March 31, 2011

I'll Have An Aitch, Please Bob

H is for Human Being.

I have just discovered that I am not a human being.

Are you? Are you sure?

Wrap your eyeballs around this:


From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man ". A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction --that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior "animal" man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century--to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as "humans" --therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.

So there you have it. Declaring yourself to be a human being is to admit to being an animal or a monster.

No wonder they just ignore us in court!

It is amazing what you can learn by just reading their (alternative) definitions for everyday words.

We are fooled by our own language.

For some other examples, please visit this site. It starts with the word 'accident', and it doesn't mean what you think it means either.

Go look. Be amazed. Learn. Fight back.


Police! Camera! Action!

 This is one of the most incredible videos I have seen involving the police.

Listen, as the police officer struggles to explain "the law" to Danny. The cop resorts to just making stuff up. I wonder how many times a day they get away with this. How many people just blindly accept/assume that the cop knows what he/she is talking about.

Well done Danny. For asking the right questions, for standing firm, and for displaying compassion for the cop even after he lunged at you. (Technically, it was an assault).

Learn this stuff, folks. And protect you and yours.

My thanks to Dave at Lawful Rebellion for posting this video. Pop over there for a write up.

If you want to learn more about Danny Shine, go here.


March 30, 2011

From The WTF Department

Words fail me.


An Unlawful Arrest-Part II

I'm calling it Part II because there may well be more acts in this farce.

Max takes us through "what happened next". The last time we saw Max was when he was arrested at the police station.  This is the link if you want to refresh your memories.

You may believe that a court room is where you get to say your piece, perhaps ask a question or two. You would be wrong. Whenever he asked a question, he was ignored. In fact, from the moment the security bods took him into the court he was ignored. There wasn't much point him being there at all.

Listen, as Max explains events.

EDIT: thanks to Phil we can now see the MSM version of events and I have to say it is pretty accurate reporting. For a change.

EDIT 2: Bugger me! A piece about Lawful Rebellion in the same paper!! Look here.


Are You Addressing Me?

This is great (but indecipherable) from TNS Radio.

This is what happened:

"Names get called, man walks up, judge says,

"Mr So and So".

Man says "Are you addressing me?"

Judge says "Mr So and So, is it?"

Man says "Are you addressing me?"

Judge gets court to rise and she leaves, man also then leaves.

Clerk goes into back room after judge , after 5mins the judge appears looking uncomfortable, happy days, if judge answers yes then she can't deal with any fiction and she will be saying she sees a flesh and blood sovereign man. So she got out while she could."

Interesting, or what?

I keep telling you guys it's a pantomime in our courts.

Once you haul out YOUR magic beans, the jig is up.


March 29, 2011

Elizabeth Windsor-Citizen

She's not a monarch at all. She is just like you and I. 

A citizen.

I am fortunate to have constitutional experts who take the time to write to me, to help me to unravel the illusion (delusion?) that I find myself surrounded by.

The words that follow are from Bob over at the Magna Carta Society. I wanted to share them with you.


Dear Captain,

"Perhaps your readers might be interested in this.
This country is not about Parliament and the people it is about the people and their elected Monarch. Parliament is no more than an administration and a legislature. The government of the day does not make our laws, it only draws them up and presents them to the Monarch who can then accept them or reject them on the people's behalf, only then is law made.
Parliament is no more then a hired hand with a strictly constrained and limited life and has no powers of its own. Only the Monarch can mount and dissolve a Parliament on the people's behalf. 

The Monarch is the physical embodiment of the people's sovereignty as made clear in the coronation ceremony which is an election, the people have a right to reject the heir apparent and choose a sibling just as the heir to the Throne has the right to reject the office, again as demonstrated at the time of the coronation. The Monarch is the people and the people are the Monarch, it is a marriage, the Monarch is wedded to the people as demonstrated by the wearing of a ring presented on behalf of the people at the coronation ceremony. 

The Monarch is the official Governor of the nation according to the coronation oath. The Monarch is obliged to delegate the authority of governance to a political party of the people's choice but not the power of governance which remains with the Monarch as representing the power of the people. As a delegated authority all decisions put forward by HM government have ultimately to be approved by the Monarch who retains the power of veto on the people's behalf. 

When in 1972 Queen Elizabeth II agreed to surrender the supremacy of the Crown to a foreign power it was an act of abdication for the Crown is supreme or it is but nothing at all.

It follows that as Parliament draws its legitimacy from the Crown since 1972 Parliament has been an unlawful assembly and has acted in a like manner. All of this was confirmed with the signing of the Maastrich Treaty in 1992 when the Queen officially became a citizen of the EU as announced by the then Prime Minister John Major in the House of Commons. No one can be both Monarch and citizen at the same time."  (Emphasis is mine. CR)

The email naturally raises a couple of questions, so I wrote back and asked Bob the following:

Q1. If the Queen is reduced to citizen, then what is the point of Lawful Rebellion? Revoking my allegiance to her is rendered meaningless. I might as well revoke allegiance to my next door neighbour, or you, or any other citizen of the UK.

A1. The Queen herself revoked our allegiance when she betrayed her coronation oath and so broke the contract she had entered into with the people.

Q2. Is she aware that she is no longer the Monarch?

A2. This I cannot answer as she has refused on a number of occasions to tell us. We wrote to the Queen, two Prime Ministers, the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, the Office of Constitutional Affairs and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury with this simple question: is the Queen still Constitutional Sovereign Monarch as she was on the day of her coronation in 1953? We wrote several times and never receives as much as an acknowledgement. Perhaps she sees herself as a suzerain monarch such as they have in Europe, but in this country we have no provision for such a monarch, we have constitutional monarchs only.

Q3. Is there any evidence of John Major uttering these words? Hansard, maybe?

A3. As far as I am aware John Majors boast following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 was in Hansard but by now it may have been removed, it was certainly well noted at the time. His announcement was treasonous as it 'imagined the death of the Monarch' (the job being for life). His statement was also perjury yet he has never been impeached for either, indeed, the Queen later honoured him.

Q4. How many people know that the Queen has no more power than they do themselves?

A4. Most of the nation are unaware, I should think.

Bob added this information when he answered my questions:

"When the Queen took the coronation oath she swore to uphold our laws and customs, not foreign laws dressed up and made out to be our laws. The Queen is an expert on our Constitution and its constraints, it is a major part of her job. When she commanded her Prime Minister and plenipotentiaries Home and Ripon to sign up to the Treaty of Rome she must have known it was in complete contravention of our Constitution especially as the issue had been widely and openly debated in both Houses during the 1960s. Concerns about the constitutional consequences had been openly expressed in both Houses, indeed Lord Kilmuir wrote an open letter to PM Heath pointing out the constitutional consequences of signing up to the Treaty, as Kilmuir was a Privy Councillor at the time it is inconceivable that he would not have advised the Queen also. The instant Heath put pen to paper he dismissed himself from office, yet he was never impeached, nor was he impeached when he lied in the House of Commons in order to get the signing ratified by the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, in fact he was later honoured by the Queen.  It was quite obvious to anyone who studied the issue that the ultimate intention of the European project was anything but a mere trading arrangement despite the spurious title of Common Market, it was about total political unity, the making of a country called Europe which necessitated the destruction of the sovereign independence of the nations involved and in this the Queen could have been in no doubt.  Sovereignty is indivisible, it means complete autonomy, yet the politicians were claiming at the time that it could be shared. Most people have been fooled into believing that the Monarch has no powers, those who are acquainted with the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 know that at the time of the coronation the Monarch is vested by the people with enormous powers to ensure that no such event as this could take place. It is for this reason that the monarch is made Commander in chief of the Armed Forces who swear allegiance to the Monarch and so to the people.
Should a Parliament become despotic the monarch has the power to close it down and an Army to back the decision."

Fascinating stuff, I think you'd agree. And all of it done to cheering crowds. A clueless population.

My thanks to Bob for educating us.

If you have questions, fire away, and I will struggle with the answers. 


But Can You Win?

"Every time I say "No".

Had a quick gander at Sitemeter. I normally have a look now and then to see who, and how many of you, are stopping by for a read. I noticed a link from Ian's gaff ( PJC Journal ) from last December. I recall being a little despondent at the time, and the above clip, posted by a blogging stalwart who I admire immensely, called Katabasis, gave me heart. I just watched the clip again and it had the same effect. So I thought I would post the clip here.

Will it work for you? Will it inspire you to have a pop at the "establishment"? Will it get you to finally realise that saying "NO!" is the key to it all?

I hope so.

I really do.

"No", is the most powerful word we have in the English language, hell, in any language.

For the love of all that is holy, learn to use it.

It is your salvation. It will stop the Borg cold. It will stop the jobsworths. It will even stop the cops.

And the satisfaction?

Unbelievably unsurpassable.

Try it.

WARNING: Saying "No" is addictive. Only those with balls of pure titanium should attempt to say "No" in the face of mindless bureaucrats.

Get to it!


March 28, 2011

True News: Libya

Stefan Molyneux peeks behind the curtain.

What he finds is not pretty, but it should not surprise us either.

My support for the no-fly zone remains, but now I am wondering just how far the coalition will go. Will they know when to stop? I wanted the fight evening up a little, but any day now the situation will develop beyond that "levelling of the battle-field" into Gadaffi and his dwindling supporters versus quite a few well-stocked armed forces from around the region. That doesn't seem fair either.

There is a get-together tomorrow in London. NATO, and other interested parties will discuss offering Gadaffi a way out.

Let's hope the mad bastard has a moment of clarity and accepts the offer.


More Government Waste

When I run out of money, I stop spending. When money is short, I stop wasting.

Not so for the Boy George. He wants to throw money, our money, down the drain. Why? Because he is spineless, brainless, and seeks only to score brownie points with the greenies.


This cretin is in charge of the nations finances. I have to ask, why, in these times of austerity, is he lobbing £3 BILLION at the green brigade when alternative energy is such a poor performer the worst performing, ever.

Even tobacco stocks out-perform green shit by a country mile. A fact I find most satisfying. Most greens are also anti-smoking. Mind you, these anally retentive Borg are anti everything.


(Click pic to embiggen).

Is he chasing Gordoom Broon's record as the worst chancellor ever in the history of Britain ever to have the job ever?

Looks that way from where I'm sat.

If you want the full story, head over here.


Problem-Reaction-Solution Explained

Nice and simple.

We fall for it every single time.

I realise that you are not all fans of Icke, but you really should have a listen. The man is right about their ham-fisted attempts to scare the shit out of everyone. They (TPTB) may be imbeciles, but they fool us because we refuse to wake up and listen to the other side of the debate. 


Once you figure it out, you will be able to apply it to most of the headlines you see. The MSM ceased to question anything years ago. They are mostly just rebroadcast stations for IngSoc. No help to be had there.

You need to work it out for yourself.

Some examples? Swine flu, Bird flu, terrorist threat levels, illegal wars....the list goes on, and on, and on.

Dig around, even a little, and it soon becomes obvious. These people are not all that sharp.

We just need to be sharper.


March 27, 2011

To Whom It May Concern-Census 2011

I will not be completing your forms.

I am not required to. I am in Lawful Rebellion and your statutes are meaningless to me. Besides which, my job is to hinder your government at every opportunity. This is not a lifestyle choice: this is my duty, my obligation, as a Briton. My instructions, taken directly from Article 61 of the Magna Carta treaty of 1215, still valid & still lawful, are as follows:

“together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see fit…”

Crystal clear, those instructions. I take them very seriously. Be it known now, that I have revoked my allegiance to Elizabeth Windsor, and I have sworn it instead to the Barons Committee formed in 2001.


Magna Carta 1215, article 61


I, Captain Ranty, of XX XXXXX XX, XXXXXshire near[ postcode], in full knowledge of treason being committed in parliament by delivering the sovereign peoples of this common law land into the hands of foreign powers; in understanding of some wrongs done by the present holder of the Office of Sovereign, from whom I now transfer my allegiance, do willingly and wholeheartedly enter into lawful rebellion, and I solemnly swear upon my oath to obey the Lords in accordance with article 61 of the Magna Carta until such times as redress of these present wrongs is achieved.

Sworn and subscribed on this the 4th day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand and eleven.

My mark


Four affidavits are now lodged with Elizabeth Windsor, three affidavits are lodged with David Cameron dba First Lord of the Treasury, and one affidavit is lodged with the Home Office. None of my affidavits have been rebutted. All now stand as truth in law. I have Lawful Excuse. Send your drones if you must, but they will get the same answer. Invite me to court if you must, but I tell you now, I have already won.

For those who have not yet entered Lawful Rebellion, I strongly advise you to send the following notice to Jil Matheson of the ONS. If they can ask questions of you, guess what? You are fully entitled, under law, to ask questions of your own. If you get satisfactory answers to the questions below, by all means, fill in their forms and send them off.

My thanks to Dave: Murphy for the template.

Or you can use the instructions here, or here, or here or here.

Here you go:


Office for National Statistics
Government Buildings
Cardiff Road
South Wales
NP10 8XG
In care of:

House/Number, STREET,

Date: 27th March 2011

Re: Census Form


You are hereby put on notice.

Dear Ms. Jil Matheson, or to whom it may concern,

You are receiving this notice in response to the Census form which was addressed to “The Occupier”.

Originally, the census was instigated as a simple numerical count of the population; however, the information required in this census far exceeds this mandate.

The census form in question will be completed and returned subject to receipt of full clarification of the points and questions contained in this notice. This is therefore a conditional agreement. This removes controversy and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein. The ‘nearest official form’ will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored without dishonour.

Notice to one is notice to all. Should you not be in a position to respond with clarity to the points stated herein, a suitable officer or official must be delegated to fulfil these requirements.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter

You have apparently made demands upon ‘The Occupier’. Those demands are not understood and cannot therefore be lawfully fulfilled. Clarification of your document is therefore required so that I or ‘The Occupier’ may act accordingly. Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me or ‘The Occupier’.

Please answer and clarify the following points and questions in full with proof of all claims made:

  1. What law requires me to complete the census?
  2. From where does the Office for National Statistics derive the lawful authority to demand private information?
  3. Is there a limit to invasion of privacy?
  4. Is the Office for National Statistics lawfully authorised to demand Private property?
  5. How can we lawfully be penalised for failure to provide information?
  6. By what authority does the Census collector threaten penalties for failure to provide personal information?
  7. Are there any circumstances whereby security agencies may access census information as suggested by section 39, subsection 4 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007?
  8. Since Census data is being requested under pain of law enforcement and threat of financial hardship, are people able to decline answering, so as not to risk incriminating themselves, as authorised, for example, by the Data Protection Act?
  9. Because government search and seizure of private information is prohibited without a court warrant based on probable cause, current Census policies violate that right do they not?
  10. As the public have not been consulted on the Census, please explain how this demand for private information is ‘Democratic’.
11.  Please confirm or deny that any demand through correspondence such as the census form sent to “The Occupier” has any basis for legal status or legitimacy.
12.  The Census form states “The householder is responsible for ensuring that this questionnaire is completed and returned" – please provide details of the legal definition upon which the ONS depends in defining “the householder”
13.  Does the Census refer to the “sentient, physical, human being” or the “Legal Fiction/Person” as identified by Birth Certificates, Passports, and other legal documents which have no legal bearing on the sentient, physical, human being?
14.  Does the Office for National Statistics expect the sentient human being to complete this Census on behalf of the human being themselves or on behalf of the various paper documents, known as the Legal Fiction/Person, which they represent?
15.  Please provide proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
16.  Please provide proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within any alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society.

