Where were they - why did they not act?

Sunday, 12 January 2014

Where were they - why did they not act?

 

There is much about our ill-starred association with the euphemistically named European Union, that demands explanation, and turns the spotlight directly on two important offices within our political and parliamentary system.

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of our involvement for many is, why, when we joined : The Common Market trading partnership in 1973, do we now today find ourselves in an unelected, fraud riddled, organisation that sits in Belgium and France, and is costing us £ 150 billion pounds per year?

Were this to be shown on the balance sheet as such, it would be the second largest call on the UK’s total budget of £ 850 billion, and coming second only to the amount required to fund : work, benefits and pensions, which is Ian Duncan Smith’s ministry.

So surely the first question is, how did this political sleight of hand come about, and why were there no checks and balances operating, that prevented so costly a change without the electorates knowledge or approval?

The first check to fail, would seem to be the Commons itself, and its failure to carry out parliamentary scrutiny, but surely the Lords should have been watching and prompting the Lower House.

The answer to this may lie in the immediate aftermath of Heath’s signing, and the sudden realisation of what had occurred, and what they had been party to, striking home,

Oh my God - what have we done - we’re party to treason, close ranks, least said - soonest mended.

Equally worrying, is the failure of the Judiciary, and the constitutional watchdogs, to draw attention to old but still relevant, statutes and charters, such as Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights.

Finally, what of the nation’s ultimate guardian, the Queen as Head of State, surely she would step in, but then did her councillors advise otherwise, as any action would draw attention to one’s assent to the signing of the Treaty of Rome, too embarrassing by far.

So for many years after 1973, the subject was 'disappeared ' from our press and broadcast media, the public were fed the opium of the masses and lost interest, occasionally revived, by the press, when stuck for copy, ran : straight banana type stories, good for a cheap laugh, and just standard Frankfurt School broadcasting practise.

If the story were to have a happy ending, the original culprits would be arraigned, and found guilty, as the evidence against them is overwhelming, Heath Hurd, Rippon, Reddaway, etc and those who came after them, guilty of failing to bring them to justice.

Mrs Thatcher signed the Single European Act, and Major signed Maastricht and Blair signed Nice and Brown signed Lisbon.

Failure to report treason, is a crime, second only to treason itself?

Ed. -- - -Bromsgrovia.

Misconduct and Compounding Treason at Common law

Dear Chief Constable

I understand from Kim Campbell Personnel Assistant to Simon Parr Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary that he has received advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that allegations of treason will not be investigated.

The Chief Constable is a member of the ACPO and has conspired, with others, to commit the major crime of Misconduct in Public Office and compounding treason with the intention of perverting the course of Justice. This has had the effect of preventing the trial of past and present Government Ministers who have committed treason. Your action is therefore required in dealing with this issue.

ACPO do not make the laws of England! Neither can they repeal or negate them, they can only give general advice which does not carry the force of law.

You hold the ancient office of constable. This office if far older than 1829 when Sir Robert Peel placed the office on its present footing as a paid professional police service. As the holder of the office of constable you took an oath which binds you, to uphold the laws of England as they are written and not as ACPO advise.

The actions of ACPO in offering this advice constitutes a Conspiracy at Common Law to commit the major crimes of Misconduct and Compounding Treason at Common law.

One of the allegations of treason advanced to you was against Anthony Lynton Blair one time Prime Minister, David Cameron Prime Minister and Nicholas Clegg Deputy Prime Minister who were all reported for treason over their actual or proposed changes to the Common Law arrangements to the House of Lords. These allegations were advanced under Sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act.

The Ministry of Justice attempted to slip through the repeal of Sec 3 of the 1848 Treason Felony Act by hiding it in with a batch of 309 laws they wished to repeal. They did this without following the normal procedure of going via the Law Commission, the statutory body set up to look at old laws past their sell-by date. This criminal attempt was spotted and the Justice Ministry were forced to make a public admission that had they repealed the Sec 3 OF the 1848 Treason Felony Act they would all have gone to prison for life.

If you are a member of ACPO you are requested and required to appoint an officer from another force who is not an a member of ACPO with the instructions that he is to investigate all ACPO officers for the major crimes of a Conspiracy to Commit Misconduct and Compounding Treason at Common Law.

Respectfully submitted

BBC and the Climate Con.

Just in case you might believe all the BBC's subtle, and not so subtle, hints that the recent storms are all down to climate change...
  Not to mention Sir John Beddington, recently retired government chief scientific adviser (!), on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this week, who stated they were due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere! And of course David Cameron today.

