Insidious Common Purpose

This comment just in from a reader.......I would say it is totally correct!

=============================================================================================

I have never been a supporter of Common Purposes. I have seen evidence of the darker side of this organisation which trains people to go beyond their designated authority, irrespective of the law, which in general would restrict such activities as being Ultra Vires.

Common Purpose is an insidious organisation and its status as British charity is under server question and criticism. Common Purpose claims that it runs leadership development programmes across the UK. It was founded in 1989 by its current Chief Executive, Julia Middleton,with an aim is to improve the way organisations and society work together by developing all kinds of leaders through a programme of diverse challenges and approaches!

However I have been unable to find any highly qualified personnel possessing a publicly acknowledged degree of skill that would be required to fulfill the role of "trainers of leaders"

Besides there is no evidence that Common Purposes has had a positive impact on society since its founding in 1989. In fact it would be fair to state that the opposite is the case.......administrative matters certainly appear to be getting worse rather then better!

Common Purpose is a danger to the public and people need to start paying more attention to what is going on at a local level, especially in RCTBC, the police, civil service, NHS etc etc.

Such is the concern over the influence of Common Purpose that a number of UK national newspapers ran stories implying that Common Purpose had exerted improper influence over the Leveson Inquiry. The Daily Mail claimed that "like some giant octopus, Common Purpose's tentacles appear to reach into every cranny of the inner sanctums of Westminster, Whitehall and academia.

The Sun reported quoted Conservative MP Philip Davies as saying "the way Common Purpose has managed to get itself into the Establishment is quite extraordinary.

On 25 November, The Daily Telegraph characterized Common Purpose as a secretive Fabian organisation.

Whatever the press and other concerned parties may conclude, you can be sure of one thing, and that is that Common Purpose does not stand for the best public interests, rather for those of a selective, clandestine, tightly knit band of pseudo-intellectual flibbertigibbets, that would wish to see the citizens of this nation as nothing more than sheep!

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

Posted: December 24, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, flames, Incompetence, Legal, Uncertainty

166

Hat tip to Richard Tol for alerting me to this nice example of eco-fascist thinking from Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. Parncutt, an expert on the psychology of music, originally from Australia, has an interesting take on combining the precautionary principle with David Hume’s John Stewart Mill’s philosophy of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (in this case the as yet unborn), and Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its potential application to ‘the denier problem’. Richard Tol wryly refers to Parncutt’s DeSmogBlog denier list link as ‘Death Row’. I’m one of those on it.

UPDATE: I’m behind the curve, having been away for a week, Jo Nova already has a big discussion going on this story, as does WUWT.

UPDATE 2: Prof. Parncutt has taken down and re-written his death-penalty for sceptics manifesto. See the new version here.

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

An objective argument…a conservative conclusionRichard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012

The smiling face of fascism.
Professor Richard Parncutt
parncutt(at)uni-graz.at

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com
Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.
So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.
Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.
The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.
The death penalty
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.
Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.
My estimate of “hundreds of millions” is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought. They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.
For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer, at the same time as countless research projects were presenting evidence to the contrary. How many deaths did tobacco denialism cause? Globally, lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year. A significant proportion of these deaths is due to tobacco denialists who slowed attempts to slow down the rate of smoking. Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths
Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.
From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.
That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily. There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spead of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception (more) will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future. Since many of these deaths could be prevented relatively easily simply by changing the position of the Catholic church, which incidentally is one of the most influential political powers in Africa and elsewhere, we are talking about something remarkably similar to premeditated mass murder. Not the same, because the church does not want the affected people to die. But the numbers of people involved are so enormous that at some level it doesn’t matter any more whether the murder is premeditated or not. The position of the church is presumably also racist: if those dying from AIDS were not predominately black, the church would presumably have changed its position on contraception long ago. Just imagine 30 million white people dying from AIDS in Europe or North America, and you will see what I mean.
What about holocaust deniers? The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history, for two reasons: the enormous number of murdered people and the automation of the murder process. Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars. The death penalty would be too much for them, because holocaust deniers are not directly causing the deaths of other people. The holocaust is in the past, not the future. Those who died in the holocaust cannot be brought back to life.
Counterarguments
In self defence, both the Catholic church and the GW deniers would point out straight away that they don’t intend to kill anyone. The Catholic church is merely of the opinion that contraception is generally a bad thing. The GW deniers are simply of the opinion that the GW scientists are wrong. Both groups are enjoying their freedom of speech and perhaps they sincerely believe what they are claiming. They can certainly cite lots of evidence (you can find evidence for just about anything if you look hard enough).
Another counterargument is that we can never be sure that the predicted GW will happen, or that its effects will be as severe as predicted. But this is not a strong argument. The courts are used to dealing with uncertainty. Even at the conclusion of a murder trial, there is generally some remaining uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, even if the court pretends that there is not. Courts must rely on eye-witness reports, but memories can be distorted and witnesses can have ulterior motives. That is why there are so many reports of executions of innocent people. In the case of GW, the case is clearer. Even if the prediction of hundreds of millions of deaths turns out to be exaggerated, the more moderate prediction of tens of millions will not.
For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”. The number that the Catholics are playing with are an order of magnitude smaller, but still horrendously large. Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003 (more).
Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.
Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if – despite GW deniers – governments and people act to stop GW. Even conspiracy to murder depends on intent to murder, which clearly does not exist in this case. Then there is the question of in which judicial system someone could be tried and prosecuted. Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.
In such a trial, ignorance of scientific research would be no excuse. There is clear evidence that unprotected sex is causing the deaths of ten millions, and that GW deniers are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. This evidence is freely available and constantly in the media. If the legal change that I am envisaging comes about, a future court of law will not accept the claim that the culprits simply did not know about this research.
Consequences
If my argument is correct, it has clear political consequences. Here is a scenario for what might happen if my argument is broadly accepted, both democratically and politically.