  1. Please confirm or deny that the census data will not be used directly or indirectly for the service of shareholders in any of the corporations involved in the running of Government Services.
18.  Please confirm or deny that the provided information will be used to form profit-making strategies and policies that will affect well-being?
19.  Since every government database has been hacked, leaked, lost or compromised in some fashion, how exactly can the Office for National Statistics claim data security and protection of the information with any confidence?
20.  Does the Office for National Statistics take full responsibility for any mishandled or miss-processed data, or loss of data, or unauthorised accessing of that data by 3rd parties?
21.  How would the Office for National Statistics locate, protect and compensate those individuals whose data becomes compromised?
22.  What evidence do you have that I am a United Kingdom Resident?
23.  Please confirm or deny that the spiralling cost estimate of almost £500million spent at a time of national austerity is considered by the ONS to be wholly justifiable and appropriate.
24.  Please confirm or deny that the expenditure of £4.5million of tax-payers money in order to “advertise” the census is wholly appropriate and necessary at a time of national austerity.
25.  Please confirm or deny that the Cabinet minister responsible for the census, Francis Maude, more or less admits that this census is unnecessary in this day and age and that the census is going ahead despite the government’s tacit admittance that it is a waste of money and time.
26.  Please confirm or deny that the ONS spent nearly £70,000 on reviewing whether the census form should include a “tick box” for those of Kashmiri ethnicity and that such a tick box was rejected due to “little interest” and that the resulting expenditure constitutes a complete waste of tax-payers money.
27.  Please confirm or deny that the ONS is spending in the region of £25,000 per week or approximately £9.5million over a ten month period on community advisors to “encourage” participation in the census and please confirm or deny that the ONS considers that this constitutes a wholly justifiable and appropriate expenditure of tax-payers money.
28.  Please confirm or deny that the ONS are, through these advisors, hoping to encourage participation in the census through dialogue with members of community and representative organisations in order to “engage” the communities represented by those organisations and that the encouragement through engagement is unnecessary as the ONS claims that participation in the census is mandatory and that a response is “required by law” and please also confirm or deny that in engaging communities in this fashion that the ONS are guilty of discrimination against communities who do not have such “representative organisations” through which to engage.
29.  Please confirm or deny that the census data will be handled by an American Arms Manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
30.  Please confirm or deny that Lockheed Martin have in the past been charged with illegally spying on UK citizens.
31.  Please confirm or deny that Lockheed Martin works with the CIA and FBI and that they have a lengthy record of crimes against humanity.
32.  Please confirm or deny that while it may be illegal for UK intelligence agencies to spy on the population without a warrant that it is not illegal for US intelligence services to spy on the UK population with such a warrant.
33.  Given their track record for such actions please confirm or deny that Lockheed Martin have not in the case of the census consultancy paid bribes to individuals in order to secure the contract.
34.  It is suggested that Lockheed Martin have no moral fibre, social conscience or scruples and it is further suggested that they are one of the most disreputable companies in the world – please confirm or deny this.
35.  It is suggested that thousands of law suits have been filed against Lockheed Martin for everything from racial discrimination to fraud.  If this were the case, it would prevent them from fulfilling their contract with the ONS – Please confirm or deny this.
36.  It is reported that Lockheed Martin have “lobbied” for the illegal war in Iraq and that they have been the main arms suppliers to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine thus making them responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings – Please confirm or deny this.
37.  Please confirm or deny that personal details collected in your census will be processed in a plant run by an American firm, staff of which were prosecuted for stealing student loan records of US President Obama.
38.  In a news report published by the Mail on Sunday shows that the company UK Data Capture Limited named as the sub-contractor in charge of processing census information is jointly owned by the examination board Edexcel and US-owned firm Vangent which are both regarded as having “patchy” records for data handling – Please confirm or deny this.
39.  Please confirm or deny that Edexcel was criticised by in 2002 by then Prime Minister Blair for a series of errors when he described the company as “sloppy” and “unacceptable”.
40.  Please confirm or deny that the Office for National Statistics considers these companies as acceptable agents for the handling of private statistical information of the British people.
41.  Please confirm or deny that the personal data collected by your census will not be sold, given, loaned or in any other way disseminated to companies offering online “directory” services such as or hard copy based directory services such as Yellow Pages or Thomson Local or any similar or associated organisations.
42.  Please confirm or deny that all U.S. companies are subject to the Patriot Act which allows the U.S. Government full access to any data in that company’s possession.
43.  It is claimed that only staff who work for the ONS will have access to the “full census dataset”; please confirm or deny that it would not be possible for several members of ONS staff (each having access to separate datasets) might not collude in order to collect together a full dataset of information in contravention to the security measures supposedly put in place.
44.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that “additional contractual and operation safeguards” have been put in place to address concerns about the possibility of the US Patriot Act being used by US intelligence services to gain access to data – please list these contractual and operational safeguards.
45.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that only UK/EU owned companies will have access to personal census data – please confirm or deny that there may be UK/EU companies that are subsidiaries of US corporations that may circumnavigate the assurances provided by the Office for National Statistics and the contract between Lockheed Martin UK and so allow access to personal census data under the US Patriot Act.
46.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that independent checks by an “accredited UK security consultancy” of both physical and electronic security are carried out for ONS – please provide;
a)      the name of the accredited UK security consultancy;
b)      provide references that confirm their accreditation as well as;
c)      details of the body with whom they are accredited.
47.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that 1,500 jobs have been “created” by the award of the contract to Lockheed Martin UK.  Please provide details of;
a)      how many of these jobs will exist on completion of the contract;
b)      what percentage of these jobs have been given to the long-term unemployed;
c)      what percentage of these jobs have been given to disabled people and,
d)      what percentage of these jobs are given to other than UK citizens and,
e)      what checks were made to ensure that they have the right to work in the UK (e.g. a Passport, a Visa or work permit for non-nationals).
48.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that 1,500 jobs have been “created” by the award of the contract to Lockheed Martin UK.  Please provide details of;
a)      the training that has been provided to these 1,500 new employees to ensure that security measures are understood and met;
b)      the rights that employees have to request time off for study or training, i.e. ‘time to train’;
49.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated “the contract has created around 1,500 jobs in the UK”.  Please provide details of:
a)      what background checks have been carried out to ensure compliance with rules governing “security related jobs”;
b)      details of the equal opportunities policies pertaining to the pre-employment checks as required by Employment law;
c)      details of the rights and benefits of those being employed for the duration of the contract; and
d)      the details of any severance package applicable to those staff who will lose their job at the end of the contract;
e)      the rights offered to staff under the “flexible working rule”;
f)       if flexible working includes the provision to “work from home”, what additional safeguards are in place to ensure the integrity and security of the personal census data under such circumstances;
g)      the benefits offered to staff for maternity and paternity leave during the course of the contract;
h)      confirmation or denial that the ONS conform to the “working time limit” requirements under Employment Law;
i)        confirm under what conditions a contract of employment may be changed;
      1. agreement between the ONS and the employee,
      2. collective agreement, or
      3. by implication.
50.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that the contract was awarded by ONS to Lockheed Martin UK as it “offered the best value for money” in an “open procurement scheme” carried out “under European Law”.  Please provide,
a)      details of how Lockheed Martin UK offered the best value for money by providing a table of the results of the tendering process;
b)      details of the open procurement scheme used and,
c)      the European Law under which the procurement scheme was carried out.
51.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated that a “number of specialist companies” are being used by ONS to “provide specific services for the census”.  Please provide;
a)      details of the specialist companies being used and
b)      the specific services being offered by those companies.
52.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated “the contract has created around 1,500 jobs in the UK”.  Please provide the following;
a)      which agency was used for the criminal records checks (CRB) on each of these staff;
b)      the net cost per CRB check per head;
c)      the registration number that the ONS has with the Criminal Records Bureau.
53.  In a Press Briefing dated 14 January 2011 it is stated “the contract has created around 1,500 jobs in the UK”. Please state how the data protection issues of these staff and their “secure employment records” are to be stored in compliance with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.
54.  Please confirm or deny that the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 section 39 subsection 4 would allow disclosure of personal information to any and/or all of the following:
a)      The 56 geographical and 8 non-geographical UK Police Forces and in particular the Devon and Cornwall Police who are currently owned by the corporation known as International Business Machines (IBM).
b)      The three UK Intelligence Agencies (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ).
c)      The Department for Work and Pensions.
d)      Private investigator working for the Department for Work and Pensions to hunt down alleged benefits cheats?
e)      Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax investigators.
f)       “Approved” Insurance Industry “anti-fraud” investigators / private investigators.
g)      The Home Office Borders and Immigration Agency.
h)      The Serious Organised Crime Agency (either for domestic investigations into Serious Crimes, or for these and also for minor investigations if requested by a Foreign Law Enforcement agency under Mutual Legal Assistance treaties).
i)        Lawyers in civil Court Cases e.g. for Divorce or Libel or Copyright Infringement etc.
j)        Local Authority Trading Standards departments.
k)      Local Authority Environmental Health departments.

55.  In relation to the notice on the front of the Household Questionnaire which reads “Your personal information is protected by law”.  Please provide details of which laws apply to the protection of personal information.
56.  With reference to the further notice on the front of the Household Questionnaire which reads “Census information is kept confidential for 100 years”.  Please confirm the method by which the paper forms will be handled following the capture of the information into electronic form;
    1. If the paper is to be stored, please confirm under what circumstances storage will be carried out;
    2. If the paper is to be recycled, please confirm under what circumstances recycling will be carried out;
    3. Confirm or deny whether the physical form will be kept as secure as you say the ONS intends to keep the electronic data.
57.  Please confirm or deny that the census form constitutes a contract.
58.  With reference to the claim “Census information is kept confidential for 100 years": - As this would mean that when we send these sealed forms back to the address, they are securely stored, and will remain unexamined by anyone for 100 years, is this offer to contract not fraudulent, and therefore null and void?
59.  Given that individuals have been criminalised under UK Terrorism legislation for causing information to be brought together by being accused that in compiling such information (even if it be in the public domain) they are assisting potential terrorists - please confirm or deny that by providing information via the census form, I will not be providing information to a foreign power who might have access to that data and so gain an advantage over this Sovereign nation.
60.  As it is an offence to interact with a terrorist group, please confirm or deny that Lockheed Martin fits the Government’s interpretation of a terrorist group.
61.  Please confirm or deny that I would be committing an offence of Treason if I were to willingly furnish a Foreign power with such information, and in English law please confirm or deny that that it is acceptable, if not our duty, to commit a lesser offence, in order to prevent a greater offence.
62.  In order to maintain equality under law, please provide to me the exact same information required from me pertaining to each and every individual who has, is or ever will handle the census information in whatever possible form.
63.  Given the premise that “time is money”, please provide documented proof under what authority the census must be completed in my own private time and at my own expense
64.  Please provide documented proof that I cannot charge a fee in advance for the provision of my time and personal information for the purposes of the census. Failure to do so will result in an invoice being issued which must be settled in advance prior to the completion of the census.

Please provide your response in the form of a “Statement of Truth”, sworn under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability within seven (7) consecutive days of receipt of this Notice. If your ‘full’ response conforming to the above criteria is not received, within this appointed time it will be deemed a tacit agreement by virtue of your acquiescence that this Census is unlawful and that there is no obligation to participate, either as a Common Law sentient human being or as the representative for the Legal Fiction identity and any further correspondence or communication on this matter must cease immediately.

With reference to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, any attempt to contact me or “The Occupier” regarding this matter after the appointed time will be in breach of these acts and will render you guilty of harassment and blackmail which may result in you being reported to the relevant bodies.

Please also note that any attempt to contact me or “The Occupier” by telephone regarding this matter after the appointed time you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) which may result in you being reported to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading and may also constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me or “The Occupier”, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

The census form has been respectfully returned unopened. Please reissue only if or when all of the above points and questions have been addressed in full and all the required conditions have been met.

Sincerely without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity.


Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all natural, inalienable, rights reserved.
Errors & omissions excepted.

Copies of this Notice of Conditional Acceptance have also been sent to:
Census Customer Services, ONS, Segensworth Road, Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire - PO15 5RR
And:    FREEPOST 2011 Census, Processing Centre, UK

March 26, 2011

Are You A Wayseer?

Video Lyrics

The Wayseer Manifesto lyrics - ( nicked from here. )

ATTENTION: All you rule-breakers, you misfits and troublemakers - all you free spirits and pioneers - all you visionaries and non-conformists ...

Everything that the establishment has told you is wrong with you- is more likely what's right with you.

You see things others don’t. You are hardwired to change the world. Unlike 9 out of 10 people - your mind is irrepressible - and this threatens authority. You were born to be a revolutionary.

You can’t stand rules because in your heart you know there’s a better way.

You have strengths dangerous to the establishment - and it wants them eliminated, So your whole life you’ve been told your strengths were weaknesses - Now I’m telling you otherwise.

Your impulsivity is a gift - impulses are your key to the miraculous,

Your distractibility - is an artefact of your inspired creativity,

Your mood swings - reflect the natural pulse of life, they give you unstoppable energy when you’re high and deep soulful insight when you’re low,

Been diagnosed with a "disorder”? That’s society’s latest way to deny it’s own illness by pointing the finger at you. Your addictive personality is just a symptom of your vast underused capacity for heroic, creative expression and spiritual connection. your utter lack of repression, your wide eyed idealism, your unmitigated open mind - didn’t anyone ever tell you?! these are the traits shared by the greatest pioneers and visionaries and innovators, revolutionaries, procrastinators and drama queens, activists on the social scene, space cadets and mavericks, philosophers and derelicts, business suits flying fighter jets, football stars and sex addicts, celebrities with ADD, alcoholics who seek novelty, first responders - prophets and saints, mystics and change agents.

We are - all - the same - you know
‘cuz we’re all affected by the way -
We are - all - the same - you know
‘cuz we’re all attracted to the flame -

You know in your heart that there's a natural order to life, something more sovereign than any man-made rules or laws could ever express.

This natural order is called "the Way."

The Way is the eternal substrate of the cosmos. It guides the very current of time and space. The Way is known by some as the Will of God, Divine Providence, the Holy Spirit, the implicate order, the Tao, reverse-entropy, life-force, but for now we’ll simply call it "the Way." The Way is reflected in you as the source of your inspiration, the source of your passions, your wisdom, your enthusiasm, your intuition, your spiritual fire - love. The Way takes the chaos out of the Universe and breathes life into it by reflecting divine order. The Way, when experienced by the mind, is genius, when perceived through the eyes is beauty, when felt with the senses is grace, when allowed into the heart ... is love.

Most people cannot sense the Way directly. ... But then there are the Wayseers. The keepers of the flame. Wayseers have an unexplainable knack for just knowing the Way. They sense it in their very being. They can’t tell you why or how they arrived at the right answer. They just know it in their core. They can’t show their work. So don’t ask. Their minds simply resonate with the Way. When the Way is present, so are they.

While others are blind to it, and society begs you to ignore it, “the Way” stirs you inside. Neurological repression blocks most people’s awareness of the Way - censoring all thoughts and impulses from the unconscious is their prefrontal cortex - the gestapo of the brain - nothing which violates its socialized programming even gets through; but your mind is different. your mind has been cracked wide open to the Way - by some miraculous genetic trait, some psychotropic chemical or maybe even by the will of your very soul, your brain’s reward pathways have been hijacked - dopamine employed to overthrow the fascist dictatorship of your prefrontal cortex - now your brain is free of repression, your mind free of censorship, your awareness exposed to the turbulent seas of the unconscious - through this open doorway divine light shines into your consciousness showing you the Way. This is what makes you a Wayseer.

90% of human civilization is populated with those who’s brains are blocked to the Way. Their brains are hardwired to enforce the social programming indoctrinated since birth. Unlike you they cannot break out of this programming, because they have not yet experienced the necessary revolution of mind. These programmed people take social institutions and rules very seriously. Society is full of games programmed to keep peoples’ minds occupied so they will not revolt. These games often cause sick fixations on peculiar protocols, power structures, taboos and domination - all subtle forms of human bondage - This distinct form of madness is not only tolerated by the masses but insisted upon. The programmed ones believe in rules so forcefully they become willing to destroy anyone who violates them.

Wayseers are the ones who call their bluff. Since Wayseer minds are free to reject social programming, Wayseers readily see social institutions for what they are - imaginary games. Wayseers comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. Helping those who are lost in these games and refuse to help themselves is a calling of many Wayseers. Since Wayseers are the ones who keep contact with the original source of reality - they are able to disrupt societal conventions and even governments to realign humanity with the Way.

The Wayseers are an ancient lineage. A kind of priesthood - carriers of the flame - ones "in the know." There must always be Wayseers to reform the dizzying psychotic spinning wheels of society - giant mindless hamster wheels obscuring the pure blue sky, keeping humanity shackled in a darkened cage - so Wayseers are called - to shed light on the madness of society - to continually resurrect the timeless transcendent Spirit of Truth -

Wayseers reveal this divine truth by devoting themselves to the birth of some creative or disruptive act expressed through art or philosophy, innovations to shake up industry, revolutions for democracy, coups that topple hypocrisy, movements of solidarity, changes that leave a legacy, rebellions against policy, spirit infused technology, moments of clarity, things that challenge barbarity, watersheds of sincerity, momentous drives for charity

We are - all - the same - you know
‘cuz we’re all affected by the way -
We are - all - the same - you know
‘cuz we’re all attracted to the flame -

This is your calling, Wayseer.

You’ve found your tribe.

Welcome home.

March 25, 2011

Heading Home.

Blagged my way into the business lounge, despite flying so cheaply that I have to help load the luggage.

Still, after attending Fashola and Umbukwe's wedding yesterday, (see picture, below), I am glad to be heading home.

Quite why he felt the need to stab her in the belly, mystified this reporter.

I am fulla gin and tonics, ready for a shitty meal and a bad nights sleep, several wasted hours of my life at CDG airport in Paree tomorrow, before finally getting home, to dear old benighted Blighty.

My goal is to get to Trafalgar Square to rebel with my pals. I already assume I will not get there on time.

Still, we must try.

And we absolutely must rebel.

Nothing else will rid us of this foulsome, pox-ridden government, and that traitorous monarch.

Join me on the front lines, or whine ye no more.


Global Non-Compliance

Be horrified.

When you get over the horror, do something.


March 24, 2011

Nasty Police Attack

Not our lads, this time it was the Nigerian cops.

It was unpleasant to witness this sort of brutality.

After finishing up at the office last night, my driver was taking me back to my hotel, around 9:30pm.

We pulled up at a junction. About six cops were flagging someone down with torches. Whoever it was, did not want to stop, so one of the cops hit him across the face with what looked like a 3 foot section of 2" scaffolding pole. He took a mighty swing, and for as long as I live, I will never figure out how the okada guy (motorbike taxi, like the one pictured), stayed on the bike. His face was a mess. The (second) pillion rider ran off. The girl in the middle fell off the bike, screaming. I couldn't see any injuries to her.

Four of the cops gathered around the dazed okada lad, and proceeded to punch him: in the face, the kidneys and the stomach. We couldn't go anywhere at this point and all we could do was watch. Actually, my driver stuck his head out of the window and asked "What are you doing to this man?". The nearest, and youngest cop smiled and said, "It is a routine stop sir". My driver asked, "What is his offence?", The cop replied, "No helmet".

They fined him 200 Naira. NGN 200 = £0.79p.

They did not offer to repair his broken face.


T-Minus 2 Days


UK 2011 Census Rebellion 26th March 1pm North Side of Trafalgar Square 

We are all part of the largest recorded Census Rebellion in history with over 3.2million search results in Google alone with 1000s of people from every county across the UK visiting our website and passing on the information.

The 2011 Census represents a united stand across the UK against the Authorities stealing our personal information, making it their own through Crown copyright and then passing it over to entities such as:
  • Banks
  • Supermarkets
  • Council contractors
  • Property developers
  • Private healthcare
  • Tax quangos
  • Government think-tanks
  • Private transport services
  • Oil companies
  • Water companies
  • Utility companies
There has only ever been one real reason for this Census and that is to generate more revenue through taxation and increases in pricing of the things we all rely upon to live - the Census is nothing more than a stock take of their "most valuable asset, the people." 

Who is controlling the flow of your personal information? LOCKHEED MARTIN - they're the No.1 most corrupt corporation in the USA with no less than 57 counts of general misconduct, violations of nuclear policy, illegally supplying arms to unstable Nations and caught scamming our own governments out of vast sums of money. LOCKHEED MARTIN also are the dominate global corporation in the spy and surveillance world who make it their business to know everything about everyone and have been caught illegally spying on US and UK people in the past.

We cannot let this happen any longer, there are enough of us to make a difference, let's make history on the 26th and 27th March 2011! Join the Census Rebellion!

Check out our website for tonnes of information and funny videos from Danny Shine and The Love Police:

MEET US and stand for what you think is right:

26th March
North Side of Trafalgar Square

Look out for us with The Love Police, megaphones and t-shirts!

March 23, 2011

The Common Law: Tradition and Stare Decisis

This is a section of a paper written by John: of the Hurst family, which he wrote in 1998 and has kindly sent to me for publication. It is a compilation of writings from different people and is helpful if you are just discovering how powerful our common law really is.

Common Law is gold, statutes are plastic by comparison.

As always, with guest posts, I will defend, where I can, and defer to John when I get stuck.

Here we go:

The Common Law: Tradition & Stare Decisis.
    By Peter Landry.

            “I now deal with a species of law known as the common law. Common law is law that comes from the common people, vers legislation, which, comes from the "experts."

            It took a long time to learn the true nature and office of governments; to discover and secure the principles commonly indicated by such terms as 'Magna Carta,' the 'Bill of Rights,' 'Habeas Corpus,' and the 'Right of trial by jury;' to found the family home, with its laws of social order, regulating the rights and duties of each member of it, so that the music at the domestic hearth might flow on without discord; the household gods so securely planted that 'Though the wind and the rain might enter, the king could not'.

