On Monday 7 January 2008, a transport minister in the 'house of lords' in London spoke by recognizing the role inn the UK of European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. He refrained from using the full title of the conventions. But his words in fact referred to the constitutional framework that exists in practice under the UK's treaty obligations [dating back to 1950]. So does the minister himself practise his apparent affiliation to the conventions? Not really, if the evidence of his behaviour in promoting the crossrail hole plots is anything to go by.


By©Muhammad Haque
1420 Hrs GMT
London
Wednesday
9 January 2008


The minister, ‘lord Bassam of Brighton’ will get an opportunity this year to show that he is not another liar in public office doing the propaganda for the big business CRASSRail hole plot.

Khoodeelaar! is this week asking the minister [‘lord Bassam of Brighton’] to show evidence justifying his involvement in making several hundred £million public money available to unaccountable, secretive elements under covers of promoting the crossrail hole plot. Khoodeelaar! Is also asking the minister [‘lord Bassam of Brighton’] to show why he has supported the denial of convention rights to objectors against the crossrail scam.

Khoodeelaar! is asking the House of Lords to refuse to approve the crossrail bill as it is backed by anti-constitutional elements like ‘lord Bassam of Brighton’



Khoodeelaar! Objections to Crossrail Bill - as so far addressed to the House of Lords, Weds 09.01.2008


1. The Secretary of State for Transport misled parliament when he stated at ‘first reading’ held in the HOUSE OF COMMONS [22 February 2005] that he was satisfied that the contents of the ‘Crossrail Bill’ were compatible with the [ECHR=EUROPEAN] Conventions.
2. Either the Secretary of State for Transport made that statement deliberately and knowing it to be false and untrue because he did not care about the UK’s Treaty obligations or that he made that statement in ignorance.
3. When the real reason for his statement on compatibility was either – or even if both reasons applied on the facts - the Secretary of State for Transport could not continue to pretend ignorance especially after we [the Khoodeelaar! Campaign] pointed out to him that his statement was unconstitutional and that he must show how, in view of his assertions, the contents of the CrossRail Bill were compatible with the Conventions.
4. The Secretary of State for Transport then made his position even more unconstitutional by moving at Second Reading [19 July 2005] that the ‘Select Committee’ that was being set up in the House of Commons, be barred from looking at the purpose and the details of the Crossrai Bill.
5. The Secretary of State for Transport therefore VIOLATED other Conventions in addition to the ones that he had already violated at the time of his ‘certifying ‘ [at First Reading 22: February 2005] that the ‘CrossRail Bill’ had been compatible with the ‘Conventions’. He did that – and formally the House of Commons did that at Second Reading– by contradicting themselves at all crucial stages and on all crucial aspects of the ‘CrossRail Bill’, and on its implications and consequences.

[To be continued]