Original Contract

ORIGINAL CONTRACT
For the British, the “Original Contract” is of vital interest, because
it is the very legal authority by which each 'Reigning Monarch' in the line of
succession, sits on the British throne. The Original Contract is the contract
that the Subject has, with the King. And, it is designed for the Subjects
protection. All born to the shores of Great Britain are bound, in law, to give
allegiance to each 'Reigning Monarch’ for as a Monarch shall reign’. In,
return, for this allegiance, that they give, the Reigning Monarch' is required
and obliged to provide their protection. The prime duty and responsibility of
each 'Reigning Monarch in the line of Succession’ is to act as 'Head of
Government' protecting the Subject. And, this is done by ‘monitoring’
Parliament in the country’s and the Subjects best interests, and, in the use of
the power of the “Royal Assent”. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ always has the power to
approve or reject law’s created by Parliament, through the granting or, the
refusal to grant, the “Royal Assent”.

The, 'Original Contract', although, 'unwritten' is nevertheless, fully
established in English Law. For, it was the 'breaking of the original contract'
that provided the 'legal instrument’’, by which, King James the Second was
removed from the throne.

On 28th day of January 1688 the ‘House of Commons’ resolved: 'That King
James the Second, Having Endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the
Kingdom, by Breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and by the
advice of Jesuits, and other Wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental
Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government.
and that the Throne is thereby Vacant.'

The CONVENTION Debate:
The CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, mounted a special debate held in
the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of
February 1688, held between both Lords and Commons, where, they debated the
words, “Abdicated" and "That the Throne is thereby Vacant".

At,the conclusion of this debate, both Lords and Commons accepted and resolved
that, King James II had indeed abdicated the throne. It was then determined and
ruled, that, "The Throne was Vacant".

Speeches from this debate:
(These speeches can be seen in the book “The Parliamentary History of
the Glorious Revolution” by the author David Lewis Jones. Published by H.M.
Stationery Office)

The Notes: are my own notes.

‘The Speaker’, Henry Powle

“It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are
any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection, and to
whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none
now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they
owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant”.


Bishop Ely,

"So, that all that I conceive ought to be meant by our Vote is, But
a setting aside the Person that broke the Contract : And, in a Successive
Kingdom an Abdication can only be a Forfeiture, as to the Person himself. I
hope, and am persuaded, that both Lords and Commons do agree in this, Not to
break the Line of Succession, so as to make the Crown Elective."

NOTE. This contribution by Bishop ELY, is interesting, because, although a persuasive argument in respect to not breaking the Line of Succession the eventual concurring resolution of the Lords, (and, of the whole Parliament), of 7th February 1688, went against that opinion, and, did, in fact, break that line of succession: offering the Throne to William, Prince of Orange. However, it will be noted, that Bishop ELY, also agrees, with the concept, of the Original Contract, and stresses, that he accepts: "that it was most Fundamental, That King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, should have the Power of making New Laws" That, the King, acting as ‘Head of Government’, participating ‘in Parliament assembled’, should have the Power of making New Laws. Bishop ELY, also makes it clear that the reigning Monarch must participate in Parliament. And, must participate in the ‘making of New Laws’.

Mr. Sergeant, Maynard

"When the whole Kingdom, and the Protestant Religion, our Laws and
Liberties, have been in Danger of being Subverted, an Enquiry must be made into
the Authors and Instruments of this Attempt; and if he, who had the
Administration entrusted to him, be found the Author and Actor in it, What can
that be, but a Renuntiation of his Trust, and consequently his Place thereby
Vacant.If Two of us make a mutual Agreement, to Help and Defend each other from
any one that should Assault us in a Journey, and he that is with me turns upon
me and Breaks my Head, he hath, undoubtedly, Abdicated my Assistance and
Revoked."

Earl of CLARENDON.

"Mr Sergent Maynard says, That it is not indeed to make the Government perpetually Elective. I would know what he means by Perpetually:
Our breaking through the Line now, by a Choice out of the Lineal Course, is an
Alteration and a Precedent : And why may not others take the same Liberty we do
? And will not that make It Perpetually Elective; But truly, I think, no Act of
ours can alter the Lineal Succession; for, by all the Laws we have now in
Being, our Government appears to be Hereditary In a Right Line of Descent : And
upon any Descent, when any one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to
his Legal Heir, as Successor, as well before Coronation, as after."

