The nations responsibe for AGGRESSIVE WAR will have common factors in their internal government and legal structures. The reason for this is pretty bloody obvious. Normal understanding of democracy and justice has no place whatsoever. Blair is busy building the machine that will carry out his wishes. He has almost finished. There is an outcry, but the sound is never going to be heard through the Mass Media that so totally serves Blair. Therefore, too many people feel isolated and unique in their distress, and lose hope too soon.

World War 3 is about to begin. The atrocities that will be used to secure the oil fields of the Middle East (following the genocide of Iran) will not allow the possibilty of 'asking' the British people for their support. Instead, the method of constant 'forward momentum' will be used, with opposing voices exterminated as soon as they attempt to make themselves heard. This is not speculation. This is the universal way in which these things are done, as history has demonstrated on so very many occasions.

If people here understood the philosophy of legal mechanisms, they would see how ASBO was created to help create the climate for fundamental changes in the way 'justice' is handled in the UK. The ASBO was introduced, NOT for the reasons given, but so that the idea of written laws that required passage through the Houses of Parliament could be destroyed. The ASBO allowed the instantaneous creation of a new law, with draconian penalties, on the say so of one of Blair's goons. This point is missed by almost all commentators. Each use of an ASBO creates a new law (usually tailored to one person) that previously did not exist. The mechanism of ASBO was NOT about these laws, but about those empowered to make them. In a nation where local New Reich goons daily create new laws using the ASBO mechanism, of course parliament is going to grant that power to Blair's high ranking goons.

I hope my ASBO point isn't going over people's heads. Let me make it simpler. There is a disabled kid that will go to prison for 2 years if he stares into his neighbour's garden (from his own). It does not matter that this does not apply to you or me. Some foul Blair goon has created that law, for that specific child, using the ASBO mechanism. For that child, the lawbook now includes THAT law. That law will be enforced by Blair's police, and Blair's judges. IT IS A NEW LAW (LOOKING INTO THE GARDEN) THAT WAS NEVER CONSIDERED OR PASSED BY THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. And for those of you that would want to show your ignorance by claiming that it is not a new law, but a version of an existing harrassment law or something, you are wrong. If a law already exists it DOES NOT need an ASBO to enforce it. ASBO's are about creating laws, where no law previously existed.

Now, if some two-bit New Reich thug is allowed to create the 'no looking' law for one child, it would seem like a simple extension that one of Blair's full blooded thugs would be allowed to arbitarily create laws for all of us. This was the whole idea of the ASBO trojan horse. Introduce a disgusting new principle that undermines the whole mechanism of British law, apply it to mostly unpopular and helpless people, and then extend the principle to all of us. Of course, ironically, the 'unfairness' compalint about the ASBO (which completely misses the point) can't be levelled at laws made by ministers that apply equally to all of us. But then, this was the BLACK PROPAGANDA trick- namely get people to attack ASBO's on the wrong ground, and then address that complaint when the ASBO grows to become the power that allows Blair's ministers to create laws without due parliamentary process.

Not quite nil, but quieter than they should be about this. I think there are some horrified backbenchers hoping that it can be killed in committee: they've got enough trench warfare going on at the moment, and don't want another simultaneous major battlefront opening up if they can kill it off early and quietly.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1709926,00.html
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2040625,00.html
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/09/nlaw09.xml
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4683726.stm

By the way, its official name is the "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill":
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm

More info, including analysis and further links on the blogs:
 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="abolition+of+parliament+Bill"
 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill"

Sometimes you think these bastards can go no lower, and then they go and prove you wrong.

1. Well done, a whole reply that doesn't mention your hero Hitler.
2. But you can't stop patronising us, can you? "I hope my ASBO point isn't going over people's heads. Let me make it simpler."
3. But sadly you are wrong. An ASBO does not create a series of new laws. If the kid you mention is caught staring over the fence, his crime is breaking his ASBO. Nothing to do with harrassment. I agree that it is still unjust, and many ASBOs are used for sinister controlling purposes. But if you're making a point about the law, about a matter of fact, then get it right.

With even less attention than this has got so far (since the attention all went on the other bad things in the bill), The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 had the following section:

"124 Consequential and supplementary provision

(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act or for giving full effect to this Act or any such provision.

(2) An order under this section may, in particular, make provision-



(a) for applying (with or without modifications) or amending, repealing or revoking any provision of or made under an Act passed before this Act or in the same Session,



(b) for making savings, or additional savings, from the effect of any repeal or revocation made by or under this Act.
..."

While the "purposes" of the ATCS Act are given as

"An Act to amend the Terrorism Act 2000; to make further provision about terrorism and security; to provide for the freezing of assets; to make provision about immigration and asylum; to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to make provision about the control of pathogens and toxins; to provide for the retention of communications data; to provide for implementation of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; and for connected purposes."

In other words s124 of the ATCS gives ministers the power to amend any Act passed in or before 2001 if he thinks it's "expedient" to "amend or extend the criminal law", "make provision about immigration and asylum", "provide for the retnetion of communications data", etc.

There's nothing specific there about creating new offences but that's usually what you do when you "extend the criminal law". It might be possible, years afterwards and after an extensive legal fight, to challenge such laws but I don't know, (IANAL). And if they can create new offences under this then there's no 2 year limit on the maximum sentence!

At the time the ATCS was still a Bill I called this clause "a new Enabling Act". I still believe it could be.

Note: None of this is intended to in any way say that we shouldn't fight this new bill --- we should fight it, it's more expicit about new offences and probably more likely to be used in that way. I just thought it was relevent background.

As a German, I am reminded of a similar law we once had. One difference was that the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" was limited to four years. Another was that the only votes against this law came from the German equivalent to Labour, the Social Democrats. As our then chancellor explained in the parliamentary debate: "The government intends to make use of this law only insofar as it is necessary for carrying out vital measures. The existence of neither chamber of parliament shall be threatened thereby."

This law effectively enabled our government to reform our cumbersome federal system and to correct certain fundamental flaws in media and party legislation. You may have heard about all this in school. If you don't remember the details (such as the name of the chancellor), you may want to refer to Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz.

Even if I trusted Blair & Co, would I trust whoever might be in power in ten or twenty years time?

Some more official information about the bill
 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/bill/index.asp

One should indeed carefully compare these proposals with the following:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

I think the lack of outcry, as the farmer put it, is because it is being introduced through quite, obedient people to the NWO. No wonder people aren't up in arms, they don't know about it! Email me if you want to know what's going on, I've got tones of stuff on the NWO.

I have written to my M.P about this. I sugest that everyone reading this do the same. Please follow the link below, it will take you 2 mins.

 http://www.Parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm