May 04, 2010

What You Are Voting For



I was going to save this until after the election. Then I watched all seven videos and I realised that they contained information that would be useful to you right now. It is brilliantly researched and has some stunning facts. Quite apart from its usefulness, it is also interesting as a potted history. I found it quite fascinating. I hope you do too.

Politicians would have you believe that parliament is all-powerful and can do what it wants. The Rule of Law says otherwise.

This used to be taught at school. It was removed from the syllabus around 30 years ago.

I wonder why.

CR.

33 comments:

James Higham said...

Keep up the good work, Cap'n.

drabzz said...

An excellent and informative post CR.

Go UKIP and lets get our sovereignty back.

Peace and love,

Drabzz

Captain Ranty said...

Thank you James, I will.

(It would be nigh on impossible to stop now anyway. That damn genie refuses to re-enter the lamp).

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Drabzz,

I will if I can. There was a UKIP candidate for the EU elections but I don't yet know if I have that option on Thursday.

The polling station is 91 feet from my house. If I was a Labour voter I would be making that journey a couple of hundred times!

As it is I will just be going once.

CR.

Fausty said...

Captain, I couldn't play the remaining videos! I don't know whether it's my connection or not.

Still, the first one was informative in itself.

Captain Ranty said...

Not sure what went wrong there Mrs F.

They all worked for me last night. And my broadband is up and down like a brides nightie these days.

BT are in for a kicking.

CR.

Indyanhat said...

Asolutely excellent and for me very timely, just before exams (I may get failed or thrown out for this).
It is certainly not what is taught in Law school and we were never so much as directed toward/hinted toward or alluded to this controversy.
I was aware of some of this from lawful rebellion and freeman stuff but this is a real crystallisation of the whole thing. Which gives the history and thrust of the whole debate a concrete form which to date has been missing.
I am going to rob this from you Cap'n and reblog it as it is if you do not mind, and I'm sure you do not before asking, I'm just trying to be polite I will not claim it as my own as I will reblog it as it is complete with your page intro, as I could not do better if I tried!

Verification code could not have been more apt it is 'liked'

Captain Ranty said...

Indy,

That's what I liked. John's presentation flowed really well, and he offers back up documention/references so you can (and should!) double-check.

Please help yourself to anything useful.

Good luck with those exams!

CR.

Indyanhat said...

I notice its a no reply add on your email so heres my reply to you!
Dang but that was swift Cap'n, I have reblogged the whole thing including your page, excellent excellent excellent work and sooo timely its untrue!
Damn its good to be in an environment that shares similar aims and interests, with people who 'can and do think', I count myself blessed!
Cheers Capn, stay safe!

fraser said...

Good stuff as usual Ranty i'll watch the rest later.

lawful said...

Indyanhat,
If you want confirmation that your teachers are being economical with the truth, Have a look at Halsbury's Laws of England. Here is an example about the Coronation Oath:

“28. The Crown’s duty towards the subject.

The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject1 are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath2 are:


(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs3;


(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch’s power;...".

Where do they get the notion that the common law can be lawfully infringed?

Regards, Johnh Hurst.

Kit said...

Very interesting, but absolutely nothing there that challenges the supremacy of Parliament.

He highlights the origin and importance of our liberties which is a very useful and salutary task, but he most certainly does NOT show that the 'rule of law' says that Parliament is not all powerful.

And incidentially, that was NEVER taught in school textbooks, let alone mysteriously removed 30 years ago. School textbooks, and legal texts have reiterated the constitutional fact that of Parliamentary supremacy for hundreds of years.

The Supremacy of Parliament is a legal fact, just because something is distasteful doesn't mean that it isn't so.

Kit said...

BTW, John Hurst, 'they' get the idea that Common Law can be infringed from the fact that Common Law has ALWAYS been subject to Statute Law.

Common Law is subordinate to Statute Law and may be repealed or amended as Parliament sees fit. That has been the legal doctrine of this country since the origin of English Law itself. It has always been the case.

Gordon said...

I have followed Ranty's blog since it began. If he posts something I think, believe or know is bollocks I am not moved to 'enlighten him with my opinion' and yet every single time Ranty posts anything that challenges the assumption that Parliament is as powerful an entity as Parliament would have us proles believe the same person appears and proceeds to tell Ranty he is wrong.
This person doesn't comment on any other post just the ones where Parliament supremacy is challenged. Is he a Parliamentarian?

Ranty doesn't seem to take much notice so whatever this persons motives are they are not having any effect as Ranty keeps banging the drum and continues uncovering circumstantial evidence that maybe things are not what they appear which he posts on here for all to read and make up their own minds about the validity of the content.

If he thinks that Parliament is supreme and is the best way to run a country why is he so hell bent on trying to change the minds of a few loonies that happen to think differently even though he knows that they are wrong?

I don't get it, especially when this person thinks its a corrupt Parliament that currently resides in Westminster.

Kit said...

Gordon, i presume you are referring to me.

I respond because the truth is important. Just because something is unpleasant does not make it untrue. That is the mistake you make, to confuse the idea that because i know that Parliament is legally supreme in Britain does not mean i like that fact nor does it mean that i think it is the best way to run the country.

There is a major problem with people deciding that because they don't like a fact, such as the legal supremacy of Parliament, therefore they can somehow convince themselves that it isn't so. That is false logic and simply diverts energy from the real struggle for liberty.

Sorry if the truth is too unpleasant for you to face up to but if you don't have the guts to face up to unpleasant facts then you will never be able to change them.

Gordon said...

I am confused but not in the way you say I am.
Where is the problem with people not agreeing with your belief that Parliament cannot be challenged or simply ignored?
That may be what you regard as the truth but it may not be other peoples version of the truth.

As far as I can tell Ranty is not actively attempting to alter your belief and yet you feel you need to defend your point of view at every opportunity. As I said I don't get it. Why is this so important to you?

What is the real struggle for liberty?
Do you have anywhere of your own where I can read more of your views on improving the Parliamentary government model?

hangemall said...

Maybe on the fringe of this topic, but I am looking BBC's text page News Index -> UK -> Terror detainees win secrecy case.

Blah blah...

"But on Tuesday the Court of Appeal said it would 'take a stand' against secrecy that would undermine the 'most fundamental principles of common law'"

Any comments? Am off to the pub soon so don't expect any "conversation" on a sensible time-scale (or in a sensible manner.)

wv = fockerit

hangemall said...

I found it on the BBC web site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8659567.stm

"In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it," said Lord Neuberger.

"At least so far as the common law is concerned, we would accept the submission that this principle represents an irreducible minimum requirement of an ordinary civil trial.

"Unlike principles such as open justice, or the right to disclosure of relevant documents, a litigant's right to know the case against him and to know the reasons why he has lost or won is fundamental to the notion of a fair trial."

Kit said...

Gordon, i most certainly do think Parliament should be challenged. I'm pointing out that pretending that Parlimentary supremancy isn't legally and constitutionally real is a fantasy.

Can you see the distinction?

People who think that they can challenge Parliament on spurious legal grounds are on a hiding to nothing. It is a diversion from the real possibilities of challenging Parliament.

I'm pointing out the unpleasant fact that nonsense about Parliament not having the legal right to repeal or amend Common Law is just charging at windmills. The plain fact is that Parliament does have that legal right.

Without facing up to unpleasant facts they can not be changed. That is important.

Gordon said...

I never mentioned what my opinion of common law is or my opinion of Parliament. My opinions on either are irrelevant to this discussion.
I come here for the same reason I presume you do, seeking for a better way forward for my life as I am so disillusioned with the sham of a system that is currently trying to control it.

I would like you to expand on your argument that 'Parliament should be challenged'.

You could start with explaining how you think it's possible for an individual, subject to the absolute rule of a Parliament, to successfully challenge that Parliament and explain what aspects of that Parliamentary rule are so wrong that they need to be challenged by individuals or groups of individuals.

What are the 'real possibilities' you allude to?

I'm serious please show me the way you intend to achieve your liberty from or within this Parliamentary system you yourself state you do not like.

If Parliament is not the best way to run a country, in your opinion, what system do you put forward as being better and given your total belief in the absolute supremacy of Parliament, short of an armed rebellion how do you propose to do away with that Parliament?

I take it from your lack of response to the first of my two questions on the previous post that you do not have blog or web site of your own where I could find these things out for myself so I have to ask you to explain on these comments.

Kit said...

What a strange response you make. Because i point out that Parliaments legal supremancy is a real legal fact you demand that i provide a complete blueprint for a new political order.

Sorry Gordon, i'm not the Messiah, i don't pretend to have a neat blueprint for a perfect new political order, however, i do recognise that spurious legal challenges to Parliament are a simple diversion of effort that could be used more productively.

Mrs Rigby said...

