Gina Miller is a businesswoman whose legal team won a High Court case to force the British government to put to Parliament the triggering of Article 50. The government’s appeal in front of the Supreme Court begins today.

Yesterday, Gina Miller put her case in an article in a Sunday paper. The sub-editor, presumably, chose an inflammatory heading, ‘Yes we must have Brexit – but not by MOB RULE.’ And this is a pro-EU periodical!

It is appalling that so many reprehensible individuals have threatened her for bringing legal action to trigger Article 50 by Parliament. Let’s look at her words in that article.

‘Last Thursday’s Richmond by-election – with the defeat of a Conservative and victory for a LibDem candidate who, like me, believes a parliamentary vote is necessary – has served to throw more fuel on to the fire. I believe that defeat for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond is a distraction.’

Clever wording, here, from someone who is legally trained. By the simple expedient of mentioning the so-called defeat of a Tory, she is implying that the Tory Government is losing the Brexit argument; yet, in the same breath, she’s saying, disregard that point. Lawyers use this questionable technique all the time to plant a seed of doubt; no jury, and no reader, can disregard it once it is said. Furthermore, Goldsmith stood as an Independent, not a Conservative, so the vote was skewed in that sense. Unsurprisingly, the BBC report on the by-election fell into the same Tory-bashing mode – ‘LibDems overturned a Tory majority’; no they didn’t, they overturned Goldsmith’s majority. If a Tory had been contesting, the verdict might have been different, the voting being split. In both cases, it’s what is implied that is underhand.

‘…Any first-year law student knows: only Parliament can grant people rights, and only Parliament can take them away.’ Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum, and the referendum was to vote to stay in or to get out of the EU, no ifs or buts. The referendum delivered a majority ‘out’. Therefore there is nothing else for Parliament to discuss at this stage. It stands to reason that Parliament cannot publicly discuss in advance its tactics at the negotiating table with EU in the following two years. At the end of the two years, Parliament can then pass an act, when everything is established. It is disingenuous to suggest that this salvo is only about ‘democracy’ and Article 50; it is the first skirmish in an attempt to stop any kind of Brexit from happening.

‘So, to be clear, it is not the idea of Brexit that filled me with dread. It was the idea of an unchallenged, unanswerable Government taking us back to 1610 and ripping a hole through our democratic structures.’ This is selective memory working. Gina Miller is on record saying that on June 24 she was angered by the result (primarily because she feels that Brexit will damage fund management firms (reported in the FT), and coincidentally she is an investment fund manager). Presumably, only later did she grasp the ostensible democratic angle as a means to an end.

Referring to high courts judges’ ‘total independence’ on issues relating to IRA members or destitute asylum seekers is of no relevance here; mere obfuscation. ‘Our judges are not plotters or subversives – they are a repository of wisdom, independence and intellect.’ I would like to think so – up to a point. If any of these judges sat on a case when the jury was being selected, they would dismiss any potential juror who revealed any conflict of interest regarding the case. Not because the individual would be biased, but because it could be construed that he would be. Several of the judges involved in this case are known to have considerable interests relating to the EU and because of these associations could be construed to be biased. If the government’s appeal is not upheld, then protestations and assurances that ‘only the legal aspects’ were considered would be highly suspect. Only those judges with no link to the EU should be reviewing this appeal.

Here are some snippets from the UK reviews on Amazon that tend to sum it up.

1) This mystery tackles contemporary issues such as unemployment, recession, crime and a broken justice system. These problems are not restricted to the UK, but are becoming world-wide. I’ve enjoyed many of Nik Morton’s books, both mystery and western, which often center around themes of justice... or lack of it.

2) You are caught up in the quickening drama and are left with a satisfying feeling that although all might not be well in our world, there are some who do make a difference.

3) Hmmm, I didn't want to like this book because a vigilante is the "hero" and it felt like crossing an abyss on a piece of string in a gale. But there was something deeply satisfying, in a sneaky chocolate-eating way, about all those bad guys being punished…

My thanks to these reviewers!

The blurb

When justice fails, a vigilante steps forward. In the broken Britain of today, faith in the police is faltering. Justice and fairness are flouted. Victims are not seen as hurt people but simply as statistics.

