...was the assassination of the tsar family thy hallowed bolshevik ancestors comitted really necessary?

Me and my warrior vikings now set sail anew, leaving the shores of fair Britannia, refraining from cracking thy head open, as there doesn't appear to be anything of value in it.

..was the assassination of the tsar family thy hallowed bolshevik ancestors commited really necessary?

Me and my proud berserk warriors now set sail anew, leaving the shores of fair Britannia, refraining from cracking your skull open as there seems to be nothing of value contained in it.

Long live the feeble minded adoration of old leftist crackpots among younger radicals!

In response to Donald Dick, the killing of the Romanovs was not at all necessary or justified. But I for one don't see anything in the above article that claims it was, or in fact, defends or even mentions the Bolshevik revolution, so what exactly is your point?

Connect the (fascist) dots:

"to defeat Neocons, every means possible has to be deployed".

Malcolm X, Lenin, Bin Ladin

Death to the tsar!

Death to capitalism!



YAWN.

...but if they happen to share my views, then we at least have that much in common.

In any case, even if I were a fully-paid up member of the Coalition of Mad Mullahs in Exile (C.O.M.M.I.E.) it would not for that reason alone invalidate my argument. Donald Dickhead's response is completly ad hominem. Besides, if he knew anything at all about capitalism, he would realise that managerial capitalism is the antithesis of individual freedom, choice, competition and entrepreneurship but rather, it contrives at coercion, subjugation and monopoly. Corporate executives are not enterpreneurs but on the contrary, are paid employees, for the most part self-serving mediocrities, that dishonestly appropriate to themselves, the rewards properly due for innovation and risk taking.

I would incidentally point out that my views happen to be essentially those set out in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (which includes clear guidelines under which it can be regarded as morally justified to resort to violent resistance to tyrannical government).

Little have you understood of the true content of your runes.
Your idea of what are legitimate ways of fighting Neocons, namely that "every means possible has to be deployed", is equivalent to all philosophies of "the end justifies the means". That is apparentely what I'm aiming at. How can it be an argumentum ad hominem?
Speaking of things russian, we can compare this perspective to the ideology behind, for instance, Stalin's words "the death of a single individual is a great tradegy, the death of a million individuals is mere statistics" or the übermensch outlook of Raskolnikov, main character of Dostojevskij's "Crime and Punishment".

I myself, having traveled the world with my warriors and having seen places like the Delphi temples, where a certain inscription read "Nothing in Exess", believe in balancing the extremes of this world represented by people like you and respectively greedy capitalists. Therefore I've launched this concept I've decided to call "The Swedish Model", a combination of strong trade unions, other kinds of democratic influence over corporate activities as well as a healthy business climate.
Unfortunately, the world today isn't balanced. We have Wall street insanity as well as leftist iconoclasts smashing windows of McDonald's restaurants, not to mention the insanity of the Cuban or North Korean regimes.

We europeans are not bereft of peaceful tools to resist the evils of the global capital with. A better Europe can be built with the help of strong trade unions, the euro (which already has been a hard blow to americas secret government, Wall Street, by reducing worldwide demand for the prime US export product: the dollar) and homogenous eu/eec legislation in the fields of labour market, enviromental protection, product testing, energy production, distribution and consumption etc.
If The Swedish Model, being the third way, were to be applied to all of Europe successfully, then the AU and many pooor countries in Asia would wish to learn from us to an even larger extent then they do today (and it would then be easier for us to assist and aid them).
Your ideas on how to fight capitalist evils is obviously a way of opposing the Wall Street cancer, but it's not the way to deafeat it.

In advocating opposition to Neocon policies "by every means possible" it may be taken for granted that I mean, by every "legitimate" means possible.

I am not a Socialist. My values are informed by basic principles of Catholic social teaching. I am also an international jurist and would be committing professional suicide if my views were to be misinterpreted as implying support for indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians.

The point of my argument is that the real terrorists are those governments (We Know Who They Are) who are seeking to propagate fear and insecurity throughour the world so as to criminalise opposition to their policies. These are the true enemies of freedom and, as I have attempted to argue, see to achieve their ends by dishonestly establishing a causal link between justifiable opposition to their policies and acts of terrorism which are not.

By the definitions set by these people, we are being expected to view all forms of violent protest as acts of terrorism. By this standard, it would never have been possible to bring to an end the Nazi occupation of Europe. It would never have been possible to bring an end to the British military occupation in Nothern Ireland. Armed resistance to the Zionist occupation of Palestine and the U.S. puppet regime in Iraq is therefore entirely legitimate, though acts of indiscriminate violence against civilian targets are always to be deplored, no matter which side is responsible.

Violent resistance to U.S. policies under the Bush administration is legitimate in precisely the same way as it was essential to take up arms against the Nazis, indeed, current U.S. policies are entirely consistent with an administration presided over by a man whose grandfather was one of the earliest financial backers of the Third Reich.

