The worst result has occurred in the issue of the trial of the men accused of terrorism. The trial was ordered to be held in camera, that meant in private unwitnessed by citizens or media. The evidence and the summation withheld from the people. The excuse was ‘national security’ – as yet undefined even in the law justifying the principle. The laws destroying the great and up until then honoured foundation of British society was enacted under a Prime Minister now revealed as a mentally unstable psychopath. Worse than his madness was his slavish obedience to the financial masters of Britain since 1945, the U.S.A. The laws that dismantled the great defining document of civic freedom, the Magna Carta were direct copies of the set of laws by which America dismantled the legal framework of the Founding Fathers.

At appeal the affair was decided by Lord Gross who declared that the sensitive matter (the evidence on which they stood accused) should be held in camera but that the rest of the trial (an inhibited defence) could proceed in public.

Who is Lord Gross? This is a man who attended South Africa’s most prestigious Jewish school, Herzlia, and then presumably turned his back on the injustices of apartheid to find a high place in English law. Now, having disdained the inhumanity of the South African regime, he sits in authority on an English bench and first pays lip-service to Magna Carta then smashes it in his judgement.

The accused will still stand judged on an unheard evidence. This doubly weakens civic society, for one group can now argue that the accused were victims of agents provocateurs and it was this that had to be concealed from the citizens.

If this fundamental and primal law of civic society is as it now is both traduced and then rejected – what, we must ask is of worth? What merits security? Or is it that national security is a euphemism for a national prison of its inhabitants.

As if to cover the open crime of Lord Gross, traitor to English justice and to his own people who were slaughtered in their million by the simple original mechanism of arrest without trial, the Prime Minister declares the traduced law a basis of our intrinsic values.

In Israel Cameron grovelled for acceptance, declaring that his family had jewish blood. An Israeli general walked out, declaring:

‘That cuts no ice! He thinks we think like Hitler thought we thought.’

Cameron’s loud affirmation of our ‘basic values’ in the middle of a campaign of denigration aimed at Muslim British citizens held up Magna Carta just as the shameful Law Lord was destroying it. Well, here, it is a Muslim leader and a Scot defending it and now to teach the poor man about values.

Let us call things by their proper names.

We take our definition from ‘The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Vol. 2’.

Value: Middle English and Old French.

That amount of some commodity, medium of exchange, etc., which is considered to be an equivalent for something else.

The material or monetary worth of a thing: the amount at which it may be estimated in terms of some medium of exchange or other standards of a like nature.”

Therefore to establish justice in our commonwealth, the proposal of this loyal Scottish Muslim citizen is that the political-class which invented should now abolish VALUE-ADDED-TAX since to tax value surely is to de-value.