@ Kit
"absolutely nothing there that challenges the supremacy of Parliament."
and
"pretending that Parlimentary supremancy isn't legally and constitutionally real is a fantasy"

If that is the case, why did the government feel the need to get a court ruling saying there was no need to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Having sufficient majority to defeat a challenge it could have just said, "We aren't having one, and that's that - we're in charge!"

Also, if 'Parliament' is in charge, why do we have elections so that we can choose who can, or can't, represent us. And why is 'Parliament' bound by laws that say there has to be a general election every 5 years? If they wanted, and if they're really in charge, they could ignore those laws - couldn't they?

Or would that be a dictatorship?

Oh, and why do you hide your profile?

*chuckle*
w/v = clegity

Kit said...

Oh dear, Mrs Rigby, what silly and irrelevant questions.

The government makes all sorts of decisions for political reasons, they do have the right to sign treaties and not hold referendums if they have a Parliamentary majority. And, technically, they could change the law so as to not have elections every fives years. No doubt they don't do that because they know how the people would react.

As for my profile, what's that got to do with you?

Kit said...

Oh, and get your facts straight. The government did NOT feel the need to get a court ruling on the Lisbon treaty.

Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

banned said...

I've always regarded my rights as coming from Common Law, codified somewhat by Magna Carta and the Bill Of Rights, I care little for the here today gone tomorrow nonsense that is the Human Rights Act.

Very interesting video, thank you.

lawful said...

Whenever the "supremacy of Parliament" is exposed as a falacy, someone always jumps in with ad hominem attacks.

There is a body of evidence to suggest that the Powers That Be employ people for that purpose.

The "freeman" and "lawful rebellion" movements are proof that this game of Whack a Mole is not working.

Gordon said...

I guessed you don't have any answers. Just nice to see you write it down for all to see.

You stated that "Parliament is legally supreme in Britain does not mean i like that fact nor does it mean that i think it is the best way to run the country."

And yet you are happy to stay within this system you say do not like and have decided is not the best way to run a country. Presumably you are waiting for someone else to come up with a way for you to escape this system and create something better.

I seriously hoped you had new insight about how to regain our collective liberty but all you seem to have is a desire to belittle anyone who disagrees with your total and absolute belief in the power of parliament to control life in the United Kingdom.

Anonymous said...

Gordon
"You could start with explaining how you think it's possible for an individual, subject to the absolute rule of a Parliament, to successfully challenge that Parliament and explain what aspects of that Parliamentary rule are so wrong that they need to be challenged by individuals or groups of individuals.

What are the 'real possibilities' you allude to?"

Kit's reply
"What a strange response you make. Because i point out that Parliaments legal supremancy is a real legal fact you demand that i provide a complete blueprint for a new political order.

Sorry Gordon, i'm not the Messiah, i don't pretend to have a neat blueprint for a perfect new political order, however, i do recognise that spurious legal challenges to Parliament are a simple diversion of effort that could be used more productively."

Conclusion
Kit is a politician. Vote for Kit May 6th!!

Mrs Rigby said...

"what silly and irrelevant questions"

Nice try at a put down, should I and all the other ladies go back to our kitchen sinks now, and stop worrying our little minds about such terribly hard things as politics, and taxes, and who can and can't tell us what to do with our lives, because parliament knows best?

Parliament gave women equal voting rights in 1928 - and we elect government. It isn't the other way round.

No profile? Obviously nothing to hide from us inquisitive souls who like to know who we're talking to.

kingoldby said...

Oh dear Mrs Rigby, you ask questions based on false assumptions, you make false statements of fact and you wonder why i put you down.

I never said that women don't have the vote and i never said that we don't elect the government. Still, never mind, you keep on trying to distort the truth.

For me, i prefer to look unpleasant truths in the face, not indulge in fantasies and imagine that because something is unpleasant therefore it does not exist.

kingoldby said...

Gordon, you still don't get it.

The fact that i recognise that Parliament is legally supreme does not mean that i like it and does not mean that i think it should be accepted. Also the fact that Parliament is legally supreme does not mean that i think it has the power to totally control life in the UK.

It's a shame that you aren't intelligent enough to make those distinctions.

lawful said...

Methink he does protest too much.

Captain Ranty said...

I agree John.

I notice that he introduces the ad hominem attacks without provocation, and I really, really wish he would cease and desist.

Amongst adults, rational and intelligent adults, it is neither warranted nor constructive.

Perhaps he is young, or lives/works in an environment where that is considered big & clever?

CR.