Still No Decision about a Full Inquest

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, said he hoped to settle any concerns about Dr David Kelly's death to 'give the public reassurance'.

His remarks raise the prospect that a full inquest, which could see Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and other senior Labour figures questioned in public, could finally be held.

But the Attorney General said that before he applied for such a hearing he would need convincing evidence that the weapons expert had not committed suicide (my emphasis). Mr Grieve said he was unable to take any action until Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release a number of key documents from an archive used by Lord Hutton for his report. Mr Grieve said he could not apply on a "hunch" and had to take account of the feelings of Dr Kelly's close family, who have not called for a fresh investigation.

Surely the purpose of a full inquest would be that convincing evidence could be produced. The fact that the Hutton inquiry archive includes Dr Kelly's post mortem examination report, which Lord Hutton ordered sealed "in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly's wife and daughters" is enough evidence that his death may be suspicious, especially in view of recent reports that there was little or no blood at the scene. Dr Kelly's wife has never questioned the decision of the Hutton inquiry or commented upon the letter which a group of doctors signed and which stated that the official explanation was "extremely unlikely".

source

Tweet

Judge Changes Court Rule to Suit Accused

The above men (plus one missing from the photograph) were arrested in Luton last year during the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment's homecoming parade.

They are accused of telling the soldiers "to burn in Hell" and branded them rapists, murderers and baby killers, a court was told on Monday. They denied the charge.

The accused refused to stand for District Judge Carolyn Mellanby who is in charge of the case at Luton's Magistrates' Court, claiming they only respect Allah.

They were threatened with contempt of court by District Judge Carolyn Mellanby as they would not stand when she entered the courtroom, as is convention out of respect to the law of this land.

Eventually a compromise was reached where they would enter the court after her during the six day trial, thus avoiding their requirement to stand. A strange compromise too because the court stands when a judge enters or leaves because a judge is deemed to represent the law of the country. It is not the judge who is deferred to but the law.

She had the law on her side and absolute power in this situation. Why did she appease the accused?

Remember not so long ago during a rape case the main witness was so upset she fled the courtroom? The woman was jailed for contempt of court, but not these accused.

The judge even gave these accused an extra twenty minutes lunch break to pray and they also have a 'quiet' room set aside for them at the court to have regular 'prayer intervals'.

What is happening in this country? When is someone in authority going to stand up for our laws and conventions? Why hasn't Baronness Scotland of Asthal, the Attorney General, stepped in and said our conventions will be recognised?

There definitely seems to be a soft-touch attitude to a certain section of our community which isn't available to the majority of us.

Source

Tweet