• The universal declaration of human rights and every national constitution would be amended to include the rights of future generations. Incidentally, that would also make national debts illegal, because they oblige future generations to pay them. Getting rid of national debts would in turn solve an important aspect of the “global financial crisis” (more), which currently belongs to the list of common excuses for not investing money in the prevention of GW.
• The proposed legal change would be announced and widely publicized for an extended period before it came into force. During that time, GW deniers would have a chance to change their ways and escape punishment.
• The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.
Outlook
Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.
I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.
This page is inspired by the project Establishing Crimes Against Future Generations by the World Future Council. Please support the work of the World Future Council!
The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome._____________________________________________________________________________
Richard Parncutt, Centre for Systematic Musicology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Graz

 

 

 

 

 

Edward Heath committed High Treason

Edward Heath committed High Treason, the most heinous crime in British law against each and every one of us when he knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into the hands of a foreign power by his signing of the European Communities Act in 1972. His treasonous signature did not become binding as treason cannot do that and the parliament of the day also immediately became an unlawful assembly.

No parliament can bind a successor. Thus each following parliament was free to reverse his treachery. None did however. Instead, each one wilfully continued the pretence of his treasonous act. They still do. Only more forcefully now than ever before. They even give away all our money to the EU on the whim of this pretence.

No law or other binding obligation can result from a treasonous act or from an unlawful assembly. Thus no legislation enacted since 1972 actually became legally effective. It has remained bad law. Bad law is not law. Therefore British law stands as it was immediately before the 1972 Act was signed. Our Constitutional and Common Law as at 1972, prevail. No EU Treaty has therefore come into effect and each is null and void. We are not part of the EU.

The present parliament is also an unlawful assembly. So anything Her Majesty has signed since 1972 has no effect. She is still sovereign, Britain is still ours. No post-1972 statute is lawful (i.e. speeding, parking and other on the spot criminalisation's). The EU has no jurisdiction here in Britain whatsoever because the people have not consented or allowed it.

A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

You learn something new every day.

From: LOMAS

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:50 AM

Subject: A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Dear Editor,

A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

One finds it hard to believe that a leading national newspaper such as the Daily Mail should publish an article on an essential subject of national importance written by a professional journalist, in this instance Michael Thornton, who clearly has no understanding of our Constitution and the role of the monarchy; unless of course the object of the article was to deliberately deceive.

In the article Michael Thornton ponders on whether or not Prince Charles should be Crowned King following the demise of the Queen or whether he should step aside making way for William. According to our system of constitutional monarchy that decision lies not in the hands of the monarchy or Parliament but in the hands of the people who decide who they want in a national election known as the coronation.

It is now so long since we had a coronation that few people know what it is all about and how it proceeds. In the event there is a great deal of protocol and pageantry of course, baggage that has accumulated down through the centuries, but apart from that, in principle, the procedure is basically quite simple. On the day of the coronation people drawn by invitation from every facet of society whose obligation it is to represent the people, assemble at the appointed place, traditionally Westminster Abbey. Traditionally the person to be crowned is the first in line of royal ascent, as the Crown passes to the first in line of royal ascent on the death or abdication of the previous monarch.