These are some of the specific policies to which I would in principle be willing to subscribe:-

1. Restrict the lives of corporations to 25 years after which require them to be compulsorily liquidated with a tax on their liquidated assets equal to Inheritance Tax rates.

2. Limit IP protection for corporately owned patents, trade marks, logos, etc. to a life of 25 years.

3. Require corporations to distribute 85% of their profits to shareholders with at least 50% of profits to be shared with employees.

4. Tax listed corporations on the basis of their market value, gross and net assets, sales and market share - with punitive and confiscatory taxes for companies with a market share higher than 0.01%

5. Prohibit the ownership of real estate by corporations. Prohibit the right of corporations to borrow money.

6. Restrict executive compensation to a maximum of 3 times that of the lowest paid.

7. Require all corporations over a certain size to be governed by a supervisory board with representatives of employees and the local community in which the corporation is based, representing at least two thirds of the board.

8. Give employees the right to form cooperative societies and to compulsory purchase the enterprises they work for once they reach a certain size, with a statutory formula for compensation.

9. Through tax incentives, make ownership of enterprises by sole traders, families, unincorporated partnerships, communities and cooperatives, the normal form of business organisation.

10. Prohibit private corporate ownership of utilities and other essential public services. Subsidise all utilities and public services out of general taxation. Provide a minimum entitlement to free electricity, gas, water and other utilities to cover the basic needs of consumers regardless of their means. Require all telecommunications companies to connect to other networks without charge. .

11. Restrict the interest margins charged by lenders to no more than 50% of the amount they pay to depositors. In other words, if banks offer 1% interest to depositors, they must not charge more than 1.5% to borrowers. Charge VAT on bank interest. Prohibit the imposition of any form of charges to bank account holders for withdrawals of their own funds. Prohibit branch banking. Require borrowers to provide at least 50% of their funding requirements from their own resources. Encourage thrift. Penalise borrowings. Tax the receipt of a loan as if it was income in the hands of the borrower with rebates as the loan is repaid.

12. Restrict credit limits on credit cards to what the card holder deposits with the card issuer on which they are to be receive interest. Allow all existing credit card debt balances to be repaid interest-free over 10 years. Restrict commissions charged to merchants by cedit card companies to 1% and require this to be shared equally with card holders. Prohibit all other charges by card issuers either to the consumer or the merchant.

13. Through tax incentives, encourage the management by individuals of their own investments, savings, pensions. Penalise all forms of corporate or institutional collective investment, unless through cooperative, mutualised structures.

14. Prohibit the multiple corporate ownership of retail outlets.

15. Preclude all imports into the EU of goods that are manufactured in countries that do not pay the minimum EU wage, that do not confirm to the European Social Charter or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or comply with EU environmental standards.

16. Devolve all political decisions to regional and cantonal authorities. Allow EU nationals to renounce the nationality of their countries of origin if they wish, and adopt EU citizenship instead, with dual citizenship if needs be. Limit the powers of government. Require as many political decisions as possible to be taken by referendum. Any individual representing 2.5% or more of a political constituency should have the right to participate in government. Government should be formed by parties with the greatest number of parliamentary seats, not by the largest single party with a greater number of seats.

17. Seek to further enlarge the EU by the granting of affiliated membership of Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. Recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state with EU affiliation. Establish a predominantly European sphere of influence in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia with the replacement of the U.S. dollar by the Euro as the world's principal trading currency. But prohibit all trade and financial dealings with regimes that do not conform to EU principles of democracy and rights.

18. Abolish NATO in favour of a new Pan European defence and foreign policy based on the premis that the U.S. is a potential enemy, not an ally.

19. Support the reform of the UN Security Council based on regional groups, removing the veto and prohibiting the deployment of armed forces outside any country's borders without the specific permission of the Security Council.

20. Ratify all international conventions against torture, ethnic, gender, religious and cultural discrimination and other human rights abuses, and the advancement of democracy and the rule of law.

"It would never have been possible to bring an end to the British military occupation in Nothern Ireland. "

Can you explain what you mean by "British Military Occupation" please?

Dear freshwater pirate!

What I gather from your announcement is that you feel we should encourage the population in the third world to resist Neocons, in the first hand by peaceful means and if such actions would fail, by violence.
That is very akin to saying "the ends justify the means". You talk about "legitimate" means but seem to forget that, as there hasn't been any limit set to what kind of violence and to what extent violence be used in your posted article, you're implicitly advocating that EVERY kind of violence and atrocity ought to be deemed as useful as well as legitimate (if pacifist actions were unsuccessful) - at least as long as the violent deeds were to be delivered by "organised" rebel armies.

I don't think the third world is in need of more civil wars. Whatever the noble cause might be.

