A message from Dr. Colin Brewer

A message from Dr. Colin Brewer to Prof. Arnold Trebach during the ‘Stapleford four’ case at the GMC, London in 2006.

We learn this morning that Dr. Tovey, whom the GMC conceded his diligence & experience within the addiction field, and was left in charge with a NHS doctor, to create ‘checks & balances’ has been suspended by the GMC of Manchester.

This once again leaves many hundreds of patients in anxiety about their future lives and what that means.

irra

 

 

“Addicts are the scapegoat of our age.”
Reverend Terence E. Tanner, London, 1979

 

Message from Dr. Colin Brewer

October 2006

“The verdict in the record-breaking saga of The General Medical Council vs The Stapleford Centre is expected tomorrow, Nov 9th, at around midday. I attach a copy of the statement that I made to the GMC at their last hearing of evidence in July this year. It is difficult to believe that this process actually began in October 2004 and has involved around 100 days of hearings spread over two years. As you will see from the statement, I shall be very surprised if the GMC do not strike me off. It is pretty normal in cases involving ‘prescribing’ doctors held to be too generous. (The large number of doctors who cause many deaths through under-prescribing never get troubled by the GMC.) Since I retired from clinical work some three years ago, that would be of little practical importance though naturally, I would have preferred my retirement to be a quieter period than it has turned out to be.

We may hold a press conference at some stage. Several TV networks have expressed interest in doing a serious background piece involving the wider issues of prohibition and drug abuse and in case you have the time and the interest, I also attach a draft chapter for a multi-author international textbook that should be published next year, though please don’t quote directly from it without discussing it with me, simply because it is unfinished and would be against the conventions of academic publishing.

I am coping pretty well with the strain and my MA European History course at Birkbeck is a powerful and pleasant distraction. (Of no conceivable relevance but a simple coincidence, today’s date is a conjunction in the German calendar with enormous historic, cultural and symbolic connotations. Nov 9th apparently marks the abdication of the Kaiser in 1918, Kristallnacht in 1938 and the end of the Berlin Wall in 1991; and Nov 10th was the birthday of Martin Luther. I do not imply that the GMC’s decisions are of comparable importance.)

My email address-book is playing hard-to-get, so please forgive errors of exclusion, inclusion or duplication and also delays in transmission. Those privileged to be on our modest and very secular Christmas-card list will get a fuller account of life on Bankside eventually. I hope to be spending the last two weeks of 2006 in and around Mozambique but much depends on decisions about what happens to the clinic – and to its several hundred long-term and generally well-functioning maintenance patients who are naturally rather anxious at the moment.

My thanks to all of you who have given support and help.”

The GMC verdict was delivered on time and as expected, my name was erased. What was unexpected – and rather nice – was that they recognised my contributions to addiction medicine, hard work, absence of financial motivation etc and even criticised the poor standard of many NHS clinics. I can live with that, especially as they allowed Ron Tovey to continue working at the clinic, subject to supervision from an NHS consultant who shares many of our aims and views. This almost certainly means the continuation of the clinic and enormous relief for our patients (and staff).

Press comment has been surprisingly scanty and not notably hostile – nothing in the Guardian, Telegraph, Mail or Express. ( I decline to recognise lower forms of journalistic life but I haven’t heard of anything in the Red Tops.) There were only short, factual pieces on the radio and TV news, all quite balanced, as were items in the Times and Independent. I think some of the broadsheets are also interested in doing a more comprehensive treatment. We have had lots of supportive messages and – so far – no hate-mail. We also have offers of practical help and support.

The only official response so far has been a routine letter from BUPA informing me that they will no longer pay the fees of patients seen by me. Since, as they concede, I don’t see patients and haven’t invoiced them for about three years, this is no great hardship. I’m told that the Royal Society of Medicine removes one’s membership but I hardly ever visit the place and if I need to use its excellent library, I can re-join much more cheaply as a member of the Medical Journalists’ Association. Meanwhile, I have thirty days left to savour the privileges of medical life. (‘Make way. I’m a doctor!’) Perhaps I will take my cue from Churchill and style myself ‘Former Medical Person’.

All good wishes. Colin. V.iii

Search

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

ByzantineFlowers

Save money on household cleaning sprays and make your own natural solution.