            It took a long time to learn that war was a foolish and cruel method of settling international differences as compared with arbitration; to learn that piracy was less profitable than a liberal commerce; that unpaid labor was not as good as well-requited toil; that a splenetic old woman, falling into trances and shrieking prophecies, was a fit subject for the asylum rather than to be burned as a witch.

            It took a long, long time after the art of printing had been perfected before we learned the priceless value, the sovereign dignity and usefulness of a free press.

            But these lessons have been taught and learned; taught for the most part by the prophets of our race, men living in advance of their age, and understood only by the succeeding generations. But you have the inheritance.

            The common law is a great scientific lab, the resources and results of which     are brought to bear on the populations which are fortunate enough to possess an English common law tradition, such as exists, for example, in: Canada, the United States and Australia. My use of the adjective, "scientific," will be better appreciated after one reads my essay, Siren's Song. Sufficient to say here, at this place, that nature is the great and ultimate scientific testing lab, and it always, in time, shakes out the truth. Whether we appreciate it, or not, for hundreds of years: the common law tests, observes, adjusts and re-observes on a continual bases.

            The fact of the matter is that there exists all around us a great body of law which has not ever been (nor could it be) written down in one spot. In a way, its, its more of a process which has a single guiding rule, the "golden rule," a negative rule: "Don't do something to someone that you don't want to have visited on yourself, either directly or through the agency of a government." Though it has suffered much at the hands of legislators, common law is yet followed in all major English speaking nations around the world.

            Common law to England was and is its very force. The greatness of England,
certainly in the past, is attributable, I would say fully attributable, to the stabilizing and enriching institution that we have come to know as common law. This subject of the common law is a great and wonderful subject: its evolutionary development and its great benefits make it the most superior law system known in the world, as history will readily tell. The common law is as a result of a natural sequence which hardened first
into custom and then into law. It did not come about as an act of will, as an act of some group aware only of the instant moment, unaware of the nature and history of man. It come about as a result of a seamless and continual development, through processes we can hardly begin to understand; it evolved along with man.

            Primitive man knew nothing of laws, all he knew was custom. Custom, or
tradition, evolved into rules for living. They grew spontaneously, viz., not deliberately designed by some particular human mind. While no one can point o the origins of our traditional moral rules, their function in human society is clear enough. These moral rules, or traditions, are necessary to preserve the existing state of affairs; such that culture was allowed to evolve; and in turn, with culture, civilizations came about.

            Thus, as David Hume wrote, man developed in an evolutionary fashion -- not only biologically, but also culturally. That, like the lot of all animals, man evolved in accordance with certain natural rules, in that "no form can persist unless it possesses those powers and organs necessary for its subsistence: some new order or economy must be tried and so on, without intermission; until at last some order which can Support and maintain itself, is fallen upon."

                The preservation of existing laws as was represented by traditions and
    cultural rules, to early man, at least, was of greater concern then putting up with bad laws: change was what men feared: change and its social upheaval was what brought on suffering and death. I quote from Bagehot's work:

            In early societies it matters much more that the law should be fixed than that it should be good. Any law which the people of ignorant times enact is sure to involve many misconceptions, and to cause many evils. Perfection in legislation is not to be looked for, and is not, indeed, much wanted in a rude, painful, confined life. But such an age covets fixity. That men should enjoy the fruits of their labour, that the law of property should be known, that the law of marriage should be known, that the whole course of life should be kept in a calculable track, is the summum bonum of early ages, the first desire of semi-civilized mankind. In that age men do not want to have their laws adapted, but to have their laws steady. The passions are so powerful, force so eager, the social bond so weak, that the august spectacle of an all but unalterable law is necessary to preserve society. In the early stages of human society all change is thought an evil. And most change is an evil. The conditions of life are so simple and so unvarying that any decent sort of rules suffice, so long as men know what they are. Custom is the first check on tyranny; that fixed routine of social life at which        modern innovations have, and by which modern improvement is impeded, is the primitive check on base power. The perception of political expediency has then hardly begun; the sense of abstract justice is weak and vague; and a rigid adherence to the fixed mould of transmitted usage is essential to an unmarred, unspoiled, unbroken life.

                                    (Walter Bagehot,  The English Constitution, at pp. 229-30.)

            Stare Decisis:- This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the law as it exists  today. When a court decides a case it does so on the merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only effect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court, however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time, which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns out, is a living, creeping, creature.

            Do not, however, be mistaken - there is a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare Decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law. That is the function of the legislature.

                However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their
    function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously, and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts:
            "... built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors, grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the interests, the habits, and the opinions of the people. [Without the common law a court would] in each recurring case, have to enter upon its examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or settled law. Each case with its decision being thus limited as law to         itself alone, would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to govern the future."

                                                                                  (Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hill, 321.)

            Tyrants can only get a hold of a central system where the rules issue from a single authority (government); tyrants cannot get a hold of a system which depends on a spontaneous participation in the law-making process on the part of each and all of the inhabitants of a country, viz., a system of common law.

The presumption of innocence.

            “Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained”.
                                                Stones Justice’s Manual. Preface to 1990 Edition.

            An authoritative book entitled “Taylor upon evidence” has this to say about burden of proof.
            The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character to himself and his family, and the evil consequences that would result to society if charges of guilt were lightly entertained, or readily established in Courts of justice:-these are the real considerations which have led to the adoption of the rule that all imputations of crime must be strictly proved.

            The Firearms Act 1920 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 are based on the principle that Parliament can create new offences that everyone is guilty of from the date of their adoption, and then allow exceptions at the discretion of the police. They have shifted the burden of proof onto the defence, which is something that never happened before.

            This purported power of Parliament was objected to strongly by many MPs in the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. They generated about 90 pages of debate in Hansard on a Bill that was little more than one page long. Several MPs were only prepared to accept the Bill as a short-term emergency measure to be reviewed after 5 years.  The Government claimed that the measure was necessary to deal with an outbreak of violent crime.  James Carmichael (MP for Glasgow, Bridgeton), pointed out that Scottish crime figures had actually dropped significantly in the preceding years and the Bill was an over-reaction to misleading press reports (Hansard, 26 March 1953). Several references were made to the fact that at that time the assurances given by Ministers that the police would act responsibly and with restraint was worthless because what had been said in Parliament could not be referred to in the Courts.  The Bill was passed, and soon the presumption of innocence was set aside in other legislation without a murmur.

