CHRIS TAPPIN EXTRADITION SEEMS ALL WRONG !!!

From press reports it appears that in 2003 Great Britain and the United States signed  an Extradition Treaty with the object of accelerating the pursuit of suspects abroad.  


Dominique Grieve Q C, the Attorney General, commenting on the extradition of Mr Tappin said that perhaps things were rushed in 2003 when the treaty was signed !!!   An honest but remarkable comment.


The Press reports that Chris Tappin, a British subject I believe, was extradited from Britain to the USA following a request from the USA.  He did not have a right to a hearing in Britain to prevent the extradition !!!  


Is there not something seriously wrong ? Does he not have the right to expect a certain degree of protection in his own country ? Should the law in this case not be that, to obtain an extradition from Britain, the USA must first make an application to a court in Britain and prove a Prima Facie case for the extradition ?


If Chris Tappin is a USA citizen, that could change everything.  What must be changed, and quickly, is the Law.  The Socialists obviously did not have time, but Britain now has a Justice Minister, Kenneth Clark who can call on numerous budding lawyers !!!  

"PRESIDENT" BAYROU WOULD REDUCE NUMBER OF MP's

François Bayrou, the candidate of the Democratic Party, said on the French television that if he was elected President of France he would reduce the number of MP's from 577 to 400. Of the 400, 100 would be elected on a proportional basis.


This is a clever proposition on his part to reduce costs, but also to correct an injustice.  His party polled 10% of the votes in 2007 but only obtained 3 seats.  In the same way this would also favour the National Front of Marine Le Pen.  On the other hand the two major parties would never dare to make such a proposition for obvious reasons !!!


François Bayrou, of course, limited his proposition to the French Parliament in this Presidential election.  What I and many other people really think is that there are too many politicians and not enough taxpayers to bear the costs !!!   This is true in many countries other than just in France.  


It is true too in numerous international organisations (The United Nations Organisation, the EU and soon the Eurozone, the World Health Organisation, The Human Rights Organisation, etc. etc.) which are there for the benefit of taxpayers, but sometimes I wonder whether these organisations are as efficient as private industries or companies, which can only continue to exist if they make a profit !!!

NO U.N. CONTROL OF ASSAD OR SYRIA !!!

Top diplomats everywhere, in EU countries or in the UN, seem not to have the slightest idea how to stop Syria slaughtering its inhabitants.  Added to this, it also seems that the "Freedom Fighters" who are opposing the Government of Bashar Assad, are Islamists who have connections with Al Quaeda and who want to introduce sharia laws.


Russia and China, two of the 5 members of the UN Security Council who have a Veto,  used their Veto to prevent action by the UN in Syria !!! One must ask why !!!  


Press reports state that Russia has a fleet of boats in a port on the Syrian Coast and other reports state that China supplies "weapons" !!!  In this context Qatar also has interests in Syria.  It would seem that the use of vetoes in this case is unacceptable. To fulfill its role the UN must continue to pursue even more rigorously its aim to limit the use of vetoes. 


Nontheless, the EU Leaders could usefully consider blocking entry of all Chinese exports into the EU if it continues to sell to Syria !!!  This would lead to more production in the EU but also require a better customs control at EU frontiers, one of the big weak points of the EU !!! 


    

FRENCH PRESIDENTIALS: BEFORE THE SHORT LIST

Early in January there were more than 40 people who had indicated they would enter the Election for the Presidency of France.  As expected then, only about 10 candidates will take part in the first round of voting if they have the 500 sponsors needed and they have been accepted by the Constitutional Council.


The official Short List will be published on March 22.  Of course this does not mean that campaigning has not already begun.  It is in full swing and nerves are getting frayed !!!  Opinion Polls of about 950 people via the Internet or the Telephone are frequently made public. For the presidential elections 2002, there were 293 opinion polls...   


The 12 potential candidates are:


                                                                 OPINION 
                                                                 POLLS  %


     SARKOZY (President's Party)                  27 %
     HOLLANDE (Socialist)                             28
     BAYROU  (Democrat)                              11
     JOLY  (Greens)                                        3
    
    CHEMINADE  (Solidarity)                under  1 %
    ARTHAUD  (Workers)                        "       1
   * DUPONT-AIGNON (Republican)        "       1
    *POUTOU (Anticapitaliste)                 "       1


   *LE PEN  (National Front)                        18 %
     MELENCHON  (Left Front)                       8
   *LEPAGE  (Greens center party)    under 1
   *de VILLEPIN  (Republican)                "     1


* = Have not yet announced that they have 500 sponsors.