The coronation ceremony is the confirmation of that inheritance but there can be no confirmation until the people through their representatives assembled have verbally expressed their consent. The Archbishop of Canterbury brings forward the sovereign who at that time wears only a plain robe without regalia and asks all present if they accept the person before them to be their lawful monarch. It is then for those assembled to cry yea or nay. It is this vital aspect of the coronation that makes it an election, for if the people had no choice or say in the matter the question would be irrelevant. The people have the lawful right to reject the first in line and choose a sibling providing the person of their choice is in the line of royal ascent. It is recorded that Henry VIII always spoke of his coronation as being his election. Once the sovereign has been publicly accepted by the people the monarch then takes the coronation oath and swears not to rule or reign over the people but to 'govern' the nation according to the people's laws and customs.

Because since the days of George III aspiring politicians have sought to play down the lawful role of the people's monarch and have hidden the true meaning of the coronation and its importance, the people by and large have no understanding of what our constitutional monarchy and this nation is all about. This nation is not about Parliament and the people, it is about the people and their elected monarch, Parliament being no more than a temporary administration and legislature with no powers of its own what so ever, and governments are no more than delegated authorities subordinate to the people by sworn obligation to the people's elected sovereign as being the official Governor of the nation, a political office much the same as the President of the United States of America.

Under the prevailing political circumstances it would seem however that none of this is any longer relevant as in 1972 the Conservative Party then in government signed an article of national capitulation with the then European Economic Community which surrendered the sovereignty of the nation and the constitutional supremacy of the people's Crown to an unelected and unaccountable foreign political power. As clearly there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation that is no longer self governing the British monarchy was at that time effectively terminated.

This was confirmed in the case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 when the government of the day was brought to heel and the country heavily fined for having defied the supremacy of the European Commission. Later, in the case of the Metric Martyrs who defied the supremacy of European law and attempted to exercise their lawful right to sell their wares in traditional measurements according the our sovereign laws as promised them by the Queen in her coronation oath, the presiding judge dismissed their claim on the grounds that we had agreed in 1972 to surrender our national sovereignty to the EEC. Further confirmation of the termination of the monarchy came following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty when Prime Minister John Major announced in the Commons that the Queen had been made a citizen of the EU. Clearly no one can be both monarch and citizen at the same time.

With this regard it would seem that the British people are living under a delusion created by a sinister smoke and mirrors system backed by charades such as the Queen's silver jubilee and all upheld and perpetuated by the national press. Presently it is a case of 'oh what a web we weave', but all could be rectified if the national press jointly decided to be honest with the people and tell them the truth and so halt the progress down the slippery slope to anarchy on which the nation has embarked. Alas, recent events suggest that such an action would be highly unlikely.

Yours Faithfully, Bob Lomas. The Magna Society.

1907 PHOTO This one needs to circulate
I think this is one email that needs to be forwarded until every
Canadian with a computer receives it.
The year is 1907, one hundred and 3+ years ago.

                                    READ PRINT UNDER PICTURE!

Wilfrid Laurier ideas on Immigrants and being a Canadian in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes a Canadian and assimilates himself to us,
he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else,
for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,
or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet a Canadian, and nothing but a Canadian...
There can be no divided allegiance here.
Any man who says he is a Canadian, but something else also, isn't a Canadian at all.
We have room for but one flag, the Canadian flag...
And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Canadian people.'
Wilfrid Laurier 1907

Every Canadian citizen needs to read this!

KEEP THIS MOVING

The Constitution

THE CONSITUTIOTHE CONSTITUTION

The UK has a Constitution that was set-up over a thousand years ago and started by King Alfred the Great who was born in 841. He hard a life fighting against the Danes but gave unswerving loyalty to the Crown. In 871 he became the King of Wessex and soon had to contend with fighting the Vikings. He defeated the Vikings and established his kingdom. He protected his kingdom with fortified towns, built a strong navy to defeat the Vikings at sea and started the concept of 'national service'. Half of all the men were in arms whilst the other half were working the land and then he would reverse it and have the men swap-over. That way all men were able to fight when called on to do so.

Alfred created a set of laws which he called 'The Dome' made up of all the best laws of each of the smaller kingdoms he ruled over. These laws were approved by the people. When the country became united under Alfred's grandson Athelstan, Alfred's law was maintained as the law for the whole kingdom.