Remember how South Africa was dealt with? That's the way to enhance democracy in the tird world.
Of course you'll reply "- The poor of South Africa still aren't liberated from Neocons".
No, but today there are far better conditions for, one day, achieving true democratic rule over the economy of the country.
Even if that might be argued for, I see a great problem. Our warrior friends in Africa are, not at least because of global capitalist interference and sheer intervention, divided. Brother is fighting brother. These tragical conditions must come to an end for Africa to be enabled to build true prosperity.

Especially the third world nations of South America, Africa and Asia are too weak to resist Wall Street on their own. Even if united they would be weak in comparision. A large, homogenous, politically stable nation like China has better odds. Today we can also see clearly that, despite political oppression and China still having far worse working conditions than there is in the West, China's economy is catching up with ours (as their GDP growth rate is much higher). Private consumtion is increasing and substantial improvements are being made in, for instance infrastructure. In India the situation is similar, although living conditions are still worse than in China.

Europe is much stronger, in more or less every aspect of international influence, than Africa, South America, India and China.
The basis for this strength is our economic might.
Now what are we, the barbarian tribes of Europe able to do, with this strong position taken into account?;

(click below)

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_gdp_%28nominal%29

My swedish forebearers managed to enforce an order where the good aspects of capitalism were encouraged and sustained, as well as living standard de facto were allowed to be raised, more or less, year after year.
Having traveled abroad for many years and nowhere having met with a better way of organising society, I view what I call "The Swedish Model" to be superior in terms of providing high standards of living combined with business success.
One could claim the affluence of Sweden and the other scandinavian countries is a result from the ravagings of our multi-nationals in the third world, denying the role of drastic improvements of the productivity of our home based industry, the importance of our heavy investments in research and education or the opportunities created by our businessmen's wise navigation in the stormy waters of international market development.

As I've already urged you to above, consider the economical strength of Europe, a continent where the concept of social welfare and social security still is very difficult for Wall Street and their allies to break down, thanks to, among other things, national as well as EU legislation.
If the tool of EU legislation in combination with a sensible approach by european trade unions (who need to learn how to cooperate more wisely) were applied in an intelligent way, we could make all of the European countries, even the eastern parts, "scandinavian" societies.
The european market is so huge and important that we, the people of Europe, if united, are in a position powerful enough to dictate our own house rules. This could hardly be said of, even a fully united, Africa.
We can afford the burning of some cars here on our own soil, but the last thing we should do is to encourage violence in the third world. It will only help fulfill the classical intention of all tyrants to "divide and conquer".

I don't know why, but clicking on the wikipedia site I've included the adress of above, doesn't take you to it at all.
It does exist though.

Search for "gdp nominal" on

www.wikipedia.org

it'll work.

The individual is required in conscience not to submit to government where its policies are contrary to fundamental rights. It is in such cases legitimate to defend such rights against abuse of authority.

The strict conditions under which armed resistance to authority is permitted are as follows:

1. The damage being inflicted by the aggressor must be "certain, grave and prolonged."

2. All other means of resistance must be shown to be impractical or ineffective.

3. There must be a serious prospect of success.

4. The use and methods of violent resistance adopted must not produce evils graver than the evils that are being resisted.

5. It is impossible to reasonably contemplate any alternative.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church; 2243]

John,

I'm only in the 3rd year of my LLB but I know that when people avoid answering questions, its usually for a reason. Gonna answer my point. Also want to explain to the non legals what a Jurist is (interesting use of a largely American term there sir, good thing I stayed awake for some of 1st year)?

The article is too long, and the comments seem irrelevant.

It is the duty of any people to free themselves from foreign domination and to prevent the theft of National assets. When faced by such enemy any action necessary must be used. The squeamish will soon become extinct or find themselves bribed or conscripted to go off and enslave other peoples to the conqueror. Patriots who find their Nation in that situation do consider what is necessary to genocide their own Nation.

Politicians who cooperate with conquerors are Quislings, and deserve his fate. Those who do not arm and train themselves to resist the Vikings when they come raiding deserve to be pillaged enslaved or killed.

Tony Blair taught one lesson when he took the Pistol away, it was replaced by a microscope. How do you like the change?

By British military occupation of Northern Ireland, I mean the colonial occupation of an intrinsic part of the country and nation of Ireland by British troops against the will of the great majority of the Irish people.

By jurist, I mean one who is professionally engaged or interested in the law, not necessarily as a solicitor, attorney, barrister, advocate or notary, but also as a judge, a lecturer in or writer about legal issues, and, in particular one who is interested in the law generally. For example, Antonio Augusto Cancado Trinidade is a law professor, a judge, an author of numerous books, monographs and articles on international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as a legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry of his country and to various agencies of the UN. He is in short, a jurist. It is a description more commonly used in continental Europe than in the UK.

Having appeased the Bush administration and its quest for plunder and subjugation, Tony Blair is indeed the very personification of a Quisling.

