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