            This has resulted in the proliferation of Statutory absolute offences. In the common law guilt could only be inferred from a persons actions and evidence of his mental intent at that time. Thus stealing is the taking of property belonging to another with evidence of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. The Statutory offence of simple possession of a “prohibited weapon” is a crime regardless of the circumstances as are selling apples by the pound or beef on the bone. Statutory “crimes” are whatever the legislature decides. A victim or intent is not required.

We have come to a point where the ancient rightness of the common law has been set aside. As Mr Justice Laws said in the case of Witham;

            “What is the precise nature of any constitutional right such as might be outwith the power of government... to abrogate?  In the unwritten order of the British State, at a time when the common law continues to accord a legislative supremacy to Parliament...”

            We believe that is the key. The Courts have given up legislative supremacy to Parliament. And they have been allowed to do this because no one has gone before a Court and claimed his common law rights. Those rights of the subject are written, but have been hidden and forgotten.

            And here lies the danger to us all. The only power that Government has is to manufacture criminals. If Government believes that it can do as it wishes without the restraint of a Constitution then no one and nothing is safe from the whims and prejudices of the legislators. John Locke the philosopher, was a major influence in the education of the generation that debated what became the English Bill of Rights in 1688. We can have an insight into the mischief that the participants sought to avoid with the passing of the Statue which “Declares the Rights and Liberties of the all time to come”.

            “Man is a maker of things, and a property owning animal... From the right to self-defence and protection of property comes the right to the rule of law, and a multitude of like rights, such as the right to privacy expressed as ‘An Englishman's home is his castle’. A ruler is legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals”.

The responsibilities of the Judiciary, and a little history.

            The situation in which we find ourselves has happened before. It seems that Governments will, from time to time, attempt to subvert the liberties of the subject. In the first instance we are entitled to appeal to the Courts for redress of our grievances. The Courts function on the basis that they will adjudicate in disputes that are put before them. That is why we say that the time has come to test the validity of the Firearms Acts. The principle at stake is wider than the issue of arms. The reversal of the presumption of innocence is a threat to us all.

            The question therefore is; will our judiciary stand on the ramparts of justice and the ancient constitutional rule of law? Would our judiciary act, resign or abandon their judicial oaths and state freely that they are no longer prepared to serve a country entitled to be called a free democracy? 

            Does Parliament have the power to deprive the Court of its authority to hear a citizen’s claim to enforcement of a fundamental legal right? 

            Parliament derives its sovereignty and privileges from the Bill of Rights 1689 and from a body of authority. As described above, the Speaker was at pains to remind the Court which was considering the case of Pepper v. Hart to respect Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which states “ That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament”. How can Parliament then justify ignoring the other Articles when it suits them to do so? And what are the other privileges of Parliament? The Clerk of the Commons was invited to explain to that Court what they were. And he did not answer.

            In the Bill of Rights the victors in the Revolution sought to protect, not to change, the fundamentals of the constitution. The framers of that document were simply declaring common law that already existed and would continue to exist. The preamble to the bill reads:

            "And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare..”

            Clearly, the intent and true meaning was not to abolish their ancient fundamental rights and liberties for a pretended parliamentary sovereignty, which is generally believed and accepted today. They were vindicating and asserting them, and reclaiming them, from a despotic King James II whom had grievously violated them, as had his predecessors. 

            Applying the principle of Pepper v, Hart to the debates on the Bill of Rights itself, Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee’s which prepared the Bill, said;

            "The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England’s Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people’s rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition’s by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."

            The intent throughout that debate was clear; - The Bill was intended to reserve fundamental rights. Edmund Burke also extolled the virtues of the Declaration of Rights;

            "In the 1st of William and Mary in the famous statute, called the Declaration of Right, the two houses utter not one syllable of a ‘right to frame a government for themselves.’ You will see that their whole care was to secure the religion, laws, and liberties, that had long been possessed, and had been lately endangered...You will observe that from Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to our posterity; as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right."

                          (Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Penguin ed) 118ff)       
            In fact, at the time of James II it was the Parliament who was on the defensive and it is the Parliamentarians who deployed fundamental law first. Magna Carta became the focus of the debate, and its clauses on the due process of law caused Parliament to frame a proposal to James that said:

            "That according to Magna Carta and the Statutes aforenamed, and also according to the most ancient Customs and Laws of this Land, every free subject of this realm hath a fundamental propriety in his goods, and a fundamental liberty of his person."
            (Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (2nd Ed) at 63.)
            Parliament in this instance claimed the right to use fundamental law to rebel as a lawful step in securing adherence to the fundamentals, just as the Barons had explicitly negotiated a right to rebel with King John in Magna Carta over four hundred years before.  The historical parallels with the present situation are clear. If we are rebels, then we are entitled to claim the protection of the Article of the Bill of Rights that states;

            “That it is the Right of subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal”.

            SAFE is aware of several persons who have applied the their chief officers of police to exercise their right to arms for defence and had their firearm certificates revoked. Chief officers are Crown servants and such actions by them are in breach of this provision of the law.

            Winston Churchill was well aware of the significance of Magna Carta and as a historian wrote this warning and reassurance to future generations :

                        "The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success."

            (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956) Vol 1, 201-202)        


            "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."                               
                                                                                         Justice William O. Douglas

“Where did the men of honour go that made Britain great? Many gave their lives in the cause of liberty that we carelessly give away without a second thought. Who will take their places?”
                                                                                                           John Pate. 1996.

“Give us the tools- and we will finish the job”.                     
                                                                                               Winston Churchill 1940.

“You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
--Winston Churchill

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has, is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.”

                                                                                (Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged)

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. What greater ally does a criminal have than a Government that guarantees most victims will be unarmed and helpless?

Blackstone on Arms for Self-Defence.

            “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W.& M. st. 2, c.2, and it is indeed a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self- preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties, more generally talked of than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon they are founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other.
And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal
security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in full vigour; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative.
            And lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.
            And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.
            For all of us have it in our choice to do everything that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow-citizens."

            (This extract is taken from pages 143 and 144 of the first volume (of four) of the 21st edition of Sir William Blackstone's book 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' dated 1884 in which it Is stated that it derives from the edition of 1783 with the author's last corrections. It is commonly to be found in law libraries and in the larger reference libraries).

John: Hurst,
Magna Carta Society.