Add orange peels (or any citrus peel) to a quart of white vinegar in a closed container and let it set for two weeks. Combine citrus-vinegar solution with half water in a spray bottle and use for cleaning. Works on floors, tiles, fixtures, kitchen & bath etc. It’s antibacterial, smells good and tough on scum! Best of all there are no chemicals. ♥

Today’s modern home is loaded with toxic and polluting substances designed to make domestic life easier.
The cost of these commercial, chemical-based products can be high — long term health concerns for the family, and environmental pollution caused by their manufacture and disposal. In the US, for example, 1 in 3 people suffer from allergies, asthma, sinusitis or bronchitis (US National Center for Health Statistics). Treatment for these conditions should include reducing synthetic chemicals in…

View original post 2,983 more words

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Drug Equality Alliance

NewsPermission Awaited to Judicially Review ACMD and SSHD Regarding Alcohol and Tobacco PolicyDrug Equality Alliance
(19th January 2011)
All documents are now before the High Court in Casey Hardison’s applications for permission to judicially review the separate decisions by the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to abdicate power and duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the Act) with regards to alcohol and tobacco control. Permission to proceed to full judicial review is now in the hands of the law as applied by the High Court judges. The decision is entirely for them.
The cases, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate and entheogenic chemist, US citizen Casey William Hardison, set out how the Home Secretary has failed in her legal duty to actively consult the ACMD on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act and how the ACMD have failed in their legal duty to actively recommend to the Home Secretary that possibility.
Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government and the ACMD through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’, and the ACMD to a similar false notion: that ‘the Misuse of Drugs framework is not appropriate for the regulation of alcohol and tobacco [users]’. These false notions are themselves provided for by a pernicious public belief that the Act mandates the ‘prohibition’ of non-medical and non- scientific commerce and use of controlled drugs. This belief couldn’t be further from legal truth. But it is a belief the Government does not want undermined.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires the Home Secretary and the ACMD apply relevant criteria and disregard irrelevant criteria concerning drugs misuse and social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary and the ACMD have allowed irrelevant criteria to impact their respective decisions not to speak directly to each other about controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Act.
This ‘hear no, see no, speak no’ control policy has lead to a collective decision to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act’s protections on the grounds of ‘historic and cultural [factors/precedents] that lack a consistent and objective basis’. And even though both the ACMD and the Home Secretary recognise ‘that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and may have anti-social effects’ when misused, they accord these dangerous drugs special status because ‘their use is embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. These irrelevant factors have led the ACMD to acquiesce in, and the government to institute, a separate system for regulating the commerce and use of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
This ‘artificial divide’ between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and the so- called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and unreasonable. It favours the non-medical and non-scientific misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any non-medical or non- scientific use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. This policy is biased in favour of producers and consumers of these socially- problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
Again, the control and classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs ‘controlled’ under the Act would not of necessity equate to prohibition; a full range of regulatory options are available under the Act for a lawful and rational commerce of any controlled drug for peaceful use purposes. Said another way, the Act is not a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs, rather it is a beautifully nuanced ‘mechanism’ or ‘framework’ for the ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ regulation of the import, export, production, supply and possession of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs so as to reduce harm from their potential misuse.
Hardison shows that the Act is a well- crafted and intricate tool that can easily regulate the lawful, responsible commerce and use of alcohol and tobacco.
The decisions under challenge are the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control, and the ACMD’s refusal to recommend that possibility. This refusal is based on overly-rigid policies that have prevented the ACMD and the Home Secretary from considering even the merits of the possibility. Hardison finds this unacceptable; will the Court?
DOWNLOADS:
R(Hardison) v ACMD R(Hardison) v SSHD
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Reply to ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 26, December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 20 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Facts, 15 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Reply to SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 16 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 9 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Statement of Facts, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)