NOTE: Here again, Parliament did not agree with this; as is seen in
their concurring declaration of 7th of February in agreeing to the Commons
Vote. And, in the subsequent offering of the Throne to William of Orange.
However, the Earl of Clarendon’s speech is immensely valuable: in the sense
that he has realized, that, by their decision that day, they were creating
Legal precedent; and that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also,
might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now). There is another
interesting point that should be drawn: the Earl of Clarendon insists on the Lineal Descent. "When one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir", (and yet, that was also rejected by Parliaments resolution of the 7th February), But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority : 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the
Contract" as well; he also, could be deposed.

Sir GEORGE TREBY.

"I beg leave to say something to what this Noble Lord has last
spoken unto : When I call this Point of the Vacancy of the Throne a Conclusion,
I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication from being a Conclusion from
the Particulars enumerated before; for, indeed, it is in the nature of a double
Conclusion : One, from the particular Facts mentioned, That thereby King James
has Abdicated the Government. The other, from the Abdication, That thereby the
Throne is Vacant: By the Instanced Acts, he hath Abdicated the Government; and
by his Abdicating the Government, the Throne is Vacant."

"He therein in faith,"

"I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my
Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract
between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to
myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such
Law to circumscribe my Authority."

At the conclusion of this Debate the matter was finally resolved by the
Lords vote of 7th February 1688; in a message sent to the ‘Commons’ by Sir
Robert Atkins and Sir Edward Nevill: "Mr.Speaker, The Lords have Commanded us to tell you, That they have agreed to the Vote sent them up of the 28th of January last, (touching which there was a free Conference yesterday) without any Alterations.”

By these votes of both Commons and Lords, the existence of the ‘Original
Contract’ betwixt Monarch and Subject, is fully established in English Law.
King James the Second, was removed from the throne.

With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional
Monarchy” and, how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be noted as to what the Earl of Clarendon says in this ‘CONVENTION’ debate:

“Irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the
Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The
protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on
the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also
could be deposed.”

Note: Monarchy failed to understand that; or, simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current ‘Reigning Monarch’ ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not acted as
‘Head of Government’ and ‘protected’ Her Subjects, since the very first day she occupied the British Throne. She was unable to carry out that responsibility. “Constitutional Monarchy” prevented her, from being able to carry out that role. Every Monarch in the line of succession that has sat on the British Throne since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has renounced the ‘Original Contract’ and the responsibilities of Monarchy. And, in consequence, each in turn, has abdicated the Throne. (As, Earl Clarendon says,with reference to Lineal descent; in the CONVENTION debate.)

Note: And, they have each done this; so contemptuously; in exactly the same manner that Sir George Treby, explains, in this debate.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.

When the British Monarchy, of its own volition gave up being an
‘absolute monarchy’ and, became a “Constitutional Monarchy”; no one bothered to re-negotiate a new arrangement or ‘contract’ with its Subjects. For their
protection.

The Monarchy gave up the protection of its Subjects; but, the Subject was not released from the statutory and legal obligation of Subjugationand “Allegiance”, that the Subject was required to give to the Reigning Monarch
for as long as a Monarch shall reign. Even today, in this 21st Century,
British Subjects, are not Citizens. With, true, Citizenship recognized in Law.
Furthermore, Parliament, in making these new arrangements for “Constitutional
Monarchy”; and depriving the Subject of the rightful protection of Monarchy;
made no provision whatsoever for a new interpretation or ammendments of "Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689"; in order to allow Subjects to ‘challenge the‘abuses’ of parliament’ from within Law.

Parliament arrogantly took all the protection of the Subject away; Monarchy, threw it away; and, the Subject ended up with no protection of law at all.

Social Contract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ”Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous social contract thinkers. Each drew quite different conclusions about the nature of political authority. Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights,and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general
will".[citation needed] The Lockean concept of the social contract was
invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, and social contract
notions have recently been invoked, in a quite different sense, by thinkers
such as John Rawls.”

These great and famous ‘social contract thinkers’ all treat the ‘social contract’ as theory.

