Friday, 25 September 2015

Confused of Galloway

Dear Lord President of the UK Supreme Court,

I have a small query to do with the legitimacy of members of the Palace of Westminster ability to avoid prosecution for criminal acts that would have your average punter banged up for five years before you could say, "Elizabeth the Second's pleasure!"

I could use the fraudulent claims on the taxpayer made by a sizable number of members for services which they claimed to have used or items they have never purchased. Maybe we could consider the fraudulent action of  leading members 'flipping properties' to rook money out of the UK taxpayer, the double dipping into the taxpayers pocket involved in employing wives in secretarial work which never crosses their poor dear's desks. Then there is the interesting idea if you pay over £8 million into an establishment party's bank account you get a lordship and the right to decide UK Government policy. We can, for now set aside the retirement home for failed politicians that is the House of Lords or the current Government's illegal assassination of its own subjects in Syria using a weapon system contrary to the will of the UK Parliament. We will remain silent over the Palace of Westminster's peadophilia cover up that has been in operation since Leon Brittain's days as Thatcher's Home Secretary.

I will keep this simple for I know your Lordship must be very busy 'Supreme Courting' on more serious matters than the corruption, sexual perversity and venality of the the members of the Palace of Westminster, so my submission is this:

It appears, if you are a member of either of the Palace of Westminster's houses, that it is not a criminal offence to illegally obtain and use a Class A drug, say cocaine, off a suitable surface within or outside of the Palace of Westminster; in the particular case I am thinking about the suitable surface was the abdomen of a lady of negotiable virtue. According to the Crown Prosecution Service a photograph of a member of said Palace inhaling a class A substance off this particular surface by use of a high denomination Sterling note and the abdomen of a lady of negotiable virtue, is not sufficient evidence to enable the police and the courts to proceed to a criminal trial.

My knowledge of the law maybe a bit flaky but I thought possession and procurement of an illegal Class A drug is an offence in itself liable to a fine or imprisonment, as is the soliciting of a lady of negotiable virtue, let alone the illegal act of sale and procurement that proceeded the actual act of inhalation allegedly seen in the photograph. I am equally certain if it was ''Wee Shuggie frae Shawheid' in the photograph his arse would not have touched the ground between the Glasgow Sheriff Court and Saughton Gaol but that might just be a bit of bias on my part.

It also appears that it is perfectly permissible for members of the Palace of Westminster to seek to persecute and criminalise UK citizens who have to use the same Class A drug, as prescribed by their doctor, on a daily basis to control acute or chronic pain in the form of say codeine phosphate. It appears a legitimate user of the Class A drug in this manner can be actively persecuted by the Department of Work and Pensions as they are clearly a bludger on society, abusing UK taxpayers generosity and need to be set to work on the nearest treadmill whether they have missing limbs or even if they are no longer breathing.

In summary: it appears, as the law is currently applied, if I used my Class A drug in an illegal powdered form via a rolled up £50 note at a party with any member of the Palace of Westminster present, off an officially defined suitable surface, such as the abdomen of a lady of negotiable virtue, it is 'just fine', not illegal, I am just one of the lads winding down and a bit of a player whereas taking the drug as prescribed I am a drain on society who can openly be persecuted and have my human and financial rights abused by private companies on the UK Government's behest.

Your Lordship, may I say it is not just Mr Bumble who thinks the law is an ass, I and many others are in total agreement. Could I suggest maybe the UK Supreme Court should look again at the precept of equality before law and consider Enoch Powell's contention that the UK is not a democracy but an elected dictatorship and that this elected dictatorship now considers itself above the Laws in blatant disregard of the Human Rights Acts and the attendant legislation in both English and Scots Law.

Yours, more in hope than expectation,

Confused of Galloway

1 comment:

  1. Tis a tad confusing indeed. I havr to confess, I am very confused as to which century we are living in. Is it 1815? Time really is standing still, or is the palace of westmonster which has never moved on.