At that time the Roman Catholic Church was the major Christian church and it was ruled by the pope. The pope believed that he had the right to make or break kings and establish archbishops to act for him in Christian countries. Alfred begged to differ! Her would not be told by the pope who should or shouldn't be his archbishop. Alfred sent the pope's choice back to Rome saying that: 'he was elected King by the English and would do what was in their best interest'.

Over the course of history various incidents happened that threatened the security of this nation and its people. Some were threats from within the Kingdom and some without. This is a simplified order of the creation of our Constitution.

841 The birth of Alfred the Great who went on to produce The Legal Codes of Alfred
1066 William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. William chose to maintain the laws that Alfred had set-up
1100 Charter of Liberties. Henry I believed he could rule by divine right. However the Barons forced him to issue the Charter of Liberties which was a restatement of Alfred's Laws.
1215 Magna Carta. In 1213 King John was a very bad King. He used foreign mercenaries to suppress the people. (This is what would happen if David Cameron privatised the police force.) He also enraged the Barons and fearful for his own life handed England over to the Papal Legate and then was given it back to rule as a vassal king to the Pope for a payment of 1000 marks a year. The Barons and thousands of Freemen of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta which again was a restatement of Alfred's Laws. This Charta can only be undone by the 'Estates of England which comprises of the King, the Barons and the Freeman of England meeting again.
1351 The Statute of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire. These were anti-papal laws issued by King Edward III designed to keep foreign interference out of England. (This law was violated when Edward Heath signed the UK up to the EEC.)
1392 Statute of Paemunire (Illegally repealed in 1967 therefore allowing the Government by placing the Courts under the dominion of the European Courts.)
1559 The Act of Supremacy. This act contained an Oath, part of which states, 'No Foreign Prince, Person, State or Potentate, Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm'.
1628 Petition of Right. This was presented to King Charles I and stated that they wanted his assurance that he would preserve their rights as a restatement of Alfred's Laws. This annoyed the King and he said that they should take his 'royal word' on it. Parliament would have none of this.
1641 The Grand Remonstrance. This was a request to get King Charles I to rule according to the law. He refused and was then tried for treason and executed. James II attempted to re-Catholicise the country and was told by Parliament that he was acting illegally. In retaliation he dissolved parliament and when the pressure was on he escaped to France.

This left England without a King.
1689 The Bill of Rights. This came about when the crown was offered to William and Mary. Since it was necessary to call a Parliament and since the rightful King had fled to France, all the politicians, the Lords etc. met in a 'Convention'. This convention produced the 'Declaration of Rights' a restatement of Alfred's Laws, which William and Mary had to accept if they wanted the Crown. This they accepted and then the 'Declaration of Rights' was passed into the 'Bill of Rights' which subsequently bound all future Parliaments for all time. It must be noted that the only reason this important Bill could bind all future Parliaments was because it was the Parliament was made up of the people's representatives. The will of the people is supreme over Parliament and the sovereign. Until such a time as the representatives of the people meet and change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains law.

Any violation to the Constitution is Treason.

 

Breaking News!