Please Note: The Home Secretary and the Advisory Council refer to an Order of the Appeal Court dated 3 December 2007 in their decision letters. This Order was about the then Home Secretary’s decision not to follow through on the promised consultation on a review of the drug classification system as stated in paragraph 12 of Cm 6941. (Casey secured the release of this consultation document in July 2010 after three year battle). The u-turn on the consultation and the review was said to be a purely political decision beyond the reach of the court: a policy choice within the bounds of discretion as opposed to a decision made by either surrendering or abdicating discretionary statutory power or assuming power that one does not possess. In the current cases both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council assume they can abdicate their respective powers and duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act respecting alcohol and tobacco. This is a legal question for the court as to their powers and duties. It has nothing to do with the merits of the policy as stated in the Treasury Solicitor’s 24 September response on behalf of the Home Secretary, which recycles the policy stated in paragraph 10 of the 2007 judgment Casey was appealing and which resulted in the Order. At the time, this policy statement was not the issue and it was not understood that this policy shows errors of law on its face, ignores legally relevant criteria: ‘health risks’ and ‘anti-social effects’, and considers legally irrelevant criteria: ’embedded in society’, ‘responsible use possible’, etc. And as the Appeal Court Judge was not asked to determine whether the policy statement accords with the law, this opportunity was missed. The repetition of this policy by the Treasury Solicitor at this late stage is a boost to the claim against the Home Secretary. This time, the policy will be properly tested for its legality not its merits.

Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs set for embarrassment over alcohol and tobacco policyDrug Equality Alliance
(15th November 2010)
Separate proceedings have been initiated at the High Court against both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for their respective abdication of power and duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the Act) with regards to alcohol and tobacco control. The cases, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate and entheogenic chemist, US citizen Casey William Hardison, set out how the Home Secretary has failed in her legal duty to actively consult the ACMD on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act and how the ACMD have failed in their legal duty to actively recommend to the Home Secretary that possibility. Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government and the ACMD through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law then leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’, and the ACMD to a similar false notion: that ‘the Misuse of Drugs framework is not appropriate for the regulation of alcohol and tobacco [users]’. These false notions are themselves provided for by a pernicious public belief that the Act mandates the ‘prohibition’ of non-medical and non-scientific commerce and use of controlled drugs. This belief couldn’t be further from legal truth. But it is a belief the Government does not want undermined.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 requires the Home Secretary and the ACMD to apply relevant criteria and disregard irrelevant criteria concerning drugs misuse and social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary and the ACMD have allowed irrelevant criteria to impact their respective decisions not to speak directly to each other about alcohol and tobacco control. This ‘hear no, see no, speak no’ control policy has led to a collective decision to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act’s protections on the grounds of ‘historic and cultural [factors/precedents] that lack a consistent and objective basis’. And even though both the ACMD and the Home Secretary recognise ‘that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and may have anti-social effects’, they accord these dangerous drugs special status because ‘their use is embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. These irrelevant factors have led the ACMD to acquiesce in, and the government to institute, a separate system for regulating the commerce and use of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. However the artificial divide between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and the so-called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and unreasonable. It favours the non-medical and non-scientific misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any non-medical or non-scientific use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. This policy is biased in favour of producers and consumers of these socially-problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
Again, the control and classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs controlled by the Act would not necessarily equate to prohibition; a full range of regulatory options are available under the Act for a lawful and rational commerce of any controlled drug for peaceful use purposes. Said another way, the Act is not a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs, rather it is a beautifully nuanced ‘mechanism’ or ‘framework’ for the ‘suitable’ or ‘appropriate’ regulation of the import, export, production, supply and possession of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs so as to reduce harm from their potential misuse. Hardison shows that the Act is a well- crafted and intricate tool that can easily regulate the lawful, responsible commerce and use of alcohol and tobacco.
The decisions under challenge are the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control, and the ACMD’s refusal to recommend that possibility. This refusal is based on overly-rigid policies that have prevented the ACMD and the Home Secretary from considering even the merits of the possibility. Hardison finds this unacceptable; will the Court?

