WILL THE LIBYANS RETURN?

The news that Gadaffi has been overthrown partly by Libya's own people but mainly because of the assistance of NATO and especially Britain and France opens up a new era.

The reason for Cameron's and Sarkozy's assistants in overthrowing the tyrant are as yet unclear but the attitude of the two countries to Libya seems to have reversed in the last two years.
They knew he was a tyrant but still dealt with and were friendly to him before.

Were they waiting for an uprising to depose him? It looks like it. But why?
Why were our forces deployed in Libya and not in the other dictatorial countries of the Middle East? After all they are all run by tyrant regimes.
What about Syria? Their government has killed thousands and continues to kill every day.
Is Syria too strong or has too little oil or too close to Israel? We are not told the reason for this differing policy. I know Hague has said a few strong words to them. That'll frighten Assad.

The barbaric treatment of Gadaffi showed what a rabble we have supported and what we face if these people ever are in a position of power in Britain.
Even in Nazi Germany the perpetrators of atrocities were given a fair trial before their end.
That is the difference between barbarism and Western standards.

This treatment of a tyrant will have unfortunate side effects.
Assad will not wish for the same fate in Syria and will fight harder to preserve his life and regime. What has he to lose? only the lives of the Syrian people.
And there are the dictatorships of Arabia, Yemen and Saudi to name but two. Why not them ?
Do we fear the loss of their oil? The leaders of these countries will also fear the same fate as Gadaffi and will fight harder to preserve themselves.

It seems freedom is very important but not as important as financial motives.
There is far more to this squalid intervention than democracy as there is little hope of it in any muslim country. They don't want it in any case.

Much as I deprecate the actions of those complicit in the final demise of Gadaffi I am glad he is no more.
It will solve two problems at the same time.
The new democratic Libya will attract all those of that nation who are at present here as refugees. They will relish the opportunity of returning to their own country and to help to rebuild it.
Their departure will ease the pressure on housing here.
If enough return it will obviate the need as expressed by Tessa Jowell for people such as myself and my wife who selfishly live in three bedroom houses since our children fled the nest.

We are told we should move to a one bedroom apartment to ease the housing shortage and make room for those with large families (usually muslims).

I know this might seem a bit selfish but I don't want to move. Yes we have two spare bedrooms now but we have made this house our home.
We have put our stamp on it and want to end our days, however selfish that might seem.

The return of the Libyans will help to solve this crisis.
If that is not enough the house (mansion) occupied by champagne socialist Tony Blair I believe has great potential to be broken up into large apartments to provide suitable accommodation for Somalian "refugees" up to the standards they expect.

Meanwhile we will remain in our more humble abode safe in the knowledge that a mass exodus of Libian patriots is about to occur.

OR IS IT?

Courts need not be bound by Europe, says top judge

British courts do not need to be bound by European human rights rulings, the country’s most senior judge said yesterday.

"

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only “take account” of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it.

His comments will be seized upon by David Cameron who is furious with a series of rulings by the Strasbourg court imposed on the UK.

The Prime Minister is resisting a demand from Europe to give some prisoners a vote after the court ruled the current blanket ban is unlawful but is under increasing pressure to abide by it.

The domestic courts had all agreed with Government policy but the human rights challenge won in Europe.

Giving evidence to the Lords Constitutional Committee, Lord Judge was asked whether Strasbourg “always wins”.

He said: “I would like to suggest that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win.”

“I think for Strasbourg I think there is yet a debate to happen, it will have to happen in the Supreme Court, about what we really do mean in the Human rights Act, what parliament means in the Human Rights Act, when it said that the courts in this country must take account of the decisions of European Court of Human Rights.

“I myself think it is at least arguable that having taken account of the decision of the court in Strasbourg our courts are not bound by them. Give them due weight in most cases obviously, we would follow them but not, I think, necessarily.”

The Human Rights Act, which the last Labour Government passed, enshrined the European Convention of Human Rights in to British law.

Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, told the peers that Strasbourg can cause “serious problems” when it rules against the UK courts.

But he said that as long as the Human Rights Act existed Strasbourg would win.

The Government has been given a further stay by Europe on its demand to impose prisoner voting pending the outcome of a similar case involving Italy.

Mr Cameron has suggested replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

He also plans to use the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe from next month to lead a radical shake – up of the European human rights court.

However, he was warned last month by his own commission examining a Bill of Rights that radical reform of the court would not prevent it again overruling Parliament on issues such as allowing prisoners to vote.

In other issues, Lord Judge warned ministers that their open criticism of decisions of the courts that they do not like is “damaging”.

The relationship between parliament and judiciary was strained earlier this year in a row over the growing use of injunctions and claims that the courts were effectively creating a law of privacy by stealth.

Asked about a public perception of antagonism between parliament and the judiciary, he said: “It would help if Government ministers did not cheer when they agree with a judicial decision or boo when they disagree.

“That is, I think, very undesirable and I think it is damaging. If we got rid of that I think it would be much easier.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8836487/Courts-need-not-be-bound-by-Europe-says-top-judge.html