Historic windstorms

• Grote Mandrenke, 1362 – A southwesterly Atlantic gale swept across England, the Netherlands, northern Germany and southern Denmark, killing over 25,000 and changing the Dutch-German-Danish coastline.
• Burchardi Flood, 1634 – Also known as second Grote Mandrenke", hit Nordfriesland, drowned about 8,000–15,000 people and destroyed the island of Strand.
• Great Storm of 1703 – Severe gales affect south coasst of England.
• Night of the Big Wind, 1839 – The mmost severe windstorm to hit Ireland in recent centuries, with hurricane force winds, killed between 250 and 300 people and rendered hundreds of thousands of homes uninhabitable.
• Royal Charter Storm, October 25–26, 1859 –  The Royal Charter Storm was considered to be the most severe storm to hit the British Isles in the 19th century, with a total death toll estimated at over 800. It takes its name from the Royal Charter ship, which was driven by the storm onto the east coast of Anglesey, Wales with the loss of over 450 lives.
• The Tay Bridge Disaster, 1879  Severe gales (estimated to be Force 10–11) swept the east coast of Scotland, infamously resulting in the collapse of the Tay Rail Bridge and the loss of 75 people who were on board the ill-fated train. ^[36]
• Eyemouth Disaster, 1881 – A severe storm struck the sooutheast coast of Scotland. 189 fishermen were killed, most of whom were from the small village of Eyemouth.
• 1928 Thames flood, January 6–7,, 1928 – Snow melt combined with heavy rainfall and a sttorm surge in the North Sea led to flooding in central London and the loss of 14 lives.

Severe storms since 1950

• North Sea flood of 1953 – Considered to be the worrst natural disaster of the 20th century both in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, claiming over 2,500 lives.
• North Sea flood of 1962 – The Storm reached the German coast of the North Sea with wind speeds up to 200 km/h. The accompanying storm surge combined with the high tide pushed water up the Weser and Elbe, breaching dikes and caused extensive flooding, especially in Hamburg. 315 people were killed, around 60,000 were left homeless.
• Gale of January 1976 January 2–5, 1976 – Widespread wind damage was rs reported across Europe from Ireland to Central Europe. Coastal flooding occurred in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Germany with the highest storm surge of the 20th century recorded on the German North Sea coast.
• Great Storm of 1987 – This storm affected southeastern England and noorthern France. In England maximum mean wind speeds of 70 knots (an average over 10 minutes) were recorded. The highest gust of 117 knots (217 km/h) was recorded at Pointe du Raz in Brittany. In all, 19 people were killed in England and 4 in France. 15 million trees were uprooted in England.
• 1990 storm series – Between 25 January and 1 March 1990, eight severe storms crossed Europe including the Burns' Day storm (Daria), Vivian & Wiebke. The total costs resulting from these storms was estimated at almost £13 billion.

English Law

To: The Lord Chief Justice
Subject: ENGLISH LAW

 

 

My Lord,

 

It has long been my understanding that England can have only one system of law.  English Constitutional and Common Law has prevailed for centuries, was put in place specifically for our everlasting protection and has never been renounced by those who use and live by it, the English people.  Yet we are incessantly told by Parliament that we live under European Law, something imported by them without the people’s consent and under which the vast majority of us have no wish to subsist.  Our English system of law is far superior.

 

When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into the hands of a gathering foreign power, the EEC/EU.  His was the most calculating and grievous treason in British history.  Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become legally binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that.  His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government in having no legitimacy, is not lawful.

 

No parliament can bind a successor.  But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery.  Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to reinforce Heath’s unthinkable pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly consented to foreign rule.  Neither he nor they ever had such authority and their actions are contrary to English law for acting against the nation’s known interests,  its sovereignty and for acting in the political interests of a foreign power.

 

No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or action by an unlawful assembly.  English law therefore, stands as it was immediately prior to signing of the 1972 Act.  Thus Britain is not and can never have been part of the EU as all Treaties are treasonous, unlawful, null and void.  They are bad “law” and bad law is not law.  As a consequence, European Law can have no lawful influence upon Britain as claimed.  In any case, the supremacy of English law (particularly our Constitutional Law) would intercede and immediately strike it down.

 

For years now, political power has been taken without permission or lawful authority.  The House of Commons has attempted to degrade Her Majesty from Sovereign Queen to citizen of Europe, supported dismantling Her Commonwealth, neutered the House of Lords, attempted to close and replace it with an elected senate, removed Royal Assent by the Monarch, withdrawn homage to Her Majesty and they forcefully control the people’s elected representatives.  They are destroying our legal system and constitution built around the teachings of the Holy Bible such that even the Queen’s Coronation Oath is no longer capable of being honoured and they have demeaned God’s Law of heterosexual marriage. 

 

They approve inundation by foreign immigrants whom Government claim they are powerless to stop, allow the creep of Sharia Law into Britain bolstered by runaway aggression of Islamic migrants claiming our country as theirs by right, slash our ability to defend ourselves with swingeing cuts to our Armed Forces and have reduced our world leading Police Service to a paramilitary force.  The Commissioner of Police even refuses to investigate evidential reports of high treason against senior politicians referred to him by national police forces and the general public.

 

All these treasonous acts will have been prevented (but can be reversed) by English Law were it not sidelined, ignored and pretend-repealed by the Commons whose callous and programmed rampage is steadily destroying our country for foreign political purpose against the will of British people.  The Commons now claim that Britain needs a new Bill of Rights (doubtless of their own chosen terms) when our existing one has amply served its purpose since 1689.  The Executive is now virtually free to do as it wishes according to the doctrine of “Politicians’ Divine Rights”. 

 

Sovereignty lies with the people who then entrust it to the Monarch.  It may not be given away as neither can the Constitution, handed down by our forefathers for our unending protection as the most perfect constitution known to man.  It is the property of the nation,  not those who exercise government (Thomas Paine).  But we live under an elected three political party dictatorship that aggressively ensures its autocracy, is intent upon ever tighter control from Brussels and seeks obliteration of England from world knowledge.

