Within the last month or so, a Professor made a complaint to the police that, in a speech, a Minister of the Crown, said the equivalent of Gordon Brown’s “British Jobs for British Workers!”, and that her statement was a ‘hate crime’. He appeared on TV to justify his complaint. I don’t know why he agreed because, oddly for a professor, he muttered and stuttered for the ten minutes or so that he was on the TV. But what is extremely odd is that the police, having found no fault in the Minister’s speech, still recorded the complaint and the Minister’s statement as a ‘hate incident’.
The substance of the professor’s complaint was that the Minister said that foreigners should only be considered for jobs if there were no British people who could do that job. The prof reckoned that that was racist, or ‘hateful’. But there is an inference in what the Minister said, which is this: “Why would employers go to the trouble of employing foreigners when there are easily available natives who can do the job just as well?” The answer is that the foreigners would do the job for less pay. So, the Minister is saying that it is not in the interests of our nation that foreigners should take jobs in preference to natives on the grounds that they are cheaper. That makes sense to me, since, otherwise, the country would be full of unemployed Brits and full of Chinese coolies working for peanuts and living in overcrowded, unhealthy conditions, and therefore likely to become a burden on the NHS.
Be that as it may. That is only one example of what seems to have become a trend – formulating criminal law which is vague. So what happens when a criminal law is vague? It is that magistrates, juries and judges have to interpret the law. What often happens is that judges ask: “What did Parliament INTEND when it enacted a specific law?”
It is a plain as the nose on one’s face, for example, that when Parliament passed a law which levied duty on ‘tobacco products’, it intended the law to apply to industry. Without looking up the detail, the evidence for such an interpretation is that collection of duties would only be cost-effective if such payments were in very big amounts – at least thousands of pounds at a time. Those are the type of payments which TobComs pay – in advance. TobComs are required to pay the duty before the products have been sold. It may seem a bit crazy, but it appears that, once the tobacco product has passed through the various stages of preparation, and is a state to be sold on (packaged and ready to go), it is at that point that TobComs must pay the duty. Is that clear? Put simply, a few leaves of tobacco are chopped up, additives are added, paper tubes are filled, 20 filled paper tubes are inserted into a cardboard box and then the box is wrapped in cellophane. AT THAT POINT, duty is payable, and the product must be stored in very secure premises.
Now, how can such a process possibly apply to an individual who either grows his own plants or imports leaf? It is obvious that it was never the intention of Parliament to persecute (by the imposition of duties on tobacco products) citizens. For example, there is no system in place for home growers to pay duty. Nor is there a system in place for individuals to pay duty on imported tobacco leaf – THERE IS NO DUTY ON IMPORTED TOBACCO LEAF!
So what was the intention of Parliament when it passed the ‘importer registration’ section of the Finance Act? I doubt that there were any more than half a dozen Parliamentarians who knew about that section or gave a damn about it. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that Parliament had no intention. No intention at all. And so, any interpretation at all was valid for TC.
That is why no one should register. The whole thing is a try-on, a trick – the importation of an Oz law from 1911. That importation is also an importation of corruption. Only organise gangs will pay customs officers to ‘not see’ a container load of tobacco, and those payments could be very substantial.
So we have a situation where Parliament has passed a LAW which infringes upon the ‘human rights’, or, better still, the rights of free-born Englishmen, to amuse themselves as they wish. There is no way that the import of tobacco harms anyone, especially those who do not import tobacco.
Tobacco is NOT dead tobacco plants. Dead tobacco plants are NOT tobacco. Nor are they ‘waste’. They are dead plants. They rot down to virtually nothing if you leave them alone. Tobacco is CURED leaves.
But the major scandal is that GOVERNMENT, you know, that big overarching thing which is supposed to help us all to live amicably together, has been turned on its head. It now exists to create antagonism; witness the funding of hatred of smokers via ASH ET AL, and medical porn on cig packets.
There is no essential difference between the contrived hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany and the contrived hatred of smokers in Nazi Britain. And how has that come to pass? It is because our ‘Elected Representatives’ are unable to cope. Only a tiny number of them are better informed than the ordinary man in the street.
I think that the Brexit vote was due to frustration, and rightly so. But the consequences are far-reaching.
What I would like to see is an end to vilification and persecution of smokers and an end to the total waste of public funds on the vilification of ALL citizens, whatever amusements they enjoy. ‘Public Health’ must not be permitted to trump personal autonomy, regardless of the consequences for the NHS – if any.
Criminal law MUST become opaque if the principles upon which it is based become opaque.
That is how the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany became ‘normal’.