Paul’s family is but one example of those victims of unpunished criminals. In the English south coast town of Alverbank, many others are damaged and grieving. It cannot go on. There has to be a response, some way of fighting back.

A vigilante soon emerges and delivers rough justice, breaking the bones and cracking the heads of those guilty individuals who cause pain without remorse. Who is the vigilante? He – or she – is called the Black Knight. The police warn against taking ‘the law into your own hands’. But the press laud the vigilante’s efforts and respond: ‘What law?’

Will the Black Knight eventually cross the line and kill? Paul and his family seem involved and they are going to suffer…

***

A quick yet emotional read. Published by Crooked Cat Publishing.

 

Amazon COM e-book can be purchased here

Paperback can be purchased post-free worldwide from here

One in three prisoners in Spanish jails is a foreigner, a quarter of them from Morocco (5,773), followed in this nefarious league table by individuals from Romania (2,275), Colombia (2,257) and Ecuador (1,555) out of a total number of thirty countries being represented behind bars.

Some 3,707 people are in prison for homicide or murder, of which 255 are women. The number serving time for crimes against sexual freedom are 3,087 and for domestic violence there are 3,937.

Those jailed for terrorism amount to 494 people (61 of them women) and of these 41 belonged to ETA and 42 were allied to Islamic terrorist organisations.

Andalusia houses the most prisoners (15,190), with Cataluna imprisoning 9,797 and Madrid 8,916.

 

***

 

While all crime is of concern, because there are always victims, some crimes highlighted here seem particularly worrying - the murders and the terrorist elements in particular.

 

Domestic violence has risen in recent years - again, this could be as a result of a change in the reporting of the incidents, the success of the prosecution or more public awareness.

 

Crimes against sexual freedom can be construed as child sexual abuse, adolescent and dependent individual sexual abuse, homosexual actions with minors and prostitution of minors. Recent reports in the news (Rotherham, UK) suggest that this appalling type of offence is more prevalent than thought.

 

 

The following is extracted from a lengthy and interesting article about vigilantes through history. It can be found here

Briefly, vigilantism has often been espoused by folkloric heroes and legendary outlaws (e.g., Robin Hood being the most obvious example). Vigilantism in literature, folklore and legend is connected to the fundamental issues of dissatisfied morality, injustice, the perceived failures of authority and the ethical adequacy of legitimate governance.

Not all vigilantism is aimed at the bad guys, though. It’s all in the perceptions of the aggrieved, and that of course is the danger.  And there are documented instances where mistaken identity has meant the death of innocents. Here are some examples, the good and the bad, perhaps, from Wikipedia:

In 1858 San Luis Obispo vigilantes ended the murderous reign of the bandit gang of Pío Linares on El Camino Real between San Luis and Santa Barbara.

In October 1862 in northern Texas, several Unionist sympathizers were arrested and taken to Gainesville, Texas for trial on charges of treason and insurrection. Seven were tried and hanged, and 14 were hanged without trial. A few weeks later, Unionist sympathizers were hanged without trial across northern Texas. Known as "The Great Hanging at Gainesville", it may have been the deadliest act of vigilante violence in U.S. history.

The Great Hanging at Gainesville - Wikipedia commons

In 1865, the Ku Klux Klan was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee by a group of six Confederate War veterans. The KKK or "Klan" sought to use extralegal force to resist Reconstruction in the post-Civil War South of the United States. The KKK became a leading agent of racist violence in the US.

In the early 20th century, the White Finns founded the Protection Corps as a paramilitary vigilante organisation in Finland. It formed the nucleus of the White Army in the Finnish Civil War (January-May, 1918).

In the 1920s, the Big Sword Society of China protected life and property in a state of anarchy.

The Guardian Angels organization was founded February 13, 1979 in New York City by Curtis Sliwa and has chapters in 15 countries and 144 cities around the world.

Recognized since the 1980s, Sombra Negra or "Black Shadow" of El Salvador is a group of mostly retired police officers and military personnel whose sole duty is to cleanse the country of "impure" social elements by killing criminals and gang members. Along with several other organizations, Sombra Negra are a remnant of the death squads from the civil war of the 1970s and 1980s.