I have read many items on the internet written by John Rhys Burgess . Some caustic some comedic but the biggest laugh that I get is from the way he describes himself.'Letters to the Editor. Aljazeerah .August 18th 2003'. www.aljazeerah.info After a long winded letter offering, and asking the Editor, to be put in touch with any Iraqi citizens, injured by the Coalition Provisional Authority, whom he offers to represent in his capacity as a Human Rights Lawyer, based in Strasbourg, on a contigency 'no-win no-fee' basis. A figure of $ 10.million dollars is mentioned, based on the amount the Libyans paid out to the families of the Lockerbie victims, but he hastens to add that he probably would not be able to get as much for his 'Clients'. Quite what the Libyans and the Coalition Provisional Authorities have in common is beyond me. The Lockerbie affair was as a result of terrorism orchestrated and financed by Libya. Over 99% of the people injured, and killed, daily in Iraq are injured or killed by Iraqi's themslves and 'outsider' religious funamentalists not the Coalition Provisional Authority.

But I digress. In August of 2003 John and I were at Plater College Oxford on a year long residential course in order to gain a certificate of Higher Education in order to go on to University. John went to Oxford Brookes and I to The Law School University of Westminster London. I am puzzled how John can claim to be a Human Rights Lawyer based in Strasbourg ,at the time that this article was written, yet still be able to attend lectures and tutorials everyday at Plater? I was under the illusion that to be able to legally refer to oneself as a 'Lawyer' legal qualifications were a requirement? I know John went on a 'jolly' over to Strasbourg for a couple of weeks, or so, and received a small certificate acknowledging his attendance on a course. I don't think that this is a legal qualification though.

In fact I have recently received an invitation, November 3rd 2005, from the self-same organization that John proudly displays on his web-site offering a three day course on basic Human Rights Law + full membership and a small certificate acknowledging my attendance for 1000 euro's. I was even contacted by the Tutor who emailed me from New York no less. This was completly un-solicited. I asked what this full membership involved and was told that I would only be able to 'help' to in the preparation of a case, does that mean actual preparation of the case or fetching coffee for the real Human Rights Lawyer?, and that I would have no automatic right of audience myself. I took this to be another internet scam and declined the offer and threatening legal action if I was contacted again.

Out of curiosity I looked up their membership listing and low and behold John Rhys Burgess was there as a member. Also out of curiosity I would love to know exactly how many case's of any description, let alone Human Rights violations, John has actually handled himself?. When and where? I should'nt think it would be many, if any, after reading that he had dropped a case against the Trustees of Plater College and made a public apology to their Solicitor after publishing ill-considered remarks on the internet. The matter of his 'representing' or not the interests of The Plater College Foundation, of whom he was one time secretary, is public knowledge after the matter being clarified by Mr. Mick McAndrews, Plater College Foundation Chairman, in a recently published open letter.

Rabby Burns spring quickly to mind when I come across, for the most part,vitriolic and hypocritical nonsense spouted by JRB, a 'wannabe legal cause celeb', 'Oh to see ourselves as others see us'..... The seasons greeting to one and all..Joe Hall

John Rhys-Burgess studied Politics and Economics at Plater College, Oxford between October 2003 and June 2004 for which he received a Certificate in Higher Education with Distinction, attaining an average grade of 86%, which according to his tutor, Dr. Hugh Macdonald, was probably the highest grade of any student that had ever completed this course. The CHE which is validated by the Open University is equivalent to the first year of
an undergraduate degree and a Distinction is at the level of First Class honours. John's academic standard would have been equivalent in standard to a double first at Oxford.

Whilst a student at Plater College, John was commissioned as a Eucharistic minister for the Roman Catholic parish of St. Anthony of Padua in Headington and was also a member of the parish's Justice and Peace Group.

After completing his course at Plater College, John studied Human Rights at the Institut International des Droits de l'Homme at Strasbourg. This is an intensive postgraduate course euqivalent in standard to the Human Rights module of a Master of Laws degree. After this, John successfully applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for permission to practice at the bar of the Court as an advocate, following which he returned to Oxford to complete a one year Master of Laws degree course at Brookes in International Law.

Whilst at Brookes, John concurrently attended classes in Latin, Moral Theology and Canon Law at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford.

In October 2003, John was admitted to the Postgraduate Training Committee of Oxford Brookes University's Law Department.

In February 2004, following completion of the European Law module of his degree course, John was elected as an Adjunct Member of the European Affairs Committee of the New York City Bar.

In May 2004, John was accepted for membership of the International Bar Association and became a member of the IBA's Human Rights Law Committee and several other committees of this association. The IBA is the largest and and one of the oldest established bar associations in the world.

In June 2004, John was admitted to membership of the Human Rights Commission of the Union des Avocats Europeens, Luxembourg and in the following month was elected to membership of the European Bar Human Rights Institute, Paris.

In July 2004, John was elected to membership of the Barreau Penal International (or International Criminal Court Bar) at The Hague and in the following month was elected to membership of the European Circuit of the Bar of England and Wales.

In November 2004, John was elected to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Welsh Centre for International Affairs, which is part of the United Nations Association for Wales in Cardiff and in April 2005, he became a member of the Wales Public Law and Human Rights Association.