Yet, I treat the "Original Contract” (As it applies to the British)
as both ‘legal precedent’ and, current British LAW. It is the, lawful and legal contract existing “Betwixt the ‘Reigning Monarch’ and Subject"; and, it is created and designed, for the ‘protection’ of the Subject; in return, for the
‘Allegiance’ that the Subject gives. Thus, the “Original Contract” (in Britain)is not theory at all; it is solidly and fully entrenched and established in the country, as, LAW.

“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”

It was the ‘breaking of’ the “Original Contract”, that provided the actual ‘legal instrument’ used and utilized by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, in order, for them, to remove, KING JAMES the Second, from the Throne,


ORIGINAL CONTRACT

There is a very interesting footnote to all that is written above; that will demonstrate the true value and relevance of the, ‘precedent’ in British law; of the “Original Contract” for the British People:

Although, “Constitutional Monarchy”, prevents, the‘Reigning Monarch’, QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, from her responsibility, of acting as ‘Head of Government’ and protecting Her Subjects; As, the Subject,is still bound in subjugation, and, by law, is still required, in the giving of ‘Allegiance’ to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ for as long as Monarch shall reign; irrespective, of the ‘legal prevention’ imposed upon Her, that responsibility upon Her, still remains. Therefore, if the Subject of the Crown requests, or, requires, Her protection; She is then bound by the terms of the “Original Contract”, to comply.

The British Subject of the Crown has no other protection, of LAW.

The British have no “Written constitution”;

The British have no proper ‘Bill of Rights’;

The British have no access to the Courts; In, order to challenge the
‘abuses’ of Parliament, from within LAW.

The interesting thing is that both the “Original Contract” requiring the protection of the Subject by the ‘Reigning Monarch’; and, the “Supremacy of Parliament” protecting Parliament from interference from a King; both, derive the authority, in law, from the “Bill of Rights 1689”.

Therefore, in respect to the Subject’s protection from the ‘abuses’ of Parliament; and, although, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ is prevented from directly protecting the Subject, (by the terms of “Constitutional Monarchy”); the,Subject, nevertheless, can request that protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’;through, the ‘special provisions’ of the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, the,‘protection’ of the People against the ‘abuse’ of Parliament, is specifically,
set out in that Bill. In, the paragraph: “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights
1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Parliament’s “Supremacy” in law is provided by “Article 9” of the Bill. This reads:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought
not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Place out of Parlyament"

Both Parliament and the British Judiciary has always interpreted
that as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation requiring no other
considerations at all. In consequence of this interpretation, the Judiciary has
denied all questioning or challenging of Parliament in their courts for the
last 322 years. But, both Parliament and the Judiciary, for all this time, has
been interpreting the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. “Article 9” of that Bill,is not a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”, has always been dependent upon, the, conditions prevailing, in
another paragraph of that Bill: the, “Statute in Force/The Said Rights
Claimed”.This, determines, that in Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”,(And, all the other ‘Premises’ of that Bill); that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

If, and, whenever, Parliament ‘prejudice’ The People; the “Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed”, over-rules and supplants “Article 9”. And,Parliament then loses all its legality, to, its claim, for the “Supremacy”.

This “Statute” in the “Bill of Rights 1689” reads as follows:

“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”

Gordon J Sheppard

Big Repression threat facing Britain today..

Big Censorship and Repression threat facing Britain today:
The British should take a long hard and serious look at what is happening in the country today.

The people of Great Britain, today, through their apathy in not participating in politics as they should, are now entering into a period or, era of repression, not seen in the country, before.

A ‘freak’ living amongst us who does not wish to live in the real world (as most of us do); prefers instead to try and create this fantasy world; that exists, only, in, his own head. And, he wants to impose this fantasy world on everyone else. His voice is being heard ‘loudly’ in the country today. So much so, that even Prime Minister, David Cameron, and, other politicians are now considering these silly ideas. They are actually considering that this, fantasy world; should be given serious consideration; for implementation, as government policy. Ministers of Government, are, now proposing that these ridiculous ideas should now be adopted and be put into effect. This man is a lunatic; who, dangerously threatens, the very freedom of all. Endorsing and adopting his proposals will launch the greatest era of ‘repression’ the country has ever seen.

His name is Reginald Bailey, and, he is the chief executive of the ‘Mother’s Union’.