 

English Constitutional and Common Law has protected Britain against such despotism for centuries.  Is its lawful primacy really never to be acknowledged again ?

 

Yours sincerely, 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10546394/Europe-is-slowly-strangling-the-life-out-of-national-democracy.html

Europe is slowly strangling the life out of national democracy

Decisions affecting the lives of voters are being taken by bureaucrats and unelected 'experts'

Photo: GETTY IMAGES

By Peter Oborne

9:23PM GMT 01 Jan 2014

1720 Comments

Every so often one comes across a book, a poem or a work of art that is so original, perfectly crafted, accurate and true that you can’t get it out of your head. You have to read or look at it many times to place it in context and understand what it means.

In the course of two decades as a political reporter my most powerful experience of this kind came when a friend drew my attention to a 20-page article in an obscure academic journal.

Written by the political scientists Richard Katz and Peter Mair, and called “The Emergence of a Cartel Party”, it immediately explained almost everything that had perplexed me as a lobby correspondent: the unhealthy similarity between supposedly rival parties; the corruption and graft that has become endemic in modern politics; the emergence of a political elite filled with scorn and hostility towards ordinary voters. My book, The Triumph of the Political Class, was in certain respects an attempt to popularise that Katz and Mair essay.

Several months ago I was shocked and saddened to learn that Peter Mair (whom I never met) had died suddenly, while on holiday with his family in his native Ireland, aged just 60. However, his friend Francis Mulhern has skilfully piloted into print the book he was working on at the time of his death. It is called Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy, and published by Verso. In my view it is every bit as brilliant as the earlier essay.

The opening paragraph is bold, powerful, and sets out the thesis beautifully: “The age of party democracy has passed. Although the parties themselves remain, they have become so disconnected from the wider society, and pursue a form of competition that is so lacking in meaning, that they no longer seem capable of sustaining democracy in its present form.”

Related Articles

• Wolfson: EU has become hungry for power
  30 Dec 2013
• Ukip will 'shake up' British politics in 2014, says Farage
  31 Dec 2013
• Latvia joins euro, but controversy rages on
  31 Dec 2013
• The EU is taking over defence policy by stealth
  07 Dec 2013
• EU: Britain is moving closer to the exit
  30 Nov 2013

The first half of Mair’s new book concentrates on this crisis in party democracy. He tracks the sharp fall in turn-out at elections, the collapse of party membership (the Tories down from three million in the Fifties to scarcely 100,000 today, a drop of 97 per cent) and the decay of civic participation. Mair shows that this is a European trend. All over the continent parties have turned against their members. Political leaders no longer represent ordinary people, but are becoming, in effect, emissaries from central government.
All of this is of exceptional importance, and central to the urgent contemporary debate about voter disenchantment. However, I want to concentrate on the second half of Mair’s book, because here the professor turns to the role played by the European Union in undermining and bypassing national democracy.
He starts with a historical paradox. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 was in theory the finest moment for Western democracy. But it was also the moment when it started to fail. Mair argues that political elites have turned Europe into “a protected sphere, safe from the demands of voters and their representatives”.
This European political directorate has taken decision-making away from national parliaments. On virtually everything that matters, from the economy to immigration, decisions are made elsewhere. Professor Mair argues that many politicians encouraged this tendency because they wanted to “divest themselves of responsibility for potentially unpopular policy decisions and so cushion themselves against possible voter discontent”. This means that decisions which viscerally affect the lives of voters are now taken by anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats rather than politicians responsible to their voters.
Though the motive has been understandable, the effect has been malign, making politicians look impotent or cowardly, and bringing politics itself into contempt. In Britain, for example, David Cameron can do virtually nothing to head off Bulgarian or Romanian immigration. The prime ministers of Greece, Portugal and Spain are now effectively branch managers for the European Central Bank and Goldman Sachs. By a hideous paradox the European Union, set up as a way of avoiding a return to fascism in the post-war epoch, has since mutated into a way of avoiding democracy itself.
In a devastating analogy, Mair conjures up Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century French thinker who is often regarded as the greatest modern theorist about democracy. Tocqueville noted that the pre-revolutionary French aristocracy fell into contempt because they claimed privileges on the basis of functions that they could no longer fulfil. The 21st-century European political class, says Mair, is in the identical position.
To sum up, the European elites have come very close to the abolition of what we have been brought up to regard as politics, and have replaced it with rule by bureaucrats, bankers, and various kinds of unelected expert. So far they have got away with this. This May’s elections for the European Parliament will provide a fascinating test of whether they can continue to do so.
The European Union claims to be untroubled by these elections. A report last month from two members of the Jacques Delors Institute concluded that “the numerical increase of populist forces will not notably affect the functioning of the [European Parliament], which will remain largely based on the compromises built between the dominant political groups. This reflects the position of the overwhelming majority of EU citizens”.
I wonder. In France, polls suggest that the anti-semitic Front National, which equates illegal immigrants with “organised gangs of criminals”, will gain more votes than the mainstream parties. The Front National has joined forces with the virulently anti-Islamic Geert Wilders in Holland, who promises to claim back “how we control our borders, our money, our economy, our currency”. In Britain it is likely that Ukip will win in May. Anti-European parties are on the rise in Denmark, Austria, Greece and Poland.
These anti-EU parties tend to be on the Right, and often the far-Right. For reasons that are hard to understand, the Left continues enthusiastically to back the EU, even though it is pursuing policies that drive down living standards and destroy employment, businesses and indeed (in the case of Greece and Spain) entire economies. In Britain, for example, Ed Miliband is an ardent supporter of the European project and refuses even to countenance the idea of a referendum.
Like Miliband, Peter Mair comes from the Left. He was an Irishman who spent the majority of his professional life working in European universities in Italy, the Netherlands or Ireland. And yet he has written what is by far and away the most powerful, learned and persuasive anti-EU treatise I have come across. It proves that it is impossible to be a democrat and support the continued existence of the European Union.
His posthumous masterpiece deserves to become a foundation text for Eurosceptics not just in Britain, but right across the continent. It is important that it should do so. The battle to reclaim parliamentary democracy should not just belong to the Right-wing (and sometimes fascist) political parties. The Left and Right can disagree – honourably so – on many great issues. But surely both sides of the ideological divide can accept that democracy is still worth fighting for, and that the common enemy has become the European Union.