Although he is not a barrister or a solicitor, John sometimes undertakes cases in the courts of England and Wales with special permission of the court. He appeared in a case before the Chancery Division at the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr. Justice Evans Lombe, Mr. Justice Lindsay and Master Moncaster, during January 2004, which was indeed his first case as an advocate. He acted in other proceedings in the Cardiff County Court in October 2004, before District Judge Singh and in the Swansea County Court before His Honour Judge Wyn Williams, QC. During 2005, he has acted in cases in the High Court in Birmingham, before His Honour Judge Norris, QC, in the Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, before Mr. Justice Moses, and in the Court of Appeal before Lord Justice Lloyd. Additionally, John has conducted Immigration and Asylum applications and appeals in Liverpool and Newport, and in other cases at Manchester Employment Tribunal and Sheffield Magistrates Court. He currently has several cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court where John represents victims of war crimes.

John started his first international law firm in St. James's, London in 1992 which is now part of Cassin Monnet Schuman of which he is senior partner.

In November, John was invited to attend a symposium at the House of Lords at the request of of the People's Mujahadeen Organisation of Iran.

In spite of his busy work schedule, in September, John obtained his postgraduate Diploma in Human Rights Law and Practice from the International Bar Association and during the coming year will be completing research for an M. Phil degree at Cardiff University.

In February 2005, John was the founder of The Plater College Foundation, a company which he set up entirely at his own expense with a view to taking over the management of Plater College which the trustees of the college had without good reason decided to close.

He took on responsibility for mounting a legal challenge to the conduct of the trustees of Plater College but during October 2005 was obliged to remove the board of directors that he appointed to run the Foundation for misconduct. As a result, the Foundation was unable to proceed with its case against the trustees of Plater College. The Foundation has now changed its name to the Charles Plater Endowment for Human Rights and Social Justice which John continues to run as its sole director. Following impending changes in the regulation of legal services in the United Kingdom, John hopes to float his law firm on the London Stock Exchange and intends to donate part of his profits from this venture to the Foundation to enable it to open a new Plater College in Oxford as well as to provide study facilities in the fields of politics, Human Rights, trade and social justice.

Disappointingly, John has not yet received his Masters degree from Oxford Brookes University due to the late submission of his dissertation and was granted additional time for its completion. John is terminally ill with prostate cancer and diabetes and may not have long to live. He was 60 years of age on November 28 and has three daughters and is a grandfather of three. John and I live together in the village of Peillon near Nice in southern France and in the Mid Wales town of Llandrindod Wells near Hereford. I am his personal business manager and we are engaged to be marriied.

The allegations made my Mr. Hall appear to be part of a general smear campaign propagated by former Labour councillor, Mick McAndrews. Mr. McAndrews was formerly the chairman of The Plater College Foundation until dismissed from his position by John Rhys-Burgess on October 8.

John did in fact, call a lawyer working for the Catholic Education Service, an unscrupulous liar and a hypocrite and did so because he believed and still believes his comments to be justified. John did later apologise because he felt that as a practising Roman Catholic he ought not to have expressed himself so forthrightly and in such a public manner.

John says that he remembers Mr. Hall very well and expresses the hope that Mr. Hall's new career as a professional Mackenzie Friend has met with success. He is sorry that Mr. Hall appears to have so readily joined in the despicable calumnies that Mr. McAndrews and others have now spread through their self-evident malice and envy at John's success.

I also was a student at Plater and remember both John Rhys-Burgess and Joe Hall well

JRB and Joe were both doing the Legal Studies course together. But JRB left the course after only a couple of weeks. His tutor, Len Chantry, had given him an 80% mark. It was his first essay. John wanted to know what was wrong with it!!!

Len, a nice guy who also lectured at Brookes, was flabbergasted. He'd never given anyone such a high grade before! But JRB said that because he had only got an 80% grade, to his way of thinkiing, this implied his essay must have been 20% wrong!

We all thought JRB was being unreasonable. But he was furious and walked out. He threatened to leave the college altogether but after we calmed him down Hugh Macdonald talked him into joining his PPE class.

JRB could be very boring at times. He hated big business, banks, globalization, Bush and Blair. He was beside himself with rage over the invasion of Iraq. In the weekly debates, he could be quite vitriolic and was rabidly anti-American. He had fairly strong views on most things. I suppose some people might think him self-opinionated and arrogant. He could be very obnoxious but was also quite funny and had had some incredible stories. JRB is a larger than life character.

JRB was generous with his time and helped a lot of the students with their work. The guy would walk down in Oxford for 7 o'clock Mass every morning but was still in the IT room working until 11 every night. Yet he always had time for people. Not everyone liked him but much of it was probably envy. He was pretty much a loner. He walked around with a stoop and seemed always preoccupied. I often saw the guy crying.

JRB did his final exam a week before the rest of us because he went on to do another course in Strasbourg.

