freeze at the top of the civil service and quangoland, the hiring of bureaucrats continues So, despite a supposed recruitment freeze at the top of the civil service and quangoland, the hiring of bureaucrats continues. One recent survey of 100 of Britain’s biggest quangos and public bodies showed that 51 have been advertising for staff in the past three months. English Heritage, for example, has advertised for 16 new staff, including a £45,000-a-year head of brands and national campaigns. Similarly, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence boosted its head count from 390 to 451 last year, while energy regulator OFGEM, the National Fraud Authority and the General Dental Council all increased staffing levels over the past year. One of the worst offenders has been the National Policing Improvement Agency, the effectiveness of whose work was demonstrated in the woeful response to the outbreak of mass thuggery in Britain’s cities last week.

It certainly can’t use the excuse that it was short of resources. Not only has it increased its permanent headcount from 1,489 to 1,538 in the past year, but its arrogant attitude towards the taxpayers who fund its existence was highlighted by revelations about how it had spent £100,000 on taxi fares, £1,800 on a beehive and £2,500 on dining at an exclusive Belgravia restaurant. No fewer than 150 members of the agency’s staff have credit cards, racking up average annual bills of £20,000. Whats been spared Similar extravagance can be seen in the huge pay-offs made to quango staff. Just as most people do not receive credit cards with almost unlimited sums from their employers, so few workers can expect massive golden farewells when they lose their jobs. But the normal laws of finance do not apply in quangoland, where an early departure can bring huge rewards. Research has shown that the average redundancy pay-out in Whitehall and for quangocrats is £42,000 — more than four times the national average of £9,362. The average redundancy pay-out in Whitehall and for quangocrats is £42,000 — more than four times the national average of £9,362 For senior pen-pushers, the pay-offs can be much higher. At the Training and Development Agency for Schools, 24 staff received packages worth an average of £160,000 each in 2010/11, with five given £200,000 and executive director Leanne Hedden handed £549,457. Sadly, such grotesque sums are widespread. The Land Registry paid 68 staff more than £200,000 to leave, though these figures are dwarfed by the colossal £949,000 awarded to the outgoing deputy director-general of the BBC, Mark Byford, and the £392,000 given to the BBC’s former director of marketing Sharon Baylay on her exit. The Commission for Architecture and Built Environment – one of the few quangos to be culled (sounds like a Gambier Threat case related NGO?) What makes these pay-offs all the more outrageous is the fact that many quangocrats take up well-paid jobs soon after pocketing the huge sums. When Charlotte Cane left her job earlier this year as director of resources at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), a quango whose functions are to be absorbed within the Design Council, she was given a package worth £225,000 — the equivalent of £11,000 for every month she was in the post. Yet she has already taken up a lucrative new job as director of finance at Engineering UK, the independent body that promotes engineering and technology in Britain. Just as offensive was the case of Mark Hammond, who has recently taken up a £130,000 position at the controversial and mismanaged Equality and Human Rights Commission, having only eight months ago pocketed a £256,000 package to take early retirement from West Sussex County Council. This practice of a huge, publicly-funded redundancies, followed by swift re-employment, amounts to a gross injustice towards the taxpayer and makes a mockery of the very concept of early retirement. The quango racket has to end. In desperately straitened times, this culture of wastefulness is an insult to the millions of hard-working families watching their standard of living fall due to rising prices and a sluggish economic recovery — a recovery which will grow only by encouraging enterprise, not by rewarding the bureaucrats in the State machine.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

The 300 people who were from the 42 NGOs who supposedly voted in the Local EXCO elections (300 out of 1.5 million is not a 66% quorum) are quangocrats. See what DAP intends to inflict upon us in the article above if DAP ever gains control of the government. What is a Quango? Or a Quangocrat? From the initial letters (the first two letters for the first word) of “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization”. A Quango is an organization that, although financed by a government, acts independently of it. A Quangocrat is a committe post holder within such a Quango. NGO covers both paid and unpaid Quangos and is a generally more polite way of describing a state funded NGO and should not be compared to a self funded NGO proper. RELA looks like a very expensive, tax payer funded but not ta payer approved Quango as well. All the same NGOs here look set to become state funded, so think voters and know what you vote for. Good work on the article, for once England looks to be breaking new ground, in clearing the parasites in any case – looking forward to precedents towards moving ahead (like the way judges pass sentences and the non-relevance of the Criminal Code’s punishments in the link below which however set England back 10 steps for the above 1 step forward.

Make sense – an apology by the offender and maybe an hour of clean up work AT MOST, instead of enriching the prison system and burdening the tax payers for 6 months or food, housing and guarding would suffice. No fines applicable because it was not about the money, imprisonmeenty is entirely unrelated to an attitude of taking a bottle of water ‘in the chaos’. How much did the offender harm society? In fact ask the shop keeper if he would treat someone to a bottle of water. And for this a 6 month jail term is applied? So much for the judgment of judges. Justice denied, or was the lawyer representing the offender asleep or too block headed to think outside the box of a failed criminal code that should be amended? It’s all about ethos and ‘carrying balls’ rather than logos in English courts then? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Bottle of water for bottle of water. The taxpayers lose but the prison contractors laugh all the way to the bank. There are more honest ways of making a living or dispensing government monies than creating a jail and citizen imprisonment based economy.

QUOTE ” You can’t arrest your way out of riot problems. ” Finance Minister George Osborne UNQUOTE