Then i woke up...soddit. :*(

Change of Oath for elected Police Commissioners. 17.11.2012

I have been trying to find out when exactly did the Government asked Her Majesty if they could change the Oath of Allegiance for the elected Police Commissioners? When was this debated in Parliament? And when was the vote taken in Parliament? So far, I have drawn a blank. I have failed to find any changes to the Oath on the Royal Web-site.
I am aware the Government alone cannot change the Oath of Allegiance, for that would be contrary to the Oaths of Allegiance they make themselves. In fact all MP’s and Members of Government so swear allegiance to the British Crown before they may take up their seats in parliament even though the people have freely elected them.
The oath for the proposed elected Police Commissioners HAD TO BE CHANGED because the position of “elected Police Commissioners” is open to the members of the European Union and of course, none would want to swear allegiance to the British Crown. I find it difficult to accept a person from France, Spain, Greece Italy or Germany for instance wanting to become an elected Police Commissioner here in the United Kingdom never mind any British person here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voting FOR a foreigner to take up the position, which makes it all the harder to understand exactly WHY there would be a need for the change of the Oath to the British Crown. I have the feeling also that the (real British) Police would go on strike if a foreigner became an elected Police Commissioner. (Want a bet?) When would the next time to change the Oath come about-until there is no such need because temporary MP’s whose sworn and true allegiance to the British Crown is now no more? Completely gone and replaced by an Oath to the European Union perhaps? There was absolutely no need to change the Oath for elected Police Commissioners at all, if only British people had been allowed to put themselves forward.
The position is also open to members of the Commonwealth, who we regard as “family” for they have been constant and true friends that came to our side and fought along-side our forces in the last war. Greater love has no man that is prepared to lay down their lives for their fellow-man. Our Queen is also their Queen along with Allegiance to the Crown so there was absolutely no need to change the Oath of Allegiance for any member of the Commonwealth. However, I do understand that some wish to withdraw from the Commonwealth now that it is changing somewhat since Mr Cameron and Mr Hague attended that last Commonwealth meeting and required members to sign an “agreement” etc. Considering the Commonwealth has existed for many years, why change anything now?
As MP’s step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , "ACCORDING TO LAW". This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath. There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen's oath, and the oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times.
All members of the Police Force here in the UK swear allegiance to the British Crown. Why then change the OATH for an elected Police Commissioner?
All members of the British Police Force swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. The elected Police Commissioner Oath. I....."do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of Police Force Area in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner without fear or favour". Yet these elected people will be in a position where those in the Police Service, swear allegiance to the British Crown which indicates that they are part of a British service, yet the elected Police Commissioner has the right to dismiss a British serving Police Officer-no matter how high the rank or how many years service he/she has served, and how many years they has served to get to any high rank, and whose sworn allegiance is where it should be TO THE BRITSIH CROWN.
For a British Government changing the true Oath of Allegiance to the very Crown many have given their lives for to protect and keep their British way of life, is an absolute betrayal of all the people here in the United Kingdom. All this at the whim of foreigners in the EU that want complete control of this our Country. The changing of the Oath for the elected Police Commissioners to allow foreigners to such a high rank on the instructions of the EU through the EU’s Localism Act, (The latter also on the Council of Europe’s page) when their solemn Oath of Allegiance prevents exactly that happening is –well words cannot describe for me, for I and my husband went through the last WAR to prevent anything like this ever happening here in the United Kingdom again. I believe it all may end in yet another war, and if none in Government can see the unrest on the continent of Europe they surely will be woken up one day to find they have no country left to protect.
The Oath of Allegiance was changed for the proposed elected Police Commissioners because ANYONE FROM ANY OF THE EU MEMBER STATES COULD ALSO APPLY TO BECOME AN ELECTED POLICE COMMISSIONER here in the UK. That is why government had to get rid of the Police Authorities and replace the with elected Police Commissioners. All in the EU Localism Act eagerly put through by Prime Minister Cameron. Will he get rid of the word “ELECTED” one day and just APPOINT”?
In all the advertisements re elected Police Commissioners not once was this explained. For in NOT making that clear to the people of this Country before the recent election of PCC's, the coalition Government really did let the people down, they betrayed the people they are supposed to serve. Even our MP’s and Government’s sworn allegiance is to the British Crown and they alone could not, I suggest, lawfully change the Oath of Allegiance because THEIR sworn Oath that they make before they may take up their seats in the House of Commons does not allow it. They made up a kind of pledge yet it is indeed listed as an “OATH”, yet the term "Police Commissioner" indicates that they are part of a British Police Service particularly as they apparently have the right to dismiss a high ranking serving British Police Officer.
The Papers today have been reporting about the lack of “DEMOCRACY” for so FEW people bothering to go and elect from those names that are on ballot papers.
The only way anyone could “have a say against these proposals”, could either stay away-which many did- or like myself, go to vote by placing a great CROSS from corner to corner of the ballot paper, in biro rather than in the pencil provided. This was “democracy” at its best. The people had no other way but to stay away, yet such is that lack of DEMCRACY our Government and many in the press didn’t even recognise it.
From the Home Office site, Police and Crime Commissioners to swear an oath of impartiality
The elected Police Commissioner Oath. The full oath: Full Name and Place do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of Police Force Area in the office of Police and Crime Commissioner without fear or favour. I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability, will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public. I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice. I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public. I will not seek to influence or prevent any lawful and reasonable investigation or arrest, nor encourage any police action save that which is lawful and justified within the bounds of this office.
****************************
The Police Officer’s oath. "I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
They deliberately leave out the Oath to our Monarch, the Queen. So ANYONE from any Country may become an elected Police Commissioner in the United Kingdom.
Whether the proposed change re the Oath of Allegiance thought up for elected Police Commissioners is unlawful, for the true Oath is lodged in various Constitutional Documents one of which is the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. The Oath of Allegiance has its origins in the Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215. I leave that to the Experts or High Courts in the United Kingdom.
Did the Queen give her approval to this casting aside the Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown for elected Police Commissioners? I simply do not know.
Under oaths of allegiance, in various long standing constitutional Documents makes very clear that this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” Yet British Government are implementing EU orders that all of us here in the United Kingdom have to obey-at least until we are set free one way or another, from foreign rule. Also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the Bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”. This law and its Oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament. This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned Oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any Bill contrary to our Common law Constitution and questionable also, is the like of the European Communities Act 1972. The Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of the UK. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.

