Just one more reason why LAW is in disrepute:
Illegal coalition government:
When the results of the 2010 general election were known, the leaders of the political parties in parliament then decided amongst themselves that they had the ‘authority’ to ignore all further recognition of the entire electorate, in order to cobble together, some form of a coalition government that would have a ‘majority’ in parliament. Like, ‘Mafia’ gangsters, and, holding a pistol to the heads of the entire electorate, these corrupt politicians then informed the country, that they had made such arrangements for ‘government’; which the ‘People’, cannot refuse. There is not a jot of legality in the whole exercise.
There is no legal 'document' or ‘instrument’ that can be produced, demonstrating the true legality, for these corrupt arrangements, and for the creation of the CONLIB coalition government; that the British People now endure.
As there is no ‘Written Constitution’ providing the authority for what has taken place? This, CONLIB coalition, has no ‘legality’ at all.
The results of the 2010 general election were abundantly clear: it provided for a Tory led ‘minority government’. David Cameron, as the leader of the Tory party, who had the most seats in Parliament, was the legitimate Prime Minister, and he was obliged to govern the country; or, to inform Her Majesty, that ‘he could not govern’, bringing about another general election. Cowardly, and, consumed with attaining personal political prestige and power, and, to govern, by having a majority in parliament; he corruptly chose to negotiate with the Liberal Party, and form an ‘illegal’ coalition.
Illegal coalition Government:
There is a second reason why this coalition government is illegal; it profoundly 'prejudices' The People. It has been brought about by Parliament, and, by the leaders of the political parties in Parliament, on their assumption, that Parliament, may do anything it pleases in everything, without any challenge in law. For, this 'assumption', held by Parliament for the last 322 years, Parliament has always relied upon the "Supremacy of Parliament"; which Parliament has always believed, is afforded to Parliament, by "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689".
Article 9
“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
But, for 322 years both Parliament and the Courts have 'interpreted' Article 9 and, the 'Bill of Rights', incorrectly.
Parliament has always acted upon, and, has always believed that, "Article 9" permits Parliament to do as it pleases in everything, with The People having no right of challenge from within law. The British Judiciary, in all of this time, has preventedThe Peoples examination, questioning, and challenging of Parliament in the Courts, always relying on the wording of "Article 9" to deny that challenge. Both, Parliament and the Courts, have always 'interpreted' "Article 9" as though it is a 'stand alone' piece of legislation, requiring no other 'considerations' at all.
But, "Article 9" does not stand on its own; it is not, and, never has been, a 'stand alone' piece of legislation at all. "Article 9" of the "Bill of Rights 1689" (as all the other 'Premises' of that Bill) is entirely conditional upon the requirements of another paragraph in the same Bill: "THE SAID RIGHTS CLAIMED".
The, “Said Rights Claimed”:
“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”
Thus: everyone has the right to challenge or question Parliament, from within law, whenever any action of Parliament,'prejudices' the People.
Note: The very learned Gentlemen of the "Rights Committee" of the "Convention" (Parliament) of 1688, many of them lawyers, who created the "Bill of Rights"; were fearful that there could be 'misinterpretation' of their true intent in the Bill, so they made provision, within the Bill, making it absolutely clear, of their true intent. After listing all the "Articles" (Premises) of the Bill that sets out the 'Rights' that Parliament claimed from the King; they inserted the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed"; in order, that there could be no 'misinterpretation' at all. By, ensuring, that in applying, all the 'Premises' of the Bill; nothing should'prejudice' "The People".
The illegal CONLIB coalition Government does 'prejudice' "The People"; The very formation of this 'illegal' government wholly ignores the true wishes and intent of "The People" as determined by their vote in the General Election of 2010, to provide for a 'minority government'. And, provides, instead; for the 'gangster styled' leaders of the political parties in Parliament to hold a pistol to the heads of the entire electorate, imposing a 'coalition government' which "The People" could not refuse. The entire exercise of the formation of this 'illegal' government was done, without any involvement of "The People" at all. And, it is this ‘travesty’ that undoubtedly 'prejudices' "The People". And, as such, has no legality, at all.
Gordon J Sheppard