Joe Hall didn't impress me much. For some reason, we thought he was an ex-Cop. Yet they elected him president of the JCR. He was uneducated and illiterate, spoke in a thick Geordie accent and was covered in tatoos. He was always hijacking our classes with stupid, boring stories about cases he was supposedly involved in. He disappeared from college altogether during the first term, leaving us without a president for the JCR which ended in chaos. It was rumoured he had been arrested for armed robbery. I really don't know. As far as I know, he flunked his course. I don't know what JRB has done to upset him. When we were at Plater, they seemed to get on well enough.

I'm told that this is probably too long for anyone to be bothered to read it, but here goes.

Not content with his calumnies against John Rhys-Burgess, it is also interesting to see how Joe Hall even seeks to discredit the Institut International des Droits de l'Homme, where John studied Human Rights Law in 2003.

The course offered by this institution is according to Mr. Hall "a scam".

The IIDH at Strasbourg was founded by the late Renee Cassin in 1969. Professor Cassin was one of France's most eminent legal scholars and jurists. He was General de Gaulle's personal legal adviser and one of the authors together with Eleanor Roosevelt, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The IIDH has received the UNESCO award for the excellence of its Human Rights teaching.

Various international and regional organizations, NGOS and other bodies and individuals are connected with the Institut, including the Prime Minister and Department of Foreign Affairs of France, the Council of Europe, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Quebec Human Rights Commission, the Alasce and Lower Rhine regional governments, the city authorities of Strasbourg, Schiltigheim, Mundolsheim, Ingwiller and Colmar and the governments of the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Denmark.

The institue's professors and teachers at the IIDH during John's year, included Judge Lucius Caflisch and Judge Francoise Tulkens, both of the European Court of Human Rights; Professor Antonio Cancado Trindade of the University of Brasilia, a Judge and President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Professor Sir Nigel Rodley of the University of Essex and a UN Rapporteur for Torture; Adama Dieng, Under-secretary general of the UN; Professor Jeremy McBride of the University of Birmingham; Professor Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos of the University of Athens, Professor Dinah Shelton of Notre Dame Law School, Indiana, Professor William Schabbas of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the Irish National University, Galway, Professor Emmanuel Decaux of the University of Paris II (Pantheon Assas), Professor Jean-Francois Flauss of the University of Laussanne, Professor Fernando Marino Menendez of the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Professor Joseph Yacoub of the University of France-Comte, Professor Jim Murdoch of the University of Glasgow; Professor Luis Jimena Quesada of the University of Valencia, Professor Nicolas Boeglin-Naumovic of La Salle University, Costa Rica, Dr. Rachel Murray of Birkbeck College, London, Professor Yoichi Higuchi of the University of Waseda, Tokyo and many others.

Bill Schabbas is typical of the calibre of the teaching staff at the IIDH. He has a BA. and MA degrees from the University of Toronto and LLB, LLM. and LLD degrees from the University of Montreal. He is the author of 18 monographs dealing in whole or in part with international human rights law, including Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 2nd ed.), Genocide in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 3rd ed.), International Human Rights Law and the Canadian Charter (Toronto, Carswell, 1996), The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture (Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1996) and Précis du droit international des droits de la personne (Montréal, Éditions Yvon Blais, 1997). He has also edited many collections of essays and similar volumes. He has also published more than 170 articles in academic journals, principally in the field of international human rights law. His writings have been translated into Russian, Chinese, Spanish, German, Japanese, Farsi, Arabic, Portuguese and Albanian. They have been cited in judgments of many of the world's leading constitutional and international courts, including the United States Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Canada and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Professor Schabas is editor-in-chief of Criminal Law Forum , the quarterly journal of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law.
Professor Schabas has often participated in international human rights missions on behalf of non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International (International Secretariat), the International Federation of Human Rights, and the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development to Rwanda, Burundi, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Cambodia and Guyana. He is legal counsel to Amnesty International Ireland. He has worked as a consultant or independent expert on behalf of various governments and international organizations. He was a delegate of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy to the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 15 June-17 July 1998. He is a member of the board of several international human rights organizations and institutions, including the International Institute for Criminal Investigation, of which he is chair.

From 1991 to 2000, William Schabas was professor of human rights law and criminal law at the Département des sciences juridiques of the Université du Québec à Montréal, a Department he chaired from 1994-1998; he now holds the honorary position of professeur associé at that institution. He has also taught as a visiting or adjunct professor at McGill University, Université de Montréal, Université de Montpellier, Université de Paris X-Nanterre, Université de Paris XI, Université de Paris II Pantheon-Assas, Dalhousie University and University of Rwanda, and he has lectured at the International Institute for Human Rights (Strasbourg), the Canadian Foreign Service Institute, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. He is an honorary professor of human rights law at the Law Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing. A member of the Quebec Bar from 1984 to 2005, he served on the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal from 1996 to 2000. Professor Schabas was a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington during the academic year 1998-99. In 1998, Professor Schabas was awarded the Bora Laskin Research Fellowship in Human Rights by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

In May 2002, the President of Sierra Leone appointed Professor Schabas to the country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, upon the recommendation of Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He served as one of three international commissioners throughout the activities of the Commission, from 2002 to 2004.