Before the 22th of March, some of these " small candidates"  may retire from the competition and ask their potential electors to vote for one of the leading candidates.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND RITUAL SLAUGHTERS ?

 
The debates in France, in the framework ot the coming Presidential election, brought to the fore the simmering problem of the ritual slaughter of farm animals. In particular the pain suffered by the animals and the lack of information supplied to the public who buy meat was vehemently discussed.


Brigitte Bardot, the now retired film actress, has for many years denounced the "daily slaughter of animals whose throats are cut while they are still conscious" because they have not been stunned beforehand !!! 


A television report in April 2011 revealed that 30% of large cattle and 70% of smaller animals (sheep, fowls) were slaughtered without being stunned beforehand.  This is in spite of a decree in 1964 which made the stunning of animals obligatory before slaughter in order to reduce their suffering.


However, an exception was made for animals slaughtered ritually, but purchasers of meat are never informed on how the animal was slaughtered !!!  The election candidate President Sarkozy was questioned on this during a visit to the Paris Wholesale Market at Rungis and in reply asked "Is it worth making an issue of this ?"


This issue has been vigorously brought to the fore by Marine LE PEN who has refused to be fobbed off.  Not in vain either, because the Butchers' Federation in Paris has now asked the French Government and the European Parliament to make it obligatory to label meat which has come from animals that have been ritually slaughtered !!!




P.S.  If you want to see for yourself how animals suffer when they are ritually slaughtered, you should look at the video  GAIA.be  published by Georges-Pierre Tonnelier, WWW.WAT.TV. 


  

DROITS DES ANIMAUX ET ABATTAGE RITUEL

En affirmant que le consommateur mange de la viande Hallal sans le savoir, Marine LE PEN, a ravivé le débat sur l'abattage rituel des animaux, ce qui concerne d'une part la souffrance animale et d'autre part l'information des consommateurs.


Depuis des années déjà, Brigitte Bardot dénonce "le massacre quotidien des animaux égorgés conscients", car non étourdis au préalable.


Le 4 avril 2011, c'était le journal télévisé de France 3, le 19-20, qui rendant compte de cette situation intolérable assurait que "30% des gros bovins et jusqu'à 60% des ovins caprins étaient abattus sans étourdissement préalable". 


Cet étourdissement a été pourtant imposé par décret en 1964 pour atténuer les souffrances de l'animal.


Cependant l'abattage rituel a obtenu une dérogation à l'obligation d'étourdir l'animal, mais le consommateur lui, ignore complètement si la viande achetée provient d'animaux abattus rituellement ou non. "Est ce que cela vaut le coup de faire une polémique pour ça?" a déclaré Nicolas Sarkozy en visite à Rungis...


L'intervention de Marine Le Pen n'aura pas été inutile puisque les artisans bouchers d'Ile de France viennent de demander tant au Gouvernement qu'au Parlement Européen la mise en place d'un étiquetage obligatoire pour mentionner l'abattage hallal des animaux.




P.S. Pour prendre la mesure de la souffrance de l'animal lors de l'abattage rituel, consulter la vidéo" GAIA.be diffusée par Georges-Pierre Tonnelier,www.wat.tv

CAMERON'S CRIMINAL SENTENCING REVIEW

Making the punishment fit the crime is only one aspect of the problem.  Another aspect is that the punishment should make the criminal think twice before reoffending !!!  The victms of crime must also be reassured that the law is there to protect them. 


Generally judges have sufficient experience to know whether an offender can safely be given a second chance, or not.   Guidelines, written or not, curtailing judges sentencing powers, are not the ideal method for achieving "Crime reduction".  If there is not enough prison space available to house criminals, then more prisons must be built.


Stiffer sentences are not always the answer either, but doubling the sentence each time for reoffenders, would in my mind make criminals think twice, including petty offenders.  This would free-up prison space.


David Cameron senses that laws must be passed to attain sane objectives.  Politicians should not flinch nor be frightened !!!  The electorate has already had enough of the effect of soft justice.  Political "do gooders" who advocate soft justice are the ones who will lose votes !!!