In a report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, he declares that, “Parents are deeply concerned that sexual imagery in television, advertising and pop videos is making children grow-up too fast.” His report calls for a hard-hitting crackdown on internet pornography, demanding tighter parental controls over access to explicit websites. Under his idea, of controls, he demands:

Laptop and computer manufacturers must provide their products with parental control filters already activated, prior to purchase. Consumers will have to specifically request to receive porn and adult content; if they want the product to provide access. (A complete reversal of the current position).

A crackdown on lewd ‘lads magazines’ such as “Nuts” and “Zoo”. Retailers being obliged to sell the magazines in plain wrappers or, put them behind ‘modesty boards’, preventing their lurid content from children.
Government to set up a single website where parents can report excessive sexual content on television adverts and, when high street stores and retailers sell inappropriate clothing to children.

Introduction of cinema-style age classification for pop videos. Raunchy music adverts to be banned on television and, in the ‘vicinity of schools’.
High street stores will have to sign a ‘code of conduct’ to prevent the sale of ‘padded bras’ and clothes emblazoned with sexual slogans being sold to children.
Mr. Bailey demands: That, retailers sign a voluntary ‘code of practise’ with clear rules on how to sell to children. Rather than relying on the ‘good taste’, of their own buyers.

Mr. Bailey insists that retailer’s comply with the code set up by the “British Retail Consortium” whose guidelines provide:

Slogans and imagery including licensed images must be age-appropriate and without undesirable associations or connotations – for example, sexually suggestive, demeaning, derogative or political material. ‘Humorous slogans need to be tested against a broad range of views as they can cause unforeseen and unintended offence.
Underwear ranges ‘require the utmost care’; knickers and pants must provide modesty.
Thongs are not appropriate for children.
Products must not treat young children as grown-up women.
Vests and crop tops should also be designed for modesty with no need for ‘structural support’.
Under-wiring is not necessary or appropriate for the smallest cup sizes. First ‘bras’ should be constructed to provide comfort, modesty and support, but not enhancement or under-wiring in any children’s ranges.
Mr. Bailey’s report calls for a ban on children’s swimwear in shop windows displays next to ‘sexy’ adult clothing. He asserts:
By far the most contentious issue is the availability of bras and bikini-style swimwear for the ‘under 16’s’.
Mr. Bailey says, children under 16, including celebrities and sports stars, should be banned from acting as ‘brand-ambassadors’ to sell products to children.


Analysis:

In looking at all this idiotic ‘repression’ the questions that must be posed are,

Why are the British so terrified of sex?
Why are they so afraid of their own sex and sexuality?
Why are they so afraid of the male and female naked body?
Consider this:

In virtually any large city throughout Europe, especially in Italy and Greece; one can readily see statues of the male naked body, with the ‘genitals’ fully on view.

Try and find such statues in Great Britain. There are none. At, least, I have never seen one throughout my entire life to date; all of 83 years.

Why is this? Why, in, centuries, of British art; why, hasn’t, any British artist, created such art.

Why is the penis of the male, both, flaccid and erect, so terrifying; that it must never be seen?

Yet, throughout the entire existence of Humankind on planet earth, virtually every hour of every single day, the erect penis of the male ‘services’ the female, for procreation purposes; or, just for sheer mutual pleasure of those participating. Why then, in Great Britain, are the genitals of the female and the erect penis of the male always hidden from view? Why? Because, the, British, are terrified of sex. Why is this so?

Because; Centuries of indoctrination by the repressive controlling influences of Church, Religion, and State, indoctrinating that, ‘sex’ is ‘dirty’ or ‘naughty’, has been drummed into mind. It has done immeasurable harm. It is also the basis or, the catalyst, for all sexual crime. The ridiculous notion and indoctrination of the church and state that 'sex' is predominately only for those 'married' and, or, for 'procreation'; is wholly demolished, in truth, by the reality and existence of the clitoris. This female bodily organ has no other function whatsoever, than, the receipt of 'sexual' pleasure for the female. It plays no part whatsoever in procreation.