Why the English are Angry in this Big Year for Britain

Lindley-French's Blog Blast: Speaking Truth Unto Power

A regular commentary on strategic affairs from a leading commentator and analyst. Forthcoming Book: "Little Britain? Twenty-First Century Strategy for a Middling European Power" (Publish date: January 2014).

 

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

Why the English are Angry in this Big Year for Britain

Alphen, Netherlands, 1 January.  Happy New Year!  Well, apparently not if you are English. 

According to the much of the Press as I write hordes of Bulgarians and Romanians are en route to Dover courtesy of yet another diktat from loathed, lamentable Brussels. 

With another wave of immigration likely elections to the European Parliament and the Scottish referendum there are lots of contentious issues in a 2014 that will be a big and possibly disastrous year for Britain. 

The impact of these linked but distinct issues is that for the first time in many years the views of the English are suddenly in the political spotlight. 

For the past decade and more the English have either been ignored or seen as a lab for some ghastly, failed political experiment in social engineering that destroyed the England I knew. 

Five issues dominate the pub – poverty, Scotland, the EU, freedom, and of course immigration.

 

Firstly, England is becoming rapidly more populous but poorer.  The main crutch supporting hyper-immigration has been that it grows the economy. 

With the British economy likely to grow between 2.5% and 3% next year there may be some truth to that. 

However, with immigration growing faster than the economy the net result is a bigger economy and poorer people, a phenomenon most clearly seen in the rise of youth unemployment.

Secondly, the English have been marginalised in Britain. 

Although some 90% of Britain’s 67 million people live in England devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has undoubtedly come at the expense of the under-represented, politically-marginalised English.  Moreover, with Scots contemplating an independence referendum on 18 September Westminster will spend much of the year appeasing the Scots at the expense (again) of the English. 

Thirdly, Euro-scepticism is a very English phenomenon.  The EU is seen as a form of foreign legislative occupation that has failed the English badly costing them far more than they gain. 

Brussels is perceived by much of the English population as openly anti-English fronted by a London Establishment unwilling to fight England’s corner. 

The English were told that joining the then European Economic Community back in 1973 would strengthen Britain and make the English more prosperous. 

Internationally Britain (and by extension England) has been profoundly-weakened by an EU first dominated by France and Germany and now dominated by Germany. 

Domestically, by transferring so much funding power to the EU Brussels is steadily replacing London as the decisive locus for decision-making.   

Fourthly, England’s sense of self is being steadily undermined.  Britain was built on ancient English concepts of freedom. 

By signing up to EU treaties that fundamentally change the relationship between leaders and led and human rights legislation that fundamentally changes the relationships between rights and obligations belief in the efficacy of representative democracy is fast collapsing in England. 

If power is elsewhere what is the point voting for people who cannot actually do anything?  Indeed, the EU is seen by many as an illegitimate, bureaucratic assault on ancient English rights and liberties. 

Perhaps the most hated phrase in England these days is “new European regulations…”

Fifthly and finally immigration is again on the rise.  In many ways immigration has indeed been a good thing for England as the best and brightest of many poor societies have been cherry-picked to support an ageing society.  

However, immigration has also imported real hatreds, intolerance and criminality into England and has done grave damage to English society. 

A close friend of mine is a black community leader in Salford in the north of England.  He told me recently a chilling story about the impact of Eastern European organised crime on his community. 

The Yardee gang drawn mainly from the Afro-Caribbean community tried to resist.  A battle for the streets ensued lasting three days before the Yardees were forced to retreat in the face of utter brutality.  London as usual is in denial.

For all that blaming immigration and immigrants for England’s woes is far too simplistic and wrong. Immigration is rather a metaphor for the collapse of trust between the English and an unworldly, failed Westminster political class. 

The real problem is the dangerous gap between a political class that has retreated steadily into a private conversation between themselves about fantasy policy, pretend power and political correctness. 

Today, the gap between that which politicians say, what they can do, and what they actually do is now a gulf of credibility open to political exploitation. 

However, in his big year for Britain the English must also be clear what it is they want.  The only way for England to be again a self-governing country is to let the Scots go, leave the EU and establish an English Parliament with real power. 

And yet many English people are confused, trapped between romantic Englishness, romantic Britishness, failed Europeanness and hard-headed political calculation.  I am no different. 

The English simply no longer believe their politicians have their best interests at heart…and they are right!