 

Anne Palmer. JP (Retired).

Click here: Elections and Voting for Police and Crime Commissioner Elections 2012 | Reading Borough Council

Britain has never been part of the EU

In 1972, Edward Heath signed the European Communities Act knowingly betraying the British people into European rule. His was an act of outright High Treason and his government thus became an unlawful assembly. Governments cannot bind successors. Though each successive government had the opportunity to rectify his treachery, none did. Each thus became an unlawful assembly also. In 1992, John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty knowingly and wilfully stripping Her Majesty of Her Sovereignty, Honour and Style and rendering her and her subjects mere “citizens” of Europe. His act was ultra vires and one of outright High Treason. No law can result from treasonous acts, much less unlawful assemblies. It is struck down by our Common Law. Every statute, EU treaty, diktat and influence since 1972 is consequently null and void. Britain has therefore never been part of the EU and our British law stands as it was before the 1972 Act. In consequence, those who affirm and uphold EU law, diktat or influence are openly treasonous and liable to prosecution.

Believe no more lies!

 

 

The Daily Telegraph revealed that Lady Ashton, the EU foreign minister, has signalled to Paris that she could help defeat Britain over the HQ if France could win other allies, an alliance that has now been sealed among the five countries.The "Weimar group"! Link Below..

PCCs: Civil/military working together and why they could not explain to the public what PCCs are for, because they are part of the strategy of EU defence and regional plans for it, starting with integration of welfare between Military and Police (we know how these things progress) supposedly on a local level but answerable to the EU/UN, of course they do not want us to know this..

Localism really means regional Globalism. Can you see it taking shape yet?

As the Venusberg 2004 document is so long I took the liberty of putting 'civil' in the find box (f+ctrl) and came up with the following items to clarify important points taking shape:

A European Defence Strategy: Bertelsmann Foundation, remember, this is the 2004 plan for the future:

The security of the Union and that of its friends and allies requires a holistic, strategic civil-military vision that combines achievable means and ends.....
...it would meld into a single conceptual framework national, civil and military, as well as offensive and defensive security and defence efforts.........

The EUSC would be responsible for both military and civilian security........

The developing civil/military structures within the EU Military Staff..........

Gendarmerie, Guardia Civil and Carabinieri-type forces that can bridge the gap between combat soldiering and policing will be essential for the reconstruction of societies..........

integrated into overall EU civil-military crisis management planning and co-ordinated through the EU crisis management system...............

The EU Satellite Interpretation Centre at Torrejon will become an invaluable support for the command chain.........
build on existing public-private partnerships in both the civil and defence sectors.........
development of democratically-accountable armed forces under the EU banner;..........
Rapid deployment of troops either in support of EU homeland security
civil and military resourcesand capabilities into an effective, transnational holistic security whole........................
 
The EUSC would bedesigned to balance operational effectiveness with political legitimacy and
would be responsible for both the military and civilian security.................
a strong civil-military training component, such as that employed by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP)........................
2000, “The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of
the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide.”.......It was decided - long ago!
 
Read further German reports an see the future....
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/04139.pdf

From Poland:

Supporters of the EU argue that the European integration
process may be successful and irreversible if it is extended to
encompass security and defence issues.

http://www.pism.pl/zalaczniki/Digest_1_Ryszard_Zieba.pdf
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countrygermany.htmhttp://csis.org/files/publication/100518_European_Defense_Trends.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9683539/Pressure-on-Cameron-to-block-EU-army-HQ-plans.html

Quote: from accused at Nurenburg trial.." Next time you won't see us coming"!

We are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU

From this report it seems that the Irish, Patrick O'Flynn and the Welsh, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard think we should leave the EU. It would seem they have no understanding of our Constitution which is perhaps understandable, but presumably Roger Bootle is English and he clearly has no understanding of it either.