Recently, in a Channel 4 television program attempting sex education of the young, before an audience of young boys and girls at a school, fully naked males and females were presented to the children to look at. The camera switching from the naked bodies to the children, revealed their attitudes to what they were seeing. Three boys were seen with their heads together as though they were sharing a secret or a private joke and, they were laughing and sniggering. The camera then switched to the young girls, showing a different reaction altogether. Some of them looked bewildered, some aghast, some screwing up their faces and covering their eyes with their hands, as though they were in pain. Some girls were seen giggling as well. Why this reaction? Because virtually all of their young lives from birth, they had been indoctrinated that their genitals were ‘privates’. And, that, their ‘privates’ should never be seen. That ridiculous indoctrination gets so deeply imbedded in the psyche of the young female; that even some married women will not undress in front of their husbands at night; without putting the light out first.

These anti-sex ‘influences’ are so well entrenched in the People, today; that, in the guise of ‘protecting children’; the repressive forces, of those so indoctrinated; now ‘harm the children’, that they claim to protect. By, denying a child of the enjoyment and exploration of their own sexuality; by, forcefully, delaying or stopping the ‘genetic’ onset transition of the female child to the becoming of a ‘woman’; those carrying out the very denial of the child’s ‘natural state’; and, their natural sexuality; are not protecting the child; they are ‘harming’ the child, by denying normal ‘natural’ development.

When the young female child first asks ‘Mummy’ for a sexy bra; even, unrecognized by the child, that young female is following the inbuilt natural ‘genetic’ influences of both her body, and, her mind: the compulsion to ‘sexually’ display. To, ‘display’ their own sexuality, to ‘flaunt’ that sexuality, in order to attract the male. The entire female species of planet earth animal as well as human sexually, ‘displays’, for the male.

The idiot censors and repressor’s that assume that they can impose restrictions upon the young girl in order to delay or stop this natural development, by, censoring sex and sexual content, from their lives; delude themselves; and, irrespective of whatever they do; ‘the biological clock has been set in motion’. Young girls will always find their own way, to pursue their own sexual development; irrespective of anything the censor employs.

Stopping and preventing the music and advertising industry from producing ‘raunchy’ videos of pretty girls singing and dancing in sexy underwear or costumes; will only infuriate the young. They see this ‘flaunting’ of female sexuality as being perfectly natural and normal. It is only the ‘repressors’, the ‘censors’, the political opportunists, and, those ‘terrified of sex’; who claim that it really offends.



Resisting this repression:

Clothing stores and retailers:

No big clothing store or retailer of clothes should ever agree to these proposals of, Mr. Bailey.

No big clothing store or retailer of clothes should ever submit to these repressive demands.

To do so, insults the consumer; for, complying with these proposed demands of Mr. Bailey, restricts the FREEDOM of every customer.



Those that value this FREEDOM, and, value and appreciate the ‘freedom’ of the Internet, providing ‘free speech’ and ‘free expression as its prime objectives; should boycott any clothing store or shop that capitulates and submits to Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Manufacturers of laptops and computers:

Manufacturers of these products should design their products to provide the consumer with the ability to access anything the consumer might want to access. On selling the product to the consumer; if the manufacturer wants to remain in business; the product at the time of sale should be in perfect ‘pristine’ condition for the reception and transmission of anything that the consumer wishes to access; the product should not be interfered with, in order to ‘censor’ or prevent’ the reception of any data; in any way. The manufacturer of these products, most certainly should not succumb, to Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Any manufacturer of this hardware that does submit to installing these repressive measures on their products, prior to sale; in order to comply with Mr. Bailey’s demands; they should be boycotted by every consumer; because by doing so; that manufacturer is taking ‘your ‘freedom away. If the product offered for sale is pre-fitted with censoring or filter devices that prevent free ‘access’ to receive data, in any way; even, if the devices can be switched off – if the consumer requests this – that is an imposition forced on the consumer that is specifically designed to take ‘your’ freedom away. The mere fact that the consumer is able to ‘opt out’ makes no difference at all. If such devices or systems are required by those wishing to activate filtering or censorship of content that the product is to receive in broadcast transmissions; then that consumer should be required to ‘opt in’. Let him pay for and buy, the censoring devices he requires.



The Video and Music Industry.