 

 

Give a politician enough rope and he will lower himself into the bank vault.

We the people, must act to survive.

Alvechurch Bugle  4 – 001  ( 1 – 1 – 14 )

We the people, must act to survive. 

As we commence this New Year, the British electorate, nay the entire population, stand outlined under the flickering lights of a political Last Chance Saloon.

Bankrupt, borrowing to service our debt, barely 300 tonnes of gold reserves, misruled, overburdened with other nations baggage, and in the grip of a foreign power.

Be in no doubt, our survival is in our hands, but our demise is certain if we get it wrong, the lights will go out, and stay out for a very long time.

This Lib Lab Con, one party, overpaid, overrated, over privileged, clique, is two elections away from destroying this nation.

The remedy could not be simpler, and we have the same two opportunities to prevent them doing it .   

The first is on May 21^st  when the European, and some local government polls take place, and the second will be the 2015 general election, and the indications are that the electorate will vent their accumulated anger on L.L.C. and particularly on Lib Con.

It will be their first opportunity since May 2010 to say to 650 elected disappointments in Westminster, a hearty, and heartfelt thank you !  

Thank you for heeding our call for sensible immigration policies !    

Thank you for the years we have endured the threat, from the Brussels imposed, Chiltern destroying, HS 2. and the blight on our property values ,  oh, and lying about the cost.

Thank you in fact,  for lying to us on just about everything , but particularly about introducing fair banking practices, and stopping our pension pots being pilfered by crooked annuity providers .

Thank you for denying us the means of terminating our illegal EU membership, or delaying it with no justification until  2017, when half of you will be in prison.

In three and a half years, this : London/Home Counties centric administration, has initiated nothing that indicates that they have any answers to the problems they inherited in 2010 and to which they have greatly added since.     

Perhaps, 50 years ago one could laugh at the perceived ineptitude of those in government, fairly secure in the knowledge that they did  actually know what they were doing,  and the nation was in good hands,  but that would be extremely unwise today.

The EU meanwhile, is achieving precisely what its founders intended, the destruction of Great Britain and, every vote for Lib Lab Con from now on, will be a vote for a continued and increasingly rapid decline, in these islands.

It all raises the question,  what realistic options are open to responsible citizens,  witnessing their elected government effectively destroying them and their way of life  ?.

Ed.  -   -   -   Bromsgrovia.

 

Cameron's illegal act. (Letter)

Dear David

I realise your lack of knowledge of the English Constitution, springs from a number of things. Firstly you are a Scott, and we all know that the Scott loves the chance to put one over on those bloody English, who so often in history have trashed the Scott's for straying south of the border with evil intent. Secondly you have an Ashkenazi family link and the Ashkenazi are intent on world domination through banking. Thirdly you received your instruction in constitutional law from Professor Vernon Bogdanor, this is a fate no one should have to endure, in the majority of cases this is to be viewed as a minor inconvenience. In your case however as Prime Minister I fear I must inform you this is a fatal flaw which at the least will result in your spending the rest of your life in prison as a guest of Her Majesty's, I would of course rather see you hang for your treasons.

The Parliament Acts

Parliament was born of the King, who was himself born of the Common Law. The King using the authority granted to him by the common law took advisors into his service to enable him to administer his Kingdom as efficiently as possible and so as to give maximum benefit to his subjects. This was true north and south of the border. Now I am not overly familiar with Scottish law, so if you will forgive me I will stick to English law.

We will leave out for convenience the Anglo Saxon Kings suffice it to say William I chose to keep the laws of Edward the Confessor, his advisors were largely the Barons who he had brought to England with him. This remained largely the case until Edward I in 1297 invited the Knights and Burgess's into his Parliament believing they would vote him the taxes he needed for amongst other things keeping those troublesome Scots in order, if they were given a say.

However the trouble with the common man like you and I is we get greedy for power money or usually both. So in exchange for taxes the Commons gradually annexed to itself more authority, until in 1420 they obtained the right by convention not law to originate all bills placed before Parliament.

This defined how Parliament evolved through usage in a sensible manor, capable of producing consistently the best form of government, where the Commons originate a bill which then goes to the Lords, who are charged by the King to return it for amendment, reject it, or approve it to go before the King. The King then using only that wisdom God gave him, and in accordance with his conscience, will accept it or reject the bill. If the bill is rejected it is dead and if accepted it becomes statute law.

A statute has yet another restriction placed upon it, it must comply with the spirit of the common law, if it does not the common law intercedes and strikes it down as bad law and therefore not law.

Now this all started to go seriously wrong when the Commons suffering from delusions of grandeur wrote to the Lords in 1609, claiming to be the "Knights, Burgess's and Barons of the high court of Parliament". The Lords replied saying "they would never accept the Commons as Barons and without the Lords they were no court at all".

Still nothing ventured nothing gained. So in 1667 the Commons told the Lords they could not amend a money bill, there is no constitutional legal basis for this claim. There followed a ten year argument between the houses, until in 1677 the Lords in a moment of madness gave way. This was to have catastrophic consequences. With no basis in law.