Government set for embarrassment over alcohol and tobacco control Drug Equality Alliance
(1st November 2010)I
Today at the High Court proceedings were initiated against the Home Secretary for her abdication of power under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with respect to alcohol and tobacco control. The case, brought by the imprisoned ‘cognitive liberty’ advocate, US citizen Casey William Hardison, sets out the Home Secretary’s legal duty to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the possibility of bringing drinkers and smokers under the protection and control of the Act.
Currently, drinkers and smokers are accorded special status by government through the mistaken belief that alcohol and tobacco are ‘legal drugs’ exempted from the operation of the Act. This error of law then leads the Home Secretary to another false notion: that the Act is ‘not a suitable mechanism for regulating alcohol and tobacco [users]’.
The Misuse of Drugs Act says government must apply relevant criteria concerning social harm to their decision making process; yet the Home Secretary has allowed irrelevant criteria to impact her decision not to consult the Advisory Council and the policy that excludes alcohol and tobacco from the Act, citing ‘historic and cultural precedents’ whilst asserting that ‘alcohol and tobacco are embedded in society and their responsible use is possible and commonplace’. This has led the government to instead institute a separate system for regulating users of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
However the artificial divide between drugs defined as ‘controlled’ under the Act, and so-called ‘legal’ drugs is arbitrary and alleged to be illegal. It favours the misuse of alcohol and tobacco relative to any use of any controlled drug – a poisoned chalice not provided for by the Act. The current policy is biased in favour of consumers of these socially-problematic products, and ignorant of statutory duty.
The classification of alcohol and tobacco alongside other dangerous drugs does not equate to prohibition; concerns about this are grounded in the Home Secretary’s mistaken belief that the Act is a blunt instrument intended to ‘prohibit’ drugs rather than regulate people so as to reduce harm from the misuse of drugs. But It can be shown that the law is a well-crafted and intricate tool for the regulation of persons likely to misuse any dangerous drug, and can easily provide a framework to permit the responsible production, supply and use of alcohol and tobacco from within the Act itself, exactly as intended by the parliamentarians who drafted it.
The decision under challenge is the Home Secretary’s refusal to consult the ACMD on the ‘possibility’ of bringing alcohol and tobacco users under the Act’s control. This refusal is based on persistent misunderstandings of the Act, its structure, function and purpose; and also on taking irrelevant factors into account and disregarding relevant factors. The Home Secretary’s overly rigid policy has prevented the consideration of even the merits of the possibility.

Continued exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from misuse of drugs legislation to be judicially reviewedDrug Equality Alliance
(13th October 2010)
On the 1st and 15th of November 2010 separate applications will be submitted to the High Court seeking permission to judicially review the Home Secretary’s and the Advisory Council’s continued exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Drug Equality Alliance co-founder Casey Hardison has taken it upon himself to challenge the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the Administrative Court for what he asserts is their unlawful exclusion of alcohol and tobacco, and thus persons concerned with these dangerous drugs, from control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA).
Casey has worked tirelessly over the last 6 years to establish the evidence and apply the legal principles to it to show that the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the MDA is based on persistent misunderstandings about the MDA’s structure, function and purpose, above all an erroneous belief that the the MDA “is not a suitable mechanism” for regulating the production, commerce and possession of alcohol and tobacco.
These persistent misunderstandings have led the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council to take into account legally irrelevant matters and disregard legally relevant matters when making decisions under the MDA regarding alcohol and tobacco, in particular that the public would find it “unacceptable” if alcohol and tobacco were put in the same ABC classification system as other controlled drugs. Perhaps this is because the decision-makers and the public generally believe to do so would be to apply so-called “prohibition” to alcohol and tobacco.
But as prohibition is a policy option under the Act, not mandated by it, this presents a moral and a legal problem: Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths and harm than all other known drugs combined, so why is it acceptable to apply a “policy of prohibition” to LSD, MDMA and cannabis but not to alcohol and tobacco? The Government believes that this is acceptable on the grounds of “historical and cultural precedents”. This shows that decisions regarding alcohol and tobacco are arbitrary and not based on rational and objective factors, it just happens to be the way it is because the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council shirk their powers under the MDA to please the “vast majority”. This is unreasonable and ultimately unfair to persons whose conduct is regulated by the MDA.
The Rule of Law principle of Equal Treatment suggests that either the Home Secretary and ACMD must implement “prohibitive controls” on those concerned with alcohol and tobacco for non-medical or non-scientific use purposes, or they must fully implement a rational, evidence-based system of regulation, via the MDA, similar to that suggested by Transform Drug Policy Foundation’s “After the War on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation”, for all controlled drugs.
On the 25th of August Casey submitted to the Home Secretary and the ACMD letters before claim for judicial review of their decision. In the last two weeks both have responded, repeating the policy line:
“Government’s policy is to regulate controlled drugs – more commonly referred to as ‘illegal drugs’ – through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the availability of alcohol and tobacco separately. This stance recognises that whilst alcohol and tobacco pose health risks and may have anti-social effects, their use is embedded in society, and responsible use of alcohol and tobacco is possible and commonplace.”
Hardison will be filing papers at the Administrative Court on the 1st of November. See below for the exchanged letters.
DOWNLOADS:
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controllingalcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)
Please Note: The Home Secretary and the Advisory Council refer to an Order of the Appeal Court dated 3 December 2007 in their decision letters. This Order was about the then Home Secretary’s decision not to follow through on the promised consultation on a review of the drug classification system as stated in paragraph 12 of Cm 6941. (Casey secured the release of this consultation document in July 2010 after three year battle). The u-turn on the consultation and the review was said to be a purely political decision beyond the reach of the court: a policy choice within the bounds of discretion as opposed to a decision made by either surrendering or abdicating discretionary statutory power or assuming power that one does not possess. In the current cases both the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council assume they can abdicate their respective powers and duties under the Misuse of Drugs Act respecting alcohol and tobacco. This is a legal question for the court as to their powers and duties. It has nothing to do with the merits of the policy as stated in the Treasury Solicitor’s 24 September response on behalf of the Home Secretary, which recycles the policy stated in paragraph 10 of the 2007 judgment Casey was appealing and which resulted in the Order. At the time, this policy statement was not the issue and it was not understood that this policy shows errors of law on its face, ignores legally relevant criteria: ‘health risks’ and ‘anti-social effects’, and considers legally irrelevant criteria: ’embedded in society’, ‘responsible use possible’, etc. And as the Appeal Court Judge was not asked to determine whether the policy statement accords with the law, this opportunity was missed. The repetition of this policy by the Treasury Solicitor at this late stage is a boost to the claim against the Home Secretary. This time, the policy will be properly tested for its legality not its merits.