I have researched the biogs of most of the teaching staff at the IIDH and Bill Schabbas's c.v. is fairly typical of the calibre of staff they have there.

The IIDH is not only one of the world's leading Human Rights teaching institutes, its Diploma is one of the most coveted, difficult and rarely conferred academic awards of its kind.

Of course, Mr. Hall does not give a stuff about the IIDH. It is merely part and parcel of the campaign of harrassment and calumny which he and his friends have mounted against John Rhys-Burgess to try and damage his credibility and reputation: a 60 year old grandfather dying of cancer whose only hope in life is to try and make enough money to rescue the college that he loved and this year very nearly killed himself trying to save.

Both Joe Hall and Mick McAndrews are ex-Plater College students. On that basis, it seems to me to be just as well that the college closed when it did. John has been wasting his time.

I have read the post by the person signing themselves as Ex-Platerian and find the contents highly amusing. For clarity's sake however I will clear up on or two points that are neither factual or accurate. I was never an 'ex-cop' although from the way this was written there seems to be some under-lying trepidation, from the author, concerning police officers. Something to hide perhaps? . The tattoo's referred to were as a result of the follies of a mis-spent military youth as many of us did in those days. ie. 'birds' , booze, tattoo's then back to barracks. My accent could hardly be called 'thick geordie' having been tempered by my living both in London since I was sixteen and abroad for the majority of my adult life. Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,South Africa, Switzerland, South of France, Malta, et al.

Un-educated.? I thought that was why we all attended Plater College because we did not have the academic qualifications to go on to higher education in the usual fashion. This statement pre-supposes that all who attended Plater were un-educated including the author.
Illiterate? hardly. I would suggest that the author consult a good dictionary and get some-one to explain the definition of illitaracy to them before using words that they clearly do not understand .

My absence from Plater. I was democraticaly elected as president of the student union at Plater. However I had to end after a term. I had what was suspected to be a cancerous growth in my throat which required many hospital attendances and a multitude of tests so that I was required to remain in London and could therefore not commute between Oxford and London on a regular basis. The next year I re-entered Plater and completed the term I had missed. There followed further tests and a regime of medication so that I had to attend Plater at a pre-determined time and date to sit three exams in one day, on my own, under the watchful eye of an invigilator. I passed all three with an average mark of 64% and obtained the H.E certificate. Not bad considering the interuptions and delays.

This led to my now being offered a place at the Law School at University of Westminster who required a pass mark of 55% in every essay and assignment submitted by me at Plater. Not the ideal academic situation but very close to my home and therefore easy to access. I am in my second year having taken a year out prior to starting my degree.

While at Plater and afterwards, I did numerous Employment Tribunal, Insurance claims case's etc. with a good rate of sucess, and one in particular where I obtained an out of court settlement for two students at Plater for defamation . libel and slander plus a published retraction in the Times Newspaper. Most of these case's were pro-bono while some I did I was paid for. This is a result of The Access to Justice Act. 1999 . All went to furthering my knowledge of the legal system and how it works. I still do private work while attending University which helps to pay the bill's.

Armed robbery allegation. You will see that everything that I have ever posted rightly or wrongly, and there have been times when I have been proven wrong, I will acknowledge this and recant. I have always had the courage of my convictions and put my name to the post.

Voltaire said 'I may detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and I hold firm to this belief. But this ends when the author of posts such the 'Ex-Platerian' has neither the back-bone or common decency to acknowledge authorship. I have a good idea who this is and if I am correct in my supposition he/ they are of little account as men.

There were three, that I know of, who continuously paid to down-load essays to submit as their own work at Plater two of whom were called to account for plagearism at Brookes University. I suspect that the two principles, one of whom was a candidate for the JCR at Plater and who lagged a long way behind me in the voting, were the one's who set this rumour mongering about me into play. Lets see if the I am right or wrong about this and invite the author to contact me or at least come out from hiding behind annonimity and post a reply
with a name.

I have read the post by the person signing themselves as Ex-Platerian and find the contents highly amusing. For clarity's sake however I will clear up on or two points that are neither factual or accurate. I was never an 'ex-cop' although from the way this was written there seems to be some under-lying trepidation, from the author, concerning police officers. Something to hide perhaps? . The tattoo's referred to were as a result of the follies of a mis-spent military youth as many of us did in those days. ie. 'birds' , booze, tattoo's then back to barracks. My accent could hardly be called 'thick geordie' having been tempered by my living both in London since I was sixteen and abroad for the majority of my adult life. Australia, New Zealand, Singapore,South Africa, Switzerland, South of France, Malta, et al.