In 1909 Asquith put forward a budget, which the Lords believing wrongly, they could not amend they rejected it, Asquith then put forward a bill to restrict the house of Lords ability to reject a bill, the Lords said they would reject it. Asquith told them he would put 500 new Peers into the house, and they would vote its abolition. The Lords gave way a second time, and the bill was placed before King Edward VII WHO REJECTED IT on the grounds it was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects! The Kings mistake was to order an election, during which Asquith and his Ministers, went round the country telling every one those beastly Lords would not let the common man have a pension. Once again the Lords slipped up believing it beneath them to go to the country, and telling the true reason they rejected the bill. Asquith was returned and the King in his speech made it clear he did not want the Parliament Act saying the only reason he was doing this was because his Ministers told him he had too. This attracted comment at the time.

The Parliament and the 1999 House of Lords Acts, are entirely unconstitutional and are illegal, under the Common Law arrangements for Parliament. Your plan to use the Parliament Act to force a referendum is unconstitutional and a treason against the common and constitutional laws of England. I suggest you hand this to your legal people who if they know anything about the law, which I doubt will tell you the use of this law is an unlawful aberration particularly as our membership of the EU is entirely illegal and your failure to remove us from the EU will result not in a prison term but the death penalty being applied to you. A project to which I am devoting my every waking moment. Enjoy your Christmas you may not have many left.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

'Royal' is now meaningless but don't tell the public

Marine Blackman is a victim of his time

 

 

Without doubt our enemy's greatest weapon is incredulity.

 

  Tell Mr and Mrs Average that in 1972 the Queen abdicated and the monarchy was ended and that Parliament became an unlawful assembly following a covert political coup by the Conservative Party and they will not believe you, yet the evidence of this is to be seen everywhere.

 

Up to 1972 when the then Conservative government and the Queen surrendered the people's sovereignty and the supremacy of the Crown to the European Economic Community our armed forces personnel took an oath of allegiance to the Monarch, and through the Monarch to the British people, which made our soldiers accountable only to the Monarch and no one else,. Parliament had nothing to do with it and for good reason. This arrangement insured that the Monarch, as official Governor of the nation and Commander in Chief of the people's Armed Forces, retained the essential power to dismiss and dissolve unlawful and despotic Parliaments.

 

The oath of allegiance our soldiers took not only committed them to protecting the Monarch her heirs and successors and so the people from their enemies it also protected them when engaged in their duties by the limitation of the oath. An accusation against a soldier when he or she is on active service was also an accusation against the Monarch who, being the soldiers Commander in Chief was accountable for their actions.  

 

 

This all changed in 1972 when, under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome, the nation's sovereignty was ended along with the supremacy of the Crown and the monarchy as the Treaty contained no provisions for a constitutional monarchy. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation that is no longer sovereign and no official governor of a nation that is no longer self governing.

 

Having abandoned recognition of constitutional constraint, Parliament then presumed the position of the UK's official administration for the European government. With the termination of the supremacy of the Crown and the office of the monarch, Parliament also assumed control over our armed forces, using them as political mercenary forces engaged and acting under contracts of employment, like any other worker or work force. 

 

Our soldiers still take an oath of allegiance to the monarch but it is now meaningless, as the constitutional authority of the office of the monarch has been ended, along with the sovereign authority of the British people who are now citizens of the EU and as such subordinate to the EU government according to the constraints and conditions of that citizenship.

 

With our soldier's oath of allegiance now meaningless, the protection the oath afforded them has been removed, a point it seems that did not escape the notice of Chief Justice Lord Thomas, a fully compliant member of our now politicised judiciary. The outcome of this means that our armed forces personnel no longer have lawful protection when engaged in armed conflict and can therefore be held individually accountable, by any group or nation anywhere in the world and at any time in their lives, even many years after an alleged offence. Now that the defence of this country depends entirely on a voluntary force one can only view the handling of this particular unfortunate incident as a threat to that dependency, occurring as it has at a time of irresponsible national defence cuts and growing discussions on the building of a European defence force.   

 

 

Marine Blackman is a victim of his time. The state he bravely served is now a sham, a charade, justice, order and accountability abandoned. The once supreme spirit of our law is now subordinate to the letter of the law for reasons of political expediency. Those who presume to preside in high offices still wear the robes and carry the trappings of state, they even act out the traditional ceremonies, but all this is but meaningless pantomime. This once great nation now resembles a last year's Christmas tree on a June day, the false tinsel still sparkles, but the tree beneath is dead.   

 

Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

 