What they all fail to grasp is that we are not and never have been lawfully members of the EU simply because constitutional constraint forbids the surrender of our national sovereignty and to act in contravention of constitutional constraint is Treason. A referendum on whether or not we should leave would be inviting the people to act with complicity in an act of treason against themselves.

It is simply amazing just how ignorant and naive people of the media are. See below: "In fact, we joined the EU willingly, but with our eyes shut," Just who is Mr Bootle referring to as "we"? If he is referring to the British people on what does he base his statement? 'We' were never asked or consulted because the government knew full well what the answer would have been.

The treacherous Conservatives took us into the then EEC, (the Europaisch Wirtschafts Gemeinshaft) on a 'might is right' basis and lied to the people in Parliament (perjury) to cover the Treason and get the unlawful and consequently ultra viros ECA 1972 passed.

" It is one thing to give up sovereignty to a body which is honest, efficient and prosperous;" No mention or recognition you notice that surrendering our sovereignty was an act of Treason, or that by so doing it ended the monarchy as there can be no sovereign head of state in a country that is not sovereign. Or that it surrendered the supremacy of the Crown that is supreme or it is but nothing and as Parliament drew its legitimacy from the Crown it ended the legitimacy of Parliament rendering it an unlawful assembly.

Perhaps due to ancestry and disposition Mr Bootle only sees the situation from the standpoint of economics and no one can deny the importance of that aspect, but the self autonomy of the nation relies not on economics and politics but on the laws which protect and sustain national sovereignty, laws which were broken and totally ignored by acts of treason which were not only sanctioned by the person of the monarch whom the people had elected in 1953 to ensure their protection but who subsequently honoured the traitors. In short, national sovereignty means complete self autonomy, to surrender that sovereignty in an act of national capitulation is to surrender the national purse which is not in the gift of any government without the specific and express permission of the people. Never the less, this is what the Queen and her Conservative government did in 1972 and that was plain theft.

We do not need and according to law may not have a referendum to further compound the existing Treason. All that is needed is an honest body to recognise and uphold our laws and lawful sovereignty. It is here that our greatest difficulty lies, for this is a duty entrusted to the Monarch but clearly that trust has been broken. There can be no doubt that our system of constitutional monarchy has totally failed. If we are to survive as a nation state we must now either dismiss the Monarch and elect another, or find a different system which in view of recent events is long overdue.

Changing our system might not be as radical or difficult as it might initially seem. In principle this nation has always been a republic, a republic being a country in which the people hold the supreme power over their governors. This principle was clearly asserted in the Magna Carta and again in the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights 1688/9 in which the concept of the monarch's rule by divine right was ended once and for all and the role of the monarch established as that of official Governor of the nation (ref. Coronation Oath Act 1688) and to whom the government would be subordinate by oath. In effect the monarch became what is now known as a president. In order to keep usurpers from muscling in on the office they retained the practice of the nations leader having the role for life and the eligibility of that role being restricted to one family.

All that is fine but it depends very much on personal integrity and sense of honour. In those times all people were religious and were more God fearing than they are today and sacred oaths were more respected. This has changed with social evolution and therefore such concepts cannot be relied upon. It is essential therefore that other means must now be devised to ensure the integrity of those in whom we place our trust and better means introduced to remove from office any who fail in their statutory and lawful obligations of office; just as did our ancestors the Celts many centuries ago. As it happens no one would have to be charged with the removal of the Queen as she abdicated her office when she was a willing party to the surrender of the supremacy of the Crown. It should be well remembered that this nation is not the Monarch, nor its government or parliament, it is the British people and their historic common law constitution, as it has so been down through the many centuries regardless of monarchs, dictators and pretenders.

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

Barack Obama: A History of Communism

Barack Obama: A History of Communism

http://hackwilson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/barack-obama-history-of-communism.html

Hack Wilson
May 16, 2012

Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961, to a Communist mother. Ann Dunham was known as a radical leftist from childhood who hated Christianity, questioned the merits of capitalism, and asked, "What's so bad about Communism?"
Ann Dunham's father, Stanley Dunham, was also a Communist who enrolled Ann in a Communist sympathizing middle school and took the family to a Communist sympathizing church in the 1950s. The FBI had compiled a file on Grandpa Dunham because of his red activities.
While young Barack Obama was being raised by his grandparents in Hawaii during his teen years, Grandpa Dunham introduced Barack to staunch Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis is described by Obama in his book "Dreams from My Father" as a mentor he could always look to for answers. Davis was was a member of the Communist Party, a poet who routinely praised the Soviets in his writings, a pedophile, and a hater of Christianity and America. Communist Grandpa was good friends with Davis.
In college, Obama writes in his own words in "Dreams from My Father" that he sought out Marxist professors.
Dr. John Drew, who said he knew Obama while at Occidental College, stated that Obama was a staunch Marxist-Leninist while in college. Drew, a self admitted Marxist himself, called Obama "a Marxist revolutionary", recalling that Obama routinely stated "there's going to be a revolution."
While at Colombia University in New York, Obama dated a girl named Genevieve Cook, who worked as a teacher at the Communist run 'Brooklyn Friends School'.
During the 1990s, Obama was said to have attended several events by the Communist "New Party", whose goal was to infiltrate the Democratic Party and move it further left towards Communist goals. Obama received their endorsement in 1996 while running for the Illinois state senate.
In 1998, Barack Obama sat on a panel for a Chicago play praising Communist Saul Alinsky.
Obama worked with and became close friends with self admitted Marxist revolutionary and terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn while in Chicago. The political career of Barack Obama was started with a kick off party in Ayers's Chicago home.
At the Ayers home party, Obama was praised by predecessor Alice Palmer. Years before, Palmer had chosen young Obama to be her successor. Alice Palmer was an avid Communist who had previously attended Communist events in the Soviet Union, as well as writing for the CPUSA publication 'People's Weekly World.' She was also a member of a Communist front group called "US Peace Council".
Also attending at the Ayers home was Dr. Quentin Young, a long time friend of Obama. Young was a member of the Young Communist League in Chicago in the 1930s, and involved in various Communist groups up until the 1980s.
In 2004, Barack Obama campaigned for and endorsed Congressman Danny Davis, once saying "he shares our values." Coincidentally, Davis was also a member of the Communist 'New Party' and was filmed as recently as 2012 receiving awards from the Communist Party of the USA.
In 2008, The Communist Party of the United States actively campaigned for Barack Obama in the presidential race.
In 2008, following Obama's victory in the Democratic caucus in Iowa, Frank Chapman, also a member of CPUSA's front group "US Peace Council" wrote a glowing praise for Obama in People's Weekly World. In it he described how Obama's victory would "usher in a new era of struggle", much in the way Marx intended.
During the campaign in 2008, self proclaimed Communist Mike Klonsky was given a "social justice" blog on the official Obama campaign website. Klonsky was and is an avid Communist who previously visited Communist China in 1971 and was involved in multiple Communist-Leninist organizations throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Also a close friend of Bill Ayers, Klonsky's groups were funded to a sum of nearly 2 million dollars by Obama and Ayers through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Obama's car and manufacturing czar, John Bloom, stated in 2009 that "we kind of agree with Mao" and that "the free market is nonsense."
Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned in 2009 when he was exposed on the national level for his Marxist views and radical Communist activities. Jones said in 2005, "I was a Communist."
Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, also resigned in 2009 over a controversy surrounding her comments that Mao was her favorite philosopher who "I turn to most". Dunn also quoted Mao during her career ending speech.
In 2009, it was also reported that a seemingly harmless Christmas ornament on the Obama White House Christmas tree featured, of all people, Mao.
In 2009, Obama appointed Carol Browner as his energy czar. Browner was previously a commissioner for the international Communist-lite group Socialist International.
Obama's science czar, John Holdren, worked for The Bulletin of Nuclear Sciences, which also employed several communists. Holdren, among other things, supports the idea of forced abortions and mass sterilization to quell rising populations.
In 2010, Obama appointed Communist Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare and Medicaid.
The 2012 Obama reelection campaign decided to use the traditional Communist term "Forward" as their official slogan. The term "forward" is rooted in Communist propaganda lore in European Communist organizations including Karl Marx's newspaper, as well as Soviet Russia and Communist China throughout the 1900s.
Also in 2012, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) has officially endorsed Obama again.
Not to be outdone, Obama's long time political adviser, David Axelrod, also has ties to Communists, being influenced and funded by Communist Party members during his college years in Chicago.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett's father in law, Vernon Jarrett, coincidentally worked with Obama's old childhood Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis during the 1940s in various Communist organizations.
But wait, this is all coincidence right? You see, many write off accusations of Obama being a Communist as "radical" or extreme. But in reality, calling Barack Obama a Communist really makes a lot of sense if you look at his history, his beliefs, and those he surrounds himself with.

3 words: CONNECT THE DOTS.

Just another Democrat? I think not.