It will be an absolute folly and travesty if the Music and Video industry succumbs to Mr. Bailey’s demands. Mr. Bailey’s demands, triggered by misguided parents and censoring freaks complaining to OFCOM, are essentially based upon the alleged ‘suggestive dancing’ video, featuring ‘Rihanna’ in the TV broadcast of the X-Factor show. Mr. Bailey claims that 4,500 complaints were received by OFCOM about the ‘singing and dancing’ seen on this show. Take a referendum, or, an ‘opinion poll’, of all the kids in the country; or, all of the People in the country; there would be an overwhelming response showing ‘little concern’ at all. All, the young kids, and all the teenagers today, ‘flaunt’ their sexuality, ‘in dancing’; in this way. There was nothing ‘dirty’ in ‘Rihanna’s’ performance at all.

All the ‘dirt’ is firmly embedded in the minds of the misguided parents and the complainers to, OFCOM; and, the, censoring and repressive newspapers, like, the Daily Mail



The Music and Video Industry should resist this repression with all the force it can command.

Mounting, for instance, a massive ‘publicity campaign’. Motivate, and persuade all the kids and teens in the country, to swamp Prime Minister, David Cameron’s mailbox; with postcards declaring, ‘Hands off our videos, we like dancing in this way”. Motivate, all the ‘freedom loving’ users of the Internet, to resist this ‘repression’ in every way that they can.

Consumers should permanently boycott any of the Music and Video Industry that complies with Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Mr. Bailey does not like the “Real World”; let him create and live in the fantasy world in his own head; but, ensure, that he lives there, ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN.



RESIST CONTINUALLY ALL THIS TERRIBLE REPRESSION THREATENING OUR COUNTRY NOW.

Britain's "Arab Spring"

Britain's "Arab Spring"

The British People now have the opportunity to create a true ‘People’s Democracy’.
They can bring about a political REVOLUTION without a shot being fired.
Historically, all revolutions, are 'armed revolutions' bloody and violent.
But, here, all the People need to do, is to sign a petition.

The UK, although claiming to be a democracy; in reality, is not a democracy at all.
Democracy, is government of the People, by the People, and, for the People.
Yet, In the UK at present, this is not the case.
The sham democracy existing today in the UK is government by the political parties and their political diktat. Parliament, elected by the People, is dominated by the political Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS; that instruct Members of Parliament each week on how they should behave, and, how they should vote. The WHIPS activities in Parliament are wholly illegal; as will be fully explained here.

Current UK statistics verify that there are more than 50 Million adults in the country. Yet, in lumping all of the political parties together, in total; there are less than half a million adults that are Members of the political parties.

Why is it, then, both, lawful, or, right, that these ‘less than half a million’ should dominate our law making and our parliament?
By this statistic, 49.5 million adults have no ‘participation’ at all.

The proposition is wholly absurd. But, that is the situation prevailing in Britain now.

Parliament claims its “Supremacy” relying entirely upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads as follows:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedures of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

And, both Parliament and the Judiciary have always interpreted that ‘Act’ as the protection, Parliament, is afforded, from any challenge, from within law.

For, 322 years the Judiciary has always denied the questioning or challenge to Parliament, in their courts.
But, for 322 years both Parliament and the Judiciary has always ‘interpreted’ the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. They have always looked upon “Article 9”, within that Bill, as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation, requiring no other considerations, at all.

Yet, “Article 9”, is not, and, it never has been, a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; it has always been linked to the ‘conditions’, applicable, in another paragraph of the very same Bill: “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Parliament, in, claiming it’s “Supremacy”, relying on “Article 9”; in, the ‘application’ of “Article 9”; Parliament must comply with the ‘conditions’ applicable set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Therefore, in reality, and, in “British Law” the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”/; is the People’s protection against, the ‘abuses’ of Parliament.

It is interesting to be aware of the historical context of all this:

King James the Second, a Catholic, attempted to re-introduce Catholicism into the Kingdom. To the annoyance of Parliament he appointed Catholics to his administration, and, he appointed Catholics to the Army as well. He ordered Bishops to read Catholic proclamations and sermons from their Church pulpits; and, when they refused; he set up ‘special courts’ to try these Bishop's for treason. Parliament sick and tired of his interference approached Prince William of Orange in the Netherlands and, they requested him to come with his army and invade. They persuaded William to invade the Kingdom in order to protect the People and their ‘Protestant’ religion from the tyranny of King James. Prince William invaded the Kingdom, and, James the Second, fled to France.

Prince William then appointed an interim Parliament, the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688.