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

CICERO

The treason of Britain's metrication

THE TREASON OF BRITAIN’S METRICATION

Treason is treachery, a betraying or a breach of faith and in law denotes the grave crime of treachery toward the Sovereign as head of the State and any betraying of the State itself. (Moriarty’s Police Law. 17th edition, page 202.) Treason is to betray or violate one’s duty of allegiance to one’s own people and thus to one’s country in support of any other state, power or authority. It is disloyalty, duplicity and to undermine your own country. Regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon
the British nation, treason is still a hanging offence.
To use or represent the metric system in Britain as the accepted legal standard British units of measurement is intentionally or otherwise to mislead and undermine the British public mind. Most commonly found in British TV broadcasting and government services, its use is to attempt to influence the nation into believing that Britain has accepted such foreign pressure and control when the people have agreed to nothing of the sort. It is a gravely serious offence to attempt to undermine or mislead the British nation against its will. It is TREASON. Since 1897 the people of Britain have consistently rejected the metric system as “inferior, restricting, inflexible, long-winded and of limited utility”. They have also refused it as prone to considerable
error (misplaced /omitted decimal point), having too few units, units of impractical size and of being entirely unsuited to measuring needs. These views extend also to the sale of commodities in metric quantities all of which are illegal under British law and are considered less practical in use. Surveys repeatedly show that more than 90% of British people refuse to accept or adopt the metric system.
Imperial weights and measures for all purposes are protected by English Constitutional and Common Law. They have been expressly authorised by the Parliament in Westminster. No amending Act has ever been introduced. Imperial therefore, is still the British system of measurement required by law and protected by it.
No law, ruling or edict exists that requires Britain’s metrication. No White or Green Paper, political party manifesto, Queen’s speech, parliamentary legislative programme or popular mandate has ever suggested that Britain should or would adopt the metric system. The imperial scales therefore remain
the lawful standard British system of measurement in official and exclusive use in this country.
The parliament inspired mantra “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965” is a lie. Irrefutably exposed as such, it was contrived purely for political purpose and is better known as the
“Myth of 1965”. The UK has never “decided” to adopt metrication. The public have never been consulted, their agreement or consent has never been sought let alone given and metrication has never been debated in Parliament. The myth arises from the personal hope of two 1960’s civil servants and Harold Wilson’s failed sop to the French who still refused UK admission to the EEC anyway. These do not justify metrication in Britain.
Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union. Thus metrication has no purpose.
When he signed the European Communities Act in 1972, then Prime Minister Edward Heath knowingly and wilfully deceived and betrayed the British people into foreign rule by the EEC/EU.  His was the most calculating and grievous treason in British history. Upon signing, his treason instantly removed him from lawful office and his treasonous act failed to become legally binding because treason has no legitimacy and cannot do that. His then treasonous government immediately became an unlawful assembly as a treasonous government is not lawful. It too, has no legitimacy.
2
No parliament can bind a successor. But no following parliament has ever reversed Heath’s treachery. Instead, every following prime minister and parliament has consciously and deliberately lied to continue Heath’s outrageous and unthinkable pretence that Britain had knowingly and willingly signed up to foreign rule. As public servants, neither he nor they ever had authority to make such an undertaking without the people’s knowledge and consent. Their actions are therefore contrary to law for serious misconduct in public office, dereliction of duty, acting without public consent, acting against the nation’s known interests, acting in the political interests of a foreign power or authority, wilful deception and deliberate betrayal of the nation, to name but a few.
Every parliament since Heath’s therefore, is and has been an unlawful assembly committing the most atrocious act of treason against their own people by inviting and imposing foreign rule over their own country. Not one has ever acted within the law. Having solemnly sworn lifetime oaths of loyalty and allegiance to Britain, each has conspired in this treason and they continue to deceitfully conceal the truth of their illicit activities from the public as it has always been known that the British people
would object most violently were they ever to find out. But they are finding out. Considerable documentary evidence of this criminality exists in the public domain and over 600 pages of evidence can be read at