DOWNLOADS:
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Reply to ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 26, December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – ACMD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 20 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Reply to SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance, 16 December 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – SSHD’s Summary Grounds of Resistance (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Facts, 15 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v ACMD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Statement of Facts, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
R(Hardison) v SSHD 2010 – Draft Statement of Grounds, 1 November 2010 (PDF)
ACMD’s letter of response expressing their intention to defend against a judicial review of its refusal to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 , 4 October 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response concerning the government’s intention to defend a judicial review of its refusal to seek advice on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 24 September 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter to the ACMD, 25 August 2010 expressing his intention to judicially review the decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
Casey Hardison’s letter before claim to the Home Secretary, expressing his intention to judicially review her decision not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 25 August 2010 (PDF)
ACMD letter confirming their decision not to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controllingalcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 16 August 2010 (PDF)
Home Secretary’s letter of response deciding not to consult the ACMD on the possible control of alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 10 August 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request of the ACMD to advise the Home Secretary on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 9 July 2010 (PDF)
Hardison’s request that Home Secretary consult the ACMD on the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1 July 2010 (PDF)

Unique visitors to this page:

Mission Statement
Background
Legal Arguments
Essential Reading
Cases
DEA In The Media
News
Video / Audio
Contact Us
Links
Donate
Knowledge Base
Mission Statement
Background
Legal Arguments
Essential Reading
Cases
DEA in the Media
News
Video / Audio
Contact Us
Links
Donate
Knowledge Base

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Tagged , | 1 Comment

LBBDCivilSociety in dAgEnhaM: HIDDEN SECRETS

LBBDCivilSociety in dAgEnhaM: HIDDEN SECRETS

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.
Posted on December 4, 2010 by irrahayes
Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitions
June 2010 – Brussels EU officials recently announced that they want to limit the demands European citizens can make in petitions by bringing in tougher rules on the amount of personal data required to be given by people signing them. Under the plans, citizens’ proposals that go “against the values of the union” – which, let’s not forget, are actually determined by the Brussels EU itself – will not be accepted.

As such, by setting burdensome rules such as each signatory of a petition being required to provide a wide variety of personal data – including name, street address, email address, date and place of birth, nationality and personal identification numbers (passport; ID card; and social security) – it can be seen that the real intention of the Brussels EU in making this announcement is to set severe limits on the ability of European citizens to exert their democratic will. This is further proven by the fact that all petitions are to be subjected to an admissibility check once they reach a total of 300,000 signatures, with officials being given powers to stop any petition they decide does not meet the requirements.

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

The aims of the Brussels EU
The Brussels EU claims that its aims are “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 498 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world.”

THE FACTS: Operating outside the basic principles of freedom and democracy, the Brussels EU – by definition – is a dictatorship. The power of the people to determine their government has been transferred to corporate interests.

