Ben Fellows finds out why Ken Clarke is immune from prosecution

 
Hi TAP
 
This is why Ken Clarke is above the law because EU rules state the all members of parliament have immunity. 
 
 
Thanks once again
Ben

Paedophile Politicians Are Above The Law says EU!

Friday, June 21, 2013 8:01
0

The question that I’ve been asking is, how can politicians be above the law? Well according to the European Union, all politicians of member states have immunity against prosecution for all criminal and civil offenses with the exception of hate crimes and parking offenses, which beggars belief!

Article 28 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities (the merger treaty) lays down that the European Communities shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of their tasks, under the conditions laid down in the protocol annexed to that treaty.
Articles 9 and 10 says…
Article 9
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or
legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance
of their duties.
‘Article 10
During the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy:
(a)    in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
(b)   in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of 
detention and from legal proceedings.
(c)    Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
(d)   Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.’

“UK POLITICIANS ARE IMMUNE FROM QUESTIONING OR PROSECTION”

So the only time a politician isn’t immune is when they are caught in the act of committing an offense. So if the Cook Report Tapes ever show up then perhaps Ken Clarke could be prosecuted for sexually assaulting me as he would have been filmed in the act of committing a crime. Unfortunately, the lawyers protecting these politicians have placed a time limit on even making a complaint, so Ken Clarke could escape questioning on those grounds if the tapes were found and made public. Effectively, the UK parliament and European Union have given members of parliments a license to get away with murder, literally. In general, this form of immunity is such that, unless the British Parliament or the EU gives its authorization, no member may be arrested or prosecuted for acts not carried out in the performance of their duties.
Of course unless politicians are filmed and recorded twenty four seven then there is no hope of bringing any prosecutions against any politicians within the European Union super state, which is why politicians get caught for minor offenses like parking offenses, speeding offenses or hate crimes. There have been the occasions whereby investigative journalists in recent months have filmed politicians and caught them in yet more “Cash for Questions” scandals but we can’t rely on mainstream media journalists all the time.
So why are Politicians Immune from Prosecution? Well to find out lets look back into the history of the parliamentary system.
In ancient Rome, the tribunes of the people enjoyed special protection in order that they should freely exercise their functions. Anyone who infringed that prohibition was liable to punishment and could even be executed.
Today’s right to immunity is based on the same basic idea, although, fortunatly for me, it does not incur the same penalty! The representatives of the people must enjoy certain guarantees to underline the importance of their office, but more importantly to give them the peace of mind they need to implement their mandate.
The origins of parliamentary immunity date back to a session of the English Parliament in 1397, when the House of Commons passed a bill denouncing the scandalous financial behavior of King Richard II of England. Thomas Haxey, the member who was behind this direct act against the King and his court, was put on trial and sentenced to death for treason. Following pressure applied by the Commons, however, the sentence was not carried out, and Haxey received a royal pardon.
This event prompted the House of Commons to review the right of members of parliament to discuss and debate in complete autonomy and freedom, without interference from the Crown. Freedom of speech, introduced into the House of Commons at the beginning of the sixteenth century was confirmed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, which expressly protected discussions and acts of Members of Parliament from any form of interference or objection from outside of Parliament.

ALL POLITICIANS HAVE IMMUNITY, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE RETIRED!

Unlike inviolability, non-liability has an absolute quality, reflected in particular in the duration of its effects: the protection afforded is maintained even after the member’s mandate has come to an end. In other words all politicians have immunity even when they are no longer politicians and have retired. However, whilst there may well have been very good reasons to safe guard parliament from the interference of the crown. Its clear that these privillages are being abused along with the nations children.

When it comes to Paedophilia, child abuse and sexually motivated crimes should politicians still have the right to immunity?

After all how is abusing children part of their Parliamentary mandate? I have never voted for any politician to abuse children. It’s clear that after the Jimmy Savile case it appears that he had immunity from prosecution along with other powerful Paedophiles and child abusing celebrities. The Daily Star Sunday tells of police being told “Stop investigating if you want to keep your jobs” when investigating an alleged paedophile ring at the heart of Margaret Thatcher’s government. A teenage rent boy had alleged that a cabinet minister at the time, who is still alive, had abused him. He also named judges and civil servants. We now know that they were then and will always be, immune from any form of prosecution or questioning by the authorities.