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-evidence-files and in Hansard.
No law or other binding obligation can result from treason or intent by an unlawful assembly. British law and our imperial system of measurement therefore, remain in force as they were prior to signing of the 1972 Act. That means that just as before 1972, metric measurements have no place in Britain
whatsoever. In consequence of the above, Britain is not and has never been part of the European Union as every Act, EU Treaty and every statute since 1972 whether or not given the Royal Assent, is treasonous, illegal, null and void. So also, is any attempted standard use of the metric scales.
This naturally includes such documents as the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the Metric Regulations 1994 and all EEC/EU Regulations and Directives which have no lawful relevance here.
The European Union has no legitimate influence in Britain whatsoever. Neither does its Napoleonic European Law. They exist only in certain political minds. In any case, the supremacy of British law in this country automatically strikes down any attempt to repeal, subvert, overrule or replace it. The pretence of European influence (and of metrication) is none other than parliamentary make-believe and pure theatre designed at the highest levels of Westminster to deceive and subjugate the people to
foreign rule against their will for others’ political purpose, contrary to law. It is WILFUL TREASON.
A succession of unlawful British parliaments therefore, having no legitimacy, illegally and without mandate, wilfully import and impose upon their own people, foreign rule and influence that has no legality in Britain. Metrication in Britain then, is based solely upon the deliberately contrived lie that “The UK took the decision to adopt the metric system in 1965” when in fact the people knew nothing about it, would never have consented and have been knowingly and purposely deceived and betrayed by those paid to serve them.
Having no basis in law or popular mandate, metrication brings decreased practicality. Britain already has the world class imperial system of measurement evolved over time for every quantifying need and emulated around the world. Maligned for foreign political purpose and with feet and inches wilfully associated with backwardness, imperial measurement has enabled every modern development
including nuclear technology, space travel and electronic communication.
In committing the most unimaginable treason against their own people, every parliament since 1972 has broken English Constitutional and Common Law. This includes among others, the Treason Act 1351, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. These laws are inviolable and are in perpetuity. They are beyond the reach of Parliament
to alter or repeal, impliedly or otherwise. Just because modern day lawyers are not trained or versed in these laws does not mean they do not exist or that serious major offences have not been committed.
Under the Act of Settlement 1700 S4, the laws of England are the birthright of the people and cannot be taken away. Exclusive use of the imperial measurement system in Britain as required by law, is thus the birthright of the people and cannot be removed.
Imperial measurements are the international standard legally required for air and sea use around the world. Worldwide distances are measured in nautical miles, yards (sea depths are also in fathoms) and feet and inches. Quantities are in ounces and pounds (weight), tons, pints, quarts and gallons.
This is because imperial units are chosen universally for their practicality and application in all air and sea uses over the metric accounting system that is workable only in multiples of 10. The British Government has confirmed that transportation and road use are never likely to become metric and though some people mistakenly believe centimetres, metres, kilometres, kilos and litres to be the “correct” units, their public use is an offence at law. The legal units are the inch, foot, yard, mile, ounce, pound (weight), pint, quart and gallon as required by law. Despite purposeful misleading and misinformation, the imperial system of weights and measures has never been replaced.
British industry and retailing have been wilfully deceived and compelled into metrication under political false pretence. The British Government’s stance that business supports compulsory metrication is a contradiction in terms. If business wanted to go metric, the (unlawful) regulations compelling it would not be necessary. Had the metric system been as beneficial or expedient as claimed, it will have been readily adopted by nations around the world, most particularly by the people of North America and Britain. Some 400 million people in the U.S. and Britain however,
choose imperial measurements exclusively. In Canada, metrication proved so unpopular that the government backed-down and restored freedom to use imperial units. No nation in the world has willingly accepted the metric system. Its adoption has demanded enforcement and its use is associated with dictatorship. Yet despite obligation, a great many of the world’s people still choose imperial units for their flexibility, ease of use, practicality and immediate application.
The Common Law imposes upon every British subject, two enduring and strict duties acquired at birth. Allegiance and loyalty to the British nation and the British people and compliance with the law (thus requiring the reporting and prevention of treason). Every British person is duty bound to the constitution of the realm and to the law. These duties cannot be resigned except by renouncing British nationality. They pre-date the Bill of Rights 1689 which protects Britain from all foreign influence or rule by any power or authority: “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.” The Common Law remember, is inviolable and in perpetuity.
The treason of Britain’s metrication is being reported by a growing number of angered people across the country, to the police for prosecution. Under Common Law, to be aware as you now are that treason has been and is being committed but to do nothing to prevent it, is to commit the equally serious offences of ‘Misprision of Treason at common law’ (knowing of treason committed but doing nothing to report or prevent it) and ‘Compounding (the) Treason at common law’ (any act or inaction
which effectively condones, supports or allows the treason to continue). These are tried in court as the original treason and the legal obligation to report known treason extends to every British national.
William Joyce was convicted for treason and was hanged for just such misleading and undermining influence against the British people as is metrication these days. The treason laws have not changed despite certain politicians’ personal desire and attempts to do that. Treason continues to be regarded as so serious an undermining attack upon the British nation that it is still a hanging offence. You will
know that ignorance of the law is no defence.
_________________________________

The real enemy

This is a very interesting email which I find believable. I also have received information on local government plans under Blair to socially engineer society to break up and destroy the traditional historical British structure and to introduce tension through enforced multi-culturism. Dispersal of asylum seekers was part of this plan to 'nudge' people into accepting and becoming used to newcomers in their local communities.

The first target areas were London boroughs such as Haringey, Hackney, Islington etc. Whilst this occurred under labour administration the agenda has continued through the LibCons and through UK.

At this point I emphasise that the people creating and implementing such policy were our own so called government. Those encouraged into the country did so because they were invited - they did not fight their way ashore.

We begin to see the real enemy - treasonous MPs and their politicised Civil servants who as knowing or useful idiots implemented such policy.

The ultimate aim of the policy is to create tension, division and violence, because this will allow a vicious state clamp down under the Civil Contingency Act. Divide and rule to be precise.

Those invited and living in Britain now are not the main or most dangerous enemy. Yes there are newcomers hostile to our society, but the fact remains that the most migrants are perfectly ordinary and innocent people being used as pawns in the game - the dangerous people are our own politicians who speak of our welfare and betray us behind our backs.

In the camps which will surely follow if these traitors get their way we will not be worried if our fellow prisoner is black white asian or chinese or other. These will be our fellows of suffering.

If we are to remain out of the camps it is vital that attention and effort is focused on appropriately rooting out the real danger - look first to Westminster and the myriad of think tanks NGOs and quasi political bodies, all funded by international banks, that quietly and deceptively create such policy for Blair, Brown, Cameron and the real hidden mastermind Clegg. Common Purpose has been key to much of the implementation of this policy, training the top 200 civil servants amongst other actions. However the common purpose ideology is the real threat and this is implemented via the myriad of organisations I have mentioned.

All could be stopped overnight by banning contact of Westminster MPs and Civil Servants with any of these policy forming groups and agencies, and of course cutting their funding supply by taking control of our money back into the legitimate government by re-issuing the Bradbury pound as credit to meet the needs of the nation, rather continuing to permit the private banking fraudulent debt based currency.

If any are not yet aware - the Remembrancer sits in Westminster at all debates at all times to ensure the needs of the City are not compromised by decisions made in the house.

Please check this yourselves.

The enemy is not humanity drawn to this country by  a desire for a better life or even an easy life on benefits - the enemy is a dangerous political mafia and judiciary. It is their 'common purpose' that must be exposed as the first step to regaining sanity in this island.

kind regards Brian G