Click here to read more.

Far from ensuring peace and prosperity for the inhabitants of Europe, the corporate interests behind the Brussels EU have previously been the economic driving forces behind two world wars.

Click here to read more.

Following the failure of WWI and WWII to achieve world conquest for the interests behind the cartel, the Brussels EU project has become the bridgehead for their next attempt to conquer and control Europe – and from there the rest of the world. The strategic goal of the financial groups behind the oil and drug cartel is to control giant global markets that affect literally every human life.

Click here to read more.

The basic nature of Europe
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the basic nature of Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).
THE FACTS: Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty states that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community”. In addition to this, article 47 states that “The Union shall have legal personality.” Thus, it is absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union is a totally new constitutional and legal entity and that the European Community, of which the 27 member states were previously members, has ceased to exist.

In addition, articles 207, 216, 217 and 218 of the treaty make it clear that the Brussels EU can now sign treaties with other countries or international organizations, on behalf of its member states, in all areas of its competence.

And of course, let us not forget that the Treaty also created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote); EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote); and an EU diplomatic corps. In reality, therefore, it can be seen that “the basic nature” of Europe has actually been substantially altered.

The role of national parliaments in the Brussels EU
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty facilitates increased democratic control from national parliaments.

THE FACTS: To all intents and purposes, Article 7 of the treaty’s Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality only gives national parliaments the power to complain about things they disagree with. In effect, it merely provides a mechanism whereby an objection can be raised if a complaint is supported by one third of all national parliaments. However, the Brussels EU is under no obligation to change or cancel any of its actions and can simply choose to override such a complaint if it wishes to do so.

Moreover, should even the majority of national parliaments raise an objection to a legislative proposal brought by the European Commission, there is still no obligation for the Commission to change or cancel any of its actions. In such a situation, it can simply choose to override the complaint and refer it to be resolved by the European Council and the European parliament. As such, rather than increasing democratic control from national parliaments, it can be seen that, in practice, the bureaucratic nature of the hoops to be jumped through makes it extremely unlikely that the dictatorial nature of the Brussels EU can be restrained via these mechanisms.

The Brussels EU decision-making process

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty makes its decision-making process more democratic.

THE FACTS: Of all the Brussels EU’s deceptions, this statement is arguably one of the most disingenuous of all. For one thing, unlike in a true democracy, the European parliament remains unable to freely initiate and enact legislation in all areas of its choosing and of its own accord. For another, and as described above, the Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President and EU Foreign Minister and mandated that both were to be appointed without any public vote. And in addition, of course, the 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, will continue to be appointed without any public vote.

To make matters worse, article 48 of the treaty makes clear that it is self-amending, in that in future it may be amended without having to hold an Intergovernmental Conference or consult citizens via referendums.

Bearing these facts in mind, it can be seen that, far from being “democratic”, the executive decision-making machinery of the Brussels EU is essentially that of an unelected dictatorship.

Concerns raised by European citizens
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty responds to concerns raised by European citizens and will increase legitimacy in its functioning.

THE FACTS: Given that concerned citizens in France and the Netherlands comprehensively rejected the so-called “European Constitution” in national referendums in 2005, the fact that 96 percent of the text of the Lisbon Treaty is identical to that of the Constitution, and that over 99 percent of European voters were not given any chance to vote on it, makes it absurd for the EU to make these claims.

EU ELECTIONS 2009

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that 57 percent of the people of Europe who were eligible to vote in the EU elections in June 2009 protested against the Brussels EU by deliberately abstaining, whilst a further 4 percent of the eligible electorate cast deliberate votes against the EU dictatorship by voting for parties that are anti-EU and/or opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. As such, any notion that the Lisbon Treaty addresses the concerns of these people is delusional, to say the least.

The creation of a European army
The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not create a European army.

THE FACTS: Article 42.1 of the Lisbon Treaty states the following:

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

Article 42.3 of the treaty states the following:

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.

This clause also further militarizes the EU by stating that “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and making clear that the European Defence Agency will be incorporated into the amended treaties.

Article 42.6 of the treaty states the following: Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework.

Article 43.1 of the treaty states the following: The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation.