I was informed by the Metropolitan Police that there were protocols in place that meant politicians are above the law and cannot be questioned. I guess they were referring to these EU rules which now govern us all.
Shouldn’t the public be informed of these EU rules? Where is the report on the BBC and other mainstream news outlets informing the public of the EU’s rules. Perhaps the BBC executives and board members are also immune from prosecution like all the other Paedophiles in the country it seems. Perhaps it’s time to change the EU and UK rules on paedophiles operating in and around Westminister. However, if you think that it’s just the Politicians who are immune from prosecution then think again. These privillages also apply to civil servants, their assistants, witnesses, experts and anyone who is involved in the meetings including private individuals in business .
Isn’t it time for politicians to stop being immune against prosecution in regards to child abuse or will we allow these paedophile politicians to continue to abuse parliamentary rules and our children? Not being immune from prosecution may not stop paedophilies but it will mean that “we the people” can have them arrested and prosecuted when witnesses are brave enough to come forward.

If you are interested in stopping corruption then join me on my “WALK OF CORRUPTION 2013” starting from the Hoe in Plymouth at 10am in the South West of England on Sunday 23rd June 2013 walking the 300 miles to London. Join me for a mile or day and make your voice heard. This may well be our only opportunity to show the government that we will no longer tolerate corruption of any sort. The time is now!

Report abuse

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/06/paedophile-politicians-are-above-the-law-says-eu-2528346.html

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Responses to “Ben Fellows finds out why Ken Clarke is immune from prosecution”

  1. Paul says:

    It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sock society.

    When the law becomes so corrupt that it is evil it is time to start breaking the law.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Under English Common law there is NO such immunity for politicians and English Common law TRUMPS any eu law/stsute etc.

    My advice to Ben Fellows, utilise the Common Law Court to bring clarke to justice.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Ken Clarke is not an MEP, Ben. Even if he was, that quote does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution. There are plenty of MPs who have been in trouble with the law or questioned by the police. Just Google: UK MP arrested.

    If you’re so outraged about what you say KC did, why did you not report your alleged abuse at the time, when you were an adult? Why did you still not report it to the police after the Savile relevations, when you were an even older adult? Why do you resent having to give a detailed statement to the police when they came to you? Why do you refuse to give detailed statements about the other people you’ve named and who could, if your allegations are true, pose a risk to children? Why does the fact that you were asked to play someone’s gay lover and “camp it up” in the Cook Report (as you mentioned in your police statement – something which is backed up by a an existing online report by a freelance journalist: “The Cook Report: The One that Got Away”) tend not to feature alongside your claims of abuse elsewhere, in interviews, public speeches, etc.?

    Courtesy of your postings on YouTube, we know why the police did not question KC. They explained it: in cases of historic abuse, where there’s no forensic evidence and no CCTV footage, they need to corroborate one person’s allegation by talking to others. If they find that several other people there at the time have a different recollection of events, why should they bother questioning the alleged abuser? As they said “we don’t think you’re lying, but…”.

    There are people out there who really have been abused, whose lives have been destroyed by it. Do we see them courting the media at every opportunity, lapping up the attention of a rapt audience at public gatherings? Smiling, laughing as they chat about the subject? No. Their daily pain and shame prevent them from doing that.

    You have already claimed (indy) media attention on the Olympic security issue… “outing” yourself as “the” G4S whistleblower to Alex Jones in late June 2012 almost a month after a woman who worked for G4S was reported in the mainstream media as a whistleblower (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153783/Whistleblower-sacked-speaking-G4S-cutting-corners-vetting-security-staff.html). As you say on your Facebook-Olympic security G4S page: “Ben has a fascinating story to tell” and “Whatever story Ben has worked on seems somehow to hit the headlines”.

    One would be forgiven for thinking that you’re either making up a plausible-sounding story to for fascination and attention (storytelling is your business, as you write your own films and act in them, as the IMDb site shows) or spinning an experience acquired as an adult acting the part of a gay lover into a tale of abuse on a supposedly 15-year-old boy in order to catch a ride at the top of the post-Savile media bus. The idea of a fake lobbying company requiring an already young man to say he was underage (i.e. just a couple of years younger than you actually were) in a bid to seem more plausible in a cash-for-questions sting makes no sense. The underage idea only makes sense in a pedophile sting or if you want to subsequently make the situation fit with the Savile revelations.

    You’re articulate and plausible but are deflecting attention from the real victims out there. They do not deserve that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.