Un-educated.? I thought that was why we all attended Plater College because we did not have the academic qualifications to go on to higher education in the usual fashion. This statement pre-supposes that all who attended Plater were un-educated including the author.
Illiterate? hardly. I would suggest that the author consult a good dictionary and get some-one to explain the definition of illitaracy to them before using words that they clearly do not understand .

My absence from Plater. I was democraticaly elected as president of the student union at Plater. However I had to end after a term. I had what was suspected to be a cancerous growth in my throat which required many hospital attendances and a multitude of tests so that I was required to remain in London and could therefore not commute between Oxford and London on a regular basis. The next year I re-entered Plater and completed the term I had missed. There followed further tests and a regime of medication so that I had to attend Plater at a pre-determined time and date to sit three exams in one day, on my own, under the watchful eye of an invigilator. I passed all three with an average mark of 64% and obtained the H.E certificate. Not bad considering the interuptions and delays.

This led to my now being offered a place at the Law School at University of Westminster who required a pass mark of 55% in every essay and assignment submitted by me at Plater. Not the ideal academic situation but very close to my home and therefore easy to access. I am in my second year having taken a year out prior to starting my degree.

While at Plater and afterwards, I did numerous Employment Tribunal, Insurance claims case's etc. with a good rate of sucess, and one in particular where I obtained an out of court settlement for two students at Plater for defamation . libel and slander plus a published retraction in the Times Newspaper. Most of these case's were pro-bono while some I did I was paid for. This is a result of The Access to Justice Act. 1999 . All went to furthering my knowledge of the legal system and how it works. I still do private work while attending University which helps to pay the bill's.

Armed robbery allegation. You will see that everything that I have ever posted rightly or wrongly, and there have been times when I have been proven wrong, I will acknowledge this and recant. I have always had the courage of my convictions and put my name to the post.

Voltaire said 'I may detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it' and I hold firm to this belief. But this ends when the author of posts such the 'Ex-Platerian' has neither the back-bone or common decency to acknowledge authorship. I have a good idea who this is and if I am correct in my supposition he/ they are of little account as men.

There were three, that I know of, who continuously paid to down-load essays to submit as their own work at Plater two of whom were called to account for plagearism at Brookes University. I suspect that the two principles, one of whom was a candidate for the JCR at Plater and who lagged a long way behind me in the voting, were the one's who set this rumour mongering about me into play. Lets see if the I am right or wrong about this and invite the author to contact me or at least come out from hiding behind annonimity and post a reply
with a name.

Again for the sake of clarity let me correct some inaccuracies in both of the posts in defence of JRB. I, like John, do private legal work both paid and pro-bono whilst studying as a full-time student. In my case LLB {Hons}. The reason, quite apart from the obvious financial rewards, is the satisfaction of helping out in difficult situations and furthering my own understanding of the legal machine in real time.This is not, nor ever will be my 'new career as a MacKenzie friend'.

It may be right that Mick McAndrews was a student at Plater but I have never met, or wished to meet or be associated with him or anyone else for that matter involved with the Plater College Foundation at that time. It appeared to me that a proportion of the people, directly involved with its setting up and running, were the same people who were formally employed at Plater. These were the ex- members of staff who were closely linked with the day-to-day running of the College and who were perfectly situated to observe the appalling way that it was being mis-managed and could only lead to the College's closure. They were insitu from the taking up of the Principleship of Robert Beckinsale and yet, for reasons best known to themselves, chose to do absolutly nothing to prevent it. e.g Go public if necessary whilst there was still a chance to stop the rot. These people would have had to have been blind not to see what was going on in such a small academic community.I consider these people to be self -serving hypocrites who were concerned with nothing more noble than the preservation of their cushy and lucrative positions.

It may well be that some members of the PCF had the interests of the College at heart. However I became sceptical when when I saw the published members list. It seemed that everyone, that I knew of personnally, had some private agenda not in keeping with halting the closure. In McAndrews case it was probably publicity he was up for re-election. Others for the sake of their jobs. Yet others merely for the sake of being involved in something or other and the ones that, I think, sought to deflect any blame for the Colleges demise away from themselves by being prominent in the ill-fated fight to keep it open.

I do not denegrate what John has achieved and wish him luck. It is a great pity that he did not pursue the LLB degree or receive his masters.He was more than capable of achieving both. I was unaware of his medical problems until fairly recently after his contacting me concerning another matter.However the fact remains that without these qualfications he is at best tolerated, in a limited court capacity, by virtue of applying for 'right of audience' in the U.K. This is not easy to gain and is very restrictive. This would never be granted in criminal, family or divorce case's etc.

Similarly to teach law in an academic situation would require the tutor to have gained at least a masters in that subject. The academic institution proposing to employ anyone without it would face severe opposition from the O.U, as the accreditation body, and if the said institution did employ such a person as a tutor the O.U. would withdraw their accreditation from the instution for that subject if not all subjects taught there.

Joe Hall