The Government Has No Authority

This is fascinating. A TPUC member sent in an FOI request asking questions about statute and common law. The link to the FOI is embedded in the title above.  The response contains some surprising admissions. I have emphasised the lines I find intriguing, but you may find others. The damning statement is contained in the last paragraph.  Whether it was written knowingly or unknowlingly by Ms Williams, it is my favourite.


Make of it what you will. It clears up a few things for me.

Thank you for your correspondence of 5 December where you have asked a further question relating to the principles of law within the English legal system.

Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in England and Wales and can legislate in whatever field of law it wishes.  Laws passed by Parliament are referred to as Acts of Parliament or statute law. Statute law has become the commonest source of new laws or law reform since around the seventeenth century.  Parliament can therefore legislate in all areas of law for example criminal, civil, commercial and public law. 

Statute law has not, however superseded the common law.  Both sources of law remain significant within the English legal system and apply side by side.  It is only when an Act of Parliament deals with an area of law previously covered by case law that the common law is superseded.

As mentioned in previous correspondence, the development of the common law in the English legal system can be traced back to the twelfth century. Statute law did not develop as the primary source of law until around the seventeenth century.  Statutes can amend or replace common law in a particular area, but the common law cannot overrule or change statutes. A statute can only be overruled or amended by another, later piece of legislation. This reflects the legal and political doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty - the recognition and acceptance that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority.

Parliament is the representative of the people through election to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are elected to represent the people and by those elections they have been legitimately handed the power to assess, enact or reject legislation.

The transfer of primacy from the common law to statute law was a gradual process which occurred simultaneously to the process of Parliament acquiring additional powers and establishing itself as the supreme law-making authority.  There is no formal documentation or written evidence, for example legislation, to confirm this transfer.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Tania Williams

As other TPUC commenters have pointed out, if there is no evidence that parliament has the right to be "the supreme law-making authority" why do we simply believe them?

 Here is a comment from Darren (hope you don't mind, mate!):

"Those letters are absolute proof that the government have no authority over anyone.

Unilateral contracts & defacto corporate systems all rely on our own consent. Regardless if you have voted or have a 'drivers' licence or registered your car or created a fiction/person at the registry office or have a bank account or sign on the dole or get tax credits or pay tax etc. None of it binds you to any system of control or government. They are contracts and considering there is not full disclosure means they are null and void anyway.

Remember folks, it's all a fiction. It's not real. It's just words of entrapment for those that haven't learned the manipulation techniques and so can't comprehend the truth behind it all.

The created can never be higher than the creator. The legal person is theirs to command, man isn't. People are not legal fictions.

We are all equal, so no-one has authority over anyone else. Simple really.

No harm or loss! That's all we need. Common Law true!"

My floor is your floor. Let me know what you think.

CR.