How Criminal Law Becomes Opaque

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’.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “How Criminal Law Becomes Opaque”

  1. Ed Says:

    I agree that tobacco is cured leaves, but raw tobacco by my own definition would be the green leaves before any drying or processing. By their definition it is the dried leaf before processing, but unless the leaf is naturally air dried or sun cured, then flue curing (fast drying to retain high sugars) Smoke curing, fermenting (cigar leaf/wrapper), are all forms of processing, but are still classed as raw tobacco products.

    Imo, unless the leaf is shredded, then it’s still an agricultural product, but for several types of whole leaf sold in the UK, the processing of the leaf into tobacco begins with the grower, long before it’s sold at the market.

    • junican Says:

      Oh dear! My point, Ed, is that the leaves, growing on the plant, are NOT tobacco at all, any more that a wooden plank is a ‘raw’ table. Given the right climate, I suppose that leaves could actually cure themselves on the plant, but even the Red Indians in America collected the leaves from their tobacco plants and ‘cured’ them by hanging them up over their fires. What is a bit weird is that we have no word which describes the nature of tobacco plant leaves, other than – well – ‘leaves’.
      You see, I would not mind if those leaves were called ‘tobacco leaves’, in much the same way that the leaves of tea plants are called ‘tea leaves’. But those leaves are not ‘tea’.
      What I am saying is that the Zealots have taken advantage of poor definitions.
      Good heavens! Is there such a thing as ‘raw’ gold?

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    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.
    What gets me is, that for a short term idiotic goal long term thinking is culled.
    I have inherited a collective guilt – and I’ll be damned if I allow the smoker cull to be passed on to my children.

    We Germans should know better when it comes to goal oriented propaganda!! And yet, you can fall for idiocy one time. I cannot find any excuse for a second time. But this time the game is individuals’ lives. Common sense dies with increasing fear.
    To me the greatest fear is being around in nappies, away with the mixer and costing the tax payer £ 3000/month. WHERE is the dignity in that?
    What is going to kill me? No idea. I do know smoking isn’t it. I’ve smoked for 48 years by now and still can move/do how/what I like.

    We need to ask common sense questions. A lot of them. And NOW!

  3. junican Says:

    Beo. It has taken decades since the end of WW2 for Germany to be seen as harmless, and there are still major doubts, even now. I have not travelled extensively, but I have travelled, on my bike, through parts of France and Belgium, and on holiday to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Check Republic and other more remote places, such The Azores and the Canaries.
    What I have seen from those travels is that ordinary people prefer to ‘get along’ and be kind to each other, rather than be enemies. For the most part, ‘enemies’ are created by ‘The Elite’. Did German soldiers and French and British soldiers in WW1 want to kill each other?
    No. It was all about POWER. They were ORDERED to kill each other by THE ELITE.
    You will die, just as I will (also a smoker for decades) when ‘fate’ decides that one of your major organs will fail. There are hundreds of ‘medical conditions’, any of which might be the one to finish you off. It does not matter.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: