A man who was wrongly imprisoned for 3 years and falsely accused of rape by a woman who had a history of making false claims against blameless men was cleared at the Appeal Court in September last year after her background was exposed.

The Government are now sending him a bill for £7000 for "board and lodging".

When he applied for compensation for his wrongful imprisonment received a letter back stating that they have accepted the claim for compensation, and that the actual amount is to be decided by an assessor. But they are going to deduct £6,800 for living expenses incurred during his three years and four months behind bars.

Mr Blackwell, 37, said: "I can't believe it; they've got to be joking. They are going to charge me for my porridge!

"Then they turn around and say, 'Thank you for your stay with us, hope you didn't miss your family too much during three years in the clanger, now off you go - oh, and here's your bill.'"

The Popular Alliance are at a loss for words, what sort of country do we live in?

We have cretins making ludicrous laws and decisions whereby if your innocent you pay, however if you’re a thug or terrorist then they bend over backwards to ensure you live in hotel style accommodation free of charge along with a drastically reduced sentence so they can come out and re-offend at the earliest given opportunity.

The question must be asked, why, if this is the case, do the authorities not charge the lowlife and scum in our prisons the sum of £40 pounds per week board and lodging?

This “amazing” story may be read in full from HERE

Staying on the theme of cretins and numbskulls who “supposedly” run our nations security, it has emerged the political masters of Blair and co have told them they cannot deport 3,300 prisoners back to their countries of origin.

Up to 3,000 foreign criminals will be released from prison on to Britain's streets without any attempt to deport them, Government papers have revealed.

A note sent to probation staff says as few as 250 convicts from European countries will face even preliminary deportation proceedings every year.

It pins the blame on an EU directive which rules that committing a serious crime is no longer sufficient grounds for removal.

Neither is the Government's desire to deter other foreign nationals from committing a crime in this country.

As a result, the vast bulk of the estimated 3,300 European criminals released from British jails each year - including burglars, thieves and muggers - will simply walk free.

The revelation undermines the promise made by Tony Blair to tackle the problem in the wake of the foreign prisoner scandal last year.

Again, the Popular Alliance say this is total madness, a weak and spineless government that has no power to protect us from the EU criminal trash and all the while the British taxpayer has to foot the bill for the complete and utter mess this government has created.

The full story may be found HERE

Finally: John Reid said the Home Office was not fit for purpose, the Popular Alliance say “this government is not fit for purpose”

Eurokip have been found wanting yet again with Farage accepting a nice expensive shiny new office which is paid for by the taxpayer.

Roger Knapman said that Nigel Farage, his fellow member of the European parliament (MEP) who replaced him as party leader last September, has ignored the values that "prevent us getting dragged into the comfortable EU world that leads down the path to 'going native'."

It seems every where you turn in UKIP , there is a lingering stench of fraud or some form of financial misstatement, and now we have the icing on the Eurokip cake with Farage “turning native” as Knapman also accuses the party of sending its MEPs on "junkets" and employing their wives as assistants, apparently contrary to an internal Ukip agreement made in 2004. Farage employs his wife Kirsten as a £24,000-a-year home-based secretary using his parliamentary allowance.

How much more can the UKIP cabal spin and ultimately fleece the ordinary hard working party members who in their naivety believe Farage and his career cronies are doing the job of initiating UKIP policy of withdrawal from the EU.

Greed, sleaze, alleged fraud and corruption are all traits of the EU and UKIP to-date has slotted in very nicely indeed, a round peg into a round hole.

The Popular Alliance can only say :

Farage and Co “have shown themselves to be model Europeans” and are wrecking any trust in eurosceptic parties with thier greed and self serving interests, the public will no doubt be thinking they're all the same.

Please find the confidential Knapman letter HERE

The Times goes on to say

THE leader of the UK Independence party (Ukip) has been accused by his predecessor of "selling out" its eurosceptic principles to secure a plush new office.

Roger Knapman said that Nigel Farage, his fellow member of the European parliament (MEP) who replaced him as party leader last September, has ignored the values that "prevent us getting dragged into the comfortable EU world that leads down the path to 'going native'."

"I cannot stand quietly and idly by forever if our basic principles are sold down the river," he said.

Knapman's criticism is contained in a letter to the party's ruling national executive committee (NEC) which was sent following Farage's decision to sign a declaration espousing the principle of "subsidiarity".

Ukip has always been in favour of total withdrawl from the EU, but accepting the principle of subsidiarity means accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

The full story in the Times may be read HERE

Finally, the Popular Alliance say "it is a shame Knapman employed polish workers from his sons Euro employment company to do his house up, or support the latest UKIP nasty "Tom Wise" with his shiny new car which also didn't do the eurosceptic movement any favours either" 

It seems the government and the prime minister to be, have not listened to the public or their concerns despite Gordon Brown and some of his career hopefuls telling us all that their will be more listening, more consultation and more accountable, in fact he said "One of my first acts as prime minister would be to restore power to Parliament in order to build the trust of the British people in our democracy.

Less than forty eight hours later, we witnessed just how much he supports this “new” building of trust by refusing to condemn the career sleazers who voted to a controversial move by MPs to get out of freedom of information laws.

We also noticed how the government “listened” to a two million signature petition on road pricing and completely ignored public concerns on this new stealth tax

But that aside, we then see an opportunist front bench and completely useless sleazer going by the name of Alistair Darling saying he wants even more of the Freedom of information act to be taken away from public view by coming up with a weak and feeble argument that he is concerned that it does not sufficiently protect advice from officials to ministers.

In a letter to the Lord Chancellor he argues that "incremental harm" could be done to policy development.

The Popular Alliance are pleased to reproduce the letter in full.

Dear Charlie,  

As you know we are increasingly concerned that in a number of respects the demands of the Freedom of Information Act are placing good government at risk.

First there is the position of MPs' correspondence under the Act. Disclosure of letters between MPs and Ministers, even if ostensibly innocuous, will inhibit the dialogue between MPs and their constituents and MPs and Ministers. It can't be right that a constituent's affairs could be made public because he asked his MP to write to a Minister. And if we are to live under the constant threat of publication, this will prevent MPs from expressing their views frankly when writing to a Minister. We need urgent advice on what the position is.

Second, I am concerned that the FOI Act, as it appears, prevents us from protecting robustly and across the board advice from officials to Ministers. Here again we should be able to guard more effectively against the incremental harm to the policy development process that must inevitably arise from the disclosure of individually innocuous submissions.

This is the type of information that, I believe, it was never the intention should be made public under an FOI Act. The problems seem to stem from the case by case approach that the Act requires us to take to FOI requests and a discernible trend within the Information Tribunal that decisions on the public interest test have not been falling in the government's favour in key cases. It is open to the government to appeal a decision to the High Court, but this must be on a point of law and is inevitably a costly and time consuming process. There have not yet been any circumstances where departments have felt able to take this approach and we appear to be faced for the future with either conceding to adverse decisions or exercising the Cabinet Minister veto to annul them.

Third, on a point of process, where an FOI applicant sends multiple requests to various Departments on the same subject we need to be confident that there is effective co-ordination between Departments' responses. This is particularly so in cases where the request does not meet a Clearing House trigger and where it is left to Departments to liaise on their own initiative.

For immediate purposes, I would ask that officials, led by yours, conduct a speedy review of these aspects of the FOI.

On MPs' correspondence and advice to Ministers, we need to examine whether a more robust approach is possible to applying FOI exemptions and the scope for a more generic approach to guard against incremental harm from individual disclosures.

On coordination between Departments, it would be helpful if officials could examine interdepartmental arrangements for handling FOI requests, taking in the role of the Clearing House, to ensure a consistent and rigorous approach to cross cutting requests. I expect this would entail clear instructions across Whitehall from your Department.

Beyond that, we will need to watch Information Tribunal case law carefully and in due course consider whether change to the legislation is needed to redress an apparent imbalance between the "right to know" and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance.

I am copying this letter to Cabinet Ministers and to Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Alistair Darling.

Now from this letter we can actually see what is going on, the first paragraph says:

As you know we are increasingly concerned that in a number of respects the demands of the Freedom of Information Act are placing good government at risk.

The popular Alliance would like to know who are the “we”, could it be the whole cabinet, Blair perhaps, almost certainly Brown will be involved, we also question his interpretation of “good government”, if it is that good, surely they have nothing to fear, and like all career politicians such “good government” would be allowed to find its way to the media and press to maximise publicity of such a "wonderful" government.

So the only conclusion we can draw from this very important opening paragraph is:..... “They” don’t want “bad government” being given to anyone at all, especially not the public or the press, plus, it would appear there is more bad government than good government when you read the rest of the letter.

We will allow the reader of this blog to determine their own conclusions from this “good government” letter, and all we will say is, “its more of the same” more new labour, and more “good government”.

Ever heard the term “The law is an ass”? , well, believe it or not, the law is an ass, and it is getting worse by the second.

The government has absolutely no powers whatsoever to combat the shameful idiotic Judges who allow soft sentences for hardened criminals, who stop the extradition of known terrorists, who allow bogus asylum seekers and immigrants to stay at the tax payers expense and who have just recently proclaimed that stopping sham marriages is unlawful.

These maniac Judges who act in this deliberate sabotage of protecting victims and the taxpayer always seem to scream “human rights abuse” and it contravenes EU legislation in some way.

And this is where 90% the problem lies, the EU now make 85% of our laws and are gradually moving policy and law away from nation state to Brussels and we are becoming more and more powerless to stop them.

But, this prompts further questions: why is it that national parliaments have been so willing to divest themselves of so much of their power to make laws? Why have governments and government ministers, and aspiring ministers on opposition benches, gone along so readily for decades with such a shift of power from the national to the EU level, when it has left their national parliaments but shells of their former selves? I suggest that the only plausible explanation is something along these lines:

At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country.

Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does.

National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.

For national ministers operating on the EU stage, keeping in with their fellow-members of the exclusive council of ministers "club" of EU lawmakers tends gradually to become more personally important to them than being awkward in defence of their own people's interests.

Dissent from the predominant consensus on the council risks one being branded as a trouble-maker. Ministers tend to identify ever more with the EU state-building project. They see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making.

Increasingly they come to see one of their key functions vis-a-vis their fellow EU Council members as delivering their national electorates in support of further European integration. It is an especially attractive prospect for government ministers from smaller countries.

At the same time as it turns national ministers into supranational legislators, the shift of policy areas from the national to the EU level frees the national civil servants dealing with them from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments.

It increases their bureaucratic power as they interact with their opposite numbers in the Brussels commission in drafting and often deciding on EU legislation. For the great bulk of European laws are never debated at council of minister level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down amongst the civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are attached to the commission.

EU integration therefore has become not just a process of depriving Europe's peoples of their national democracy and independence. Within each member state it represents a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.

It hollows out the nation state, sucking the reality of power from its traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact.

They still keep their old names - parliament, government, supreme court - so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed.

Their prime purpose now is to be transmitters of EU laws, executive edicts and legal judgements, as the attempt to subsume the nation states of Europe into a highly centralised supranational EU federation grinds relentlessly on its way.

The Popular Alliance needs your support, Join us and let’s throw a spanner in the works before Blair and Brown sign the EU constitution which they intend to do under the guise of a “treaty” without a referendum.