To all intents and purposes, the phrase “permanent structured cooperation”, which is used several times in articles 42-46 of the treaty in the context of military actions, can only be taken to mean a European army. The following newspaper/media articles support this view:

German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army
The Irish Times – Monday, February 8, 2010

GERMAN FOREIGN minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon ‘Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

German foreign minister backs idea of European army
france24.com, February 6, 2010 (AFP)

Germany supports the creation of a European army in the long term so that the EU can be a “global player,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. “The long-term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control.

“The concept of a European army was set out in the 27-nation EU’s reforming Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

President Sarkozy presses case for unified military in Europe
The Times, London, June 7, 2008

A confidential five-page document, detailing France’s enthusiasm for common EU funding of military operations, has been circulated to European governments, it was reported last night. The proposals

Continue reading

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitions

Brussels EU calls for curbs on citizen petitionsJune 2010 – Brussels EU officials recently announced that they want to limit the demands European citizens can make in petitions by bringing in tougher rules on the amount of personal data required to be given by people signing them. Under the plans, citizens’ proposals that go “against the values of the union” – which, let’s not forget, are actually determined by the Brussels EU itself – will not be accepted.

As such, by setting burdensome rules such as each signatory of a petition being required to provide a wide variety of personal data – including name, street address, email address, date and place of birth, nationality and personal identification numbers (passport; ID card; and social security) – it can be seen that the real intention of the Brussels EU in making this announcement is to set severe limits on the ability of European citizens to exert their democratic will. This is further proven by the fact that all petitions are to be subjected to an admissibility check once they reach a total of 300,000 signatures, with officials being given powers to stop any petition they decide does not meet the requirements.

Lest anybody still be in any doubts as to the Brussels EU’s intention to replace democracy with dictatorship, let’s examine the truth behind some of its claims.

The aims of the Brussels EU

The Brussels EU claims that its aims are “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 498 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world.”

THE FACTS: Operating outside the basic principles of freedom and democracy, the Brussels EU – by definition – is a dictatorship. The power of the people to determine their government has been transferred to corporate interests.

‘Brussels EU’ Dictatorship

Click here to read more.

 

Far from ensuring peace and prosperity for the inhabitants of Europe, the corporate interests behind the Brussels EU have previously been the economic driving forces behind two world wars.

The economic driving forces behind the World Wars

Click here to read more.

 

Following the failure of WWI and WWII to achieve world conquest for the interests behind the cartel, the Brussels EU project has become the bridgehead for their next attempt to conquer and control Europe – and from there the rest of the world. The strategic goal of the financial groups behind the oil and drug cartel is to control giant global markets that affect literally every human life.

The Global Multi-Billion-Dollar Markets of the Chemical/Petrochemical/Drug Cartel

Click here to read more.

 

The basic nature of Europe

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not alter the basic nature of Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).

The Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote) and EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote).

THE FACTS: Article 1 of the Lisbon Treaty states that “The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community”. In addition to this, article 47 states that “The Union shall have legal personality.” Thus, it is absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union is a totally new constitutional and legal entity and that the European Community, of which the 27 member states were previously members, has ceased to exist.

In addition, articles 207, 216, 217 and 218 of the treaty make it clear that the Brussels EU can now sign treaties with other countries or international organizations, on behalf of its member states, in all areas of its competence.

And of course, let us not forget that the Treaty also created the posts of EU President (to which Herman van Rompuy was appointed without any public vote); EU Foreign Minister (to which Catherine Ashton was appointed without any public vote); and an EU diplomatic corps. In reality, therefore, it can be seen that “the basic nature” of Europe has actually been substantially altered.

The role of national parliaments in the Brussels EU

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty facilitates increased democratic control from national parliaments.

THE FACTS: To all intents and purposes, Article 7 of the treaty’s Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality only gives national parliaments the power to complain about things they disagree with. In effect, it merely provides a mechanism whereby an objection can be raised if a complaint is supported by one third of all national parliaments. However, the Brussels EU is under no obligation to change or cancel any of its actions and can simply choose to override such a complaint if it wishes to do so.

Moreover, should even the majority of national parliaments raise an objection to a legislative proposal brought by the European Commission, there is still no obligation for the Commission to change or cancel any of its actions. In such a situation, it can simply choose to override the complaint and refer it to be resolved by the European Council and the European parliament. As such, rather than increasing democratic control from national parliaments, it can be seen that, in practice, the bureaucratic nature of the hoops to be jumped through makes it extremely unlikely that the dictatorial nature of the Brussels EU can be restrained via these mechanisms.