The CONVENTION had two tasks to accomplish: Firstly, to get rid of King James II, in order that Prince William could be the next King. James II was still the lawful King, and, he was living in France. The way had to be found to ‘lawfully’ remove him from his throne, without removing his head.

Secondly, they had to create a set of ‘conditions’ in order to protect Parliament from like interference from a King; if Prince William was to be offered the throne.
Parliament did not want the same troubles and interference that it had experienced with James II.

The CONVENTION created a “Rights Committee” charged with these tasks.
The CONVENTION set up a huge debate of both Lords and Commons held in the “Painted Chamber” of the Commons, held on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of February 1688, to debate the words “Abdicate” and “The throne is thereby vacant”, in respect to King James II.

It was decided in this debate that James the Second had “Broken the ‘original contract’ betwixt King and People”; that, he had, “Failed to protect the People and their ‘Protestant’ religion”; and, that, he had “Fled the Kingdom”; whereby, he had abdicated the throne. The CONVENTION determined that, thereby, the throne was VACANT.

The “Rights Committee” then set about preparing the list of ‘protections’ Parliament required of the King, in order that Prince William of Orange could be offered the throne.

The Committee drew up a list of 26 “Articles” for William to accept; but his advisors rejected this list finding objections to some of the items listed. Prince William became impatient in respect to the prolonged negotiations; and, he threatened that if the business was not completed promptly, he would return to the Netherlands, without taking up the throne.
Parliament wanted Prince William as the next King; and, so, faced with this ultimatum, the “Rights Committee” then settled for the 13 “Articles”; that to this very day, are present and recorded in the “Bill of Rights 1689”.

However, the “Rights Committee” had an overwhelming concern about their Bill. They were fearful that in future years the Bill might be interpreted incorrectly, and, that it’s true intent would not be seen.
The Committee wanted to be sure that the Bill’s true intent to protect Parliament from the interferences of a King; would not in any way provide, the wrong impression, where the Bill might be used, to protect Parliament from the People. Thereby, ‘prejudicing’, the People.

The sole intent of the Bill was to protect Parliament from a King. The Bill had never been created in order to protect Parliament from the People. And, so, at the conclusion of the full list of “Articles” of, the protection that Parliament was claiming from the King; the “Rights Committee” inserted the additional paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”. In, order, to specifically ensure, that in all the “Premises” of the Bill: NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

This is, “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”

It is interesting to note, that the “Rights Committee” fears were well founded. Both Parliament and the British Judiciary have been incorrectly ‘interpreting’ the “Bill of Rights” for the last 322 years. The ‘legal’ precedent, the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/ “The Said Rights Claimed”; has been rejected, and, has been ‘ignored’ by both Parliament and, the Courts, continuously, for all this time.

The time has now come for the People – who elect their Parliament – to force both Parliament and the Judiciary to ‘acknowledge’ the People’s rights set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Unlike, in the “Arab Spring”, where the People required and mounted an ‘armed’ rebellion; the British People can assert their rights and can ‘initiate’ their own REVOLUTION, without a shot being fired. All they need to do is to ‘sign’ this petition:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12771

This petition calls upon both Parliament and the Judiciary to ‘recognise’ and ‘acknowledge’, “The Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Neither Parliament or Judiciary can refuse this ‘recognition’; because Parliament claims its “Supremacy” relying on “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”; but, for the mere ‘application’ of that “Article 9”, it is ‘linked’, in law, to the ‘conditions’ applicable, set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Therefore, refusal to recognise and acknowledge “The Said Rights Claimed” also refuses the recognition of, “Article 9”. And, in denying the existence and recognition of “Article 9”; Parliament, loses, all its claims to the “Supremacy”.

Massive signing of this petition will create a true People’s democracy. Once Parliament and the Judiciary recognise the legal precedent and the true existence of “The Said Rights Claimed”; the way will the then be open in, LAW, to challenge the Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; that presently ‘prejudice’ the People every day.

Elimination of the WHIPS in Parliament will abolish the political party’s domination of parliament completely. It would create the condition, whereby, every vote taken in parliament, would become, a ‘free vote’.

Sign this petition to end the dominance of the political parties in Parliament, once and for all.

Create, a true People’s DEMOCRACY.

Gordon J Sheppard