The Brussels EU decision-making process

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.

The 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, are all appointed without any public election taking place to select them. Even the Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, above, took his post without European voters having any say in his appointment whatsoever.

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty makes its decision-making process more democratic.

THE FACTS: Of all the Brussels EU’s deceptions, this statement is arguably one of the most disingenuous of all. For one thing, unlike in a true democracy, the European parliament remains unable to freely initiate and enact legislation in all areas of its choosing and of its own accord. For another, and as described above, the Lisbon Treaty created the posts of EU President and EU Foreign Minister and mandated that both were to be appointed without any public vote. And in addition, of course, the 27 members of the EU Commission, the EU’s executive body, will continue to be appointed without any public vote.

To make matters worse, article 48 of the treaty makes clear that it is self-amending, in that in future it may be amended without having to hold an Intergovernmental Conference or consult citizens via referendums.

Bearing these facts in mind, it can be seen that, far from being “democratic”, the executive decision-making machinery of the Brussels EU is essentially that of an unelected dictatorship.

Concerns raised by European citizens

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty responds to concerns raised by European citizens and will increase legitimacy in its functioning.

THE FACTS: Given that concerned citizens in France and the Netherlands comprehensively rejected the so-called “European Constitution” in national referendums in 2005, the fact that 96 percent of the text of the Lisbon Treaty is identical to that of the Constitution, and that over 99 percent of European voters were not given any chance to vote on it, makes it absurd for the EU to make these claims.

EU ELECTIONS 2009

EU ELECTIONS 2009: 4% voted against EU, 57% didn't vote for EU

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that 57 percent of the people of Europe who were eligible to vote in the EU elections in June 2009 protested against the Brussels EU by deliberately abstaining, whilst a further 4 percent of the eligible electorate cast deliberate votes against the EU dictatorship by voting for parties that are anti-EU and/or opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. As such, any notion that the Lisbon Treaty addresses the concerns of these people is delusional, to say the least.

The creation of a European army

The Brussels EU claims that the Lisbon Treaty does not create a European army.

THE FACTS: Article 42.1 of the Lisbon Treaty states the following:

The creation of a European army

The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

Article 42.3 of the treaty states the following:

Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.

This clause also further militarizes the EU by stating that “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities” and making clear that the European Defence Agency will be incorporated into the amended treaties.

Article 42.6 of the treaty states the following: Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework.

Article 43.1 of the treaty states the following: The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation.

To all intents and purposes, the phrase “permanent structured cooperation”, which is used several times in articles 42-46 of the treaty in the context of military actions, can only be taken to mean a European army. The following newspaper/media articles support this view:

German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army
The Irish Times – Monday, February 8, 2010

GERMAN FOREIGN minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

German foreign minister backs idea of European army
france24.com, February 6, 2010 (AFP)

Germany supports the creation of a European army in the long term so that the EU can be a “global player,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. “The long-term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control.

“The concept of a European army was set out in the 27-nation EU’s reforming Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

President Sarkozy presses case for unified military in Europe
The Times, London, June 7, 2008

A confidential five-page document, detailing France’s enthusiasm for common EU funding of military operations, has been circulated to European governments, it was reported last night. The proposals were supported by a speech made by President Sarkozy last night in Athens, in which he emphasised his desire to push forward his plans for military integration in Europe. These include the establishment of a permanent operational headquarters in Brussels and development exchange training for officers.

Posted in Dagenham News, Health & Wellbeing, News&Politics, The Shape of Things To Come., UNODC,CND,UNGASS,ENCOD,Civil-Society,News,Politic's, | Leave a comment

Conned Again! Are we all just plain stupid or What?

We are a stupid nation if we allow this lobsided Coalition continue. If the ordinary people are to suffer, then so must the parliamentarians past and present, for they have negoiated us into this mess.  Vince cable MP (LEB-DEM), promised that Bankers who recieved over £1million bonus would be made public. This  was promised by Vince cable before the election, yet now that the Coalition is formed, our chancellor George Osborne MP(Con), has revoked this promise. So now all those Bankers getting from £1million upwards ( remember Sir Fred recieved something above £12million), we will not hear of individuals recieving obscene sums of money even though they did a bad job. Sir Freds mess is still being sorted out by bank officials todate – 23/11/2010

Posted in News&Politics&Policy | Leave a comment