THE TEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN BRITISH DEMOCRACY

ANSWERS TO THE TEST FOR ‘BRITISH DEMOCRACY’

 

If you cannot answer these questions, you are unable to participate.

And, in consequence, Britain cannot be a Democracy. Because, if you do not know these answers; you, cannot know, what, Democracy, is.

 

This test determines whether you know how to participate properly in, BRITISH DEMOCRACY:

 

Here are the answers you should have known:

 

Question 1.

The American People have the, protection of law, provided for them, in a 'Written Constitution', 'Bill of Rights', and, the right of access, to a "Supreme Court of Law".

 What, in comparison, do the British have in order to provide them with the same protection?

 The British do not have the same protection of law that the American’s have; but they should be afforded the ‘protection of law’ as provided by, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the British throne; as required; by the, ‘Original Contract’. This ‘contract’ is unwritten, but it is fully entrenched in LAW, and, it requires all ‘Reigning Monarchs’, to act as Head of Government; to monitor parliament; in the interests of all Subjects of the Crown. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ is required to protect the people from the tyranny of the ‘abuses’ and ‘prejudice’ of parliament.

 The British also have the protection of Law, provided by the provision of the over-ruling paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”, set out in the “Bill of Rights 1689”; which instructs parliament that when it applies its “Supremacy”, nothing should ‘prejudice’ the people.

 Question 2.

The British people elect their Parliament in General Election.

When a Parliament is elected at present, is it a democratic 'people's parliament'?

Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’? And, explain how and why.

The answer is ‘No’. The people in democratic general elections elect their political representatives to represent them in parliament; but, the majority of those elected, on being elected, accept and comply with the ‘diktat’ and instructions issued by their political party, WHIP; and, therefore, they give the priority ‘allegiance’ to their political party; in preference, to those that elected them.

 

Question 3.

Parliament has an office and a procedure known as the 'WHIPS'

What are the 'WHIPS'?

What do the 'WHIPS' do?

What the WHIPS do, is this legal?

Explain how and why.

The political party WHIPS in parliament instruct Members of Parliament on how they must behave in Parliament, and, how they must vote.

This political party activity is wholly illegal.

It, ‘prejudices the people’, by over-ruling and supplanting all rightful influence placed upon those ‘elected’ Members of Parliament, by the Constituent.

This, flouts, breaches, and breaks the ‘precedent of law’, providing the protection of the people set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”, the, over-ruling paragraph of the entire “Bill of Rights 1689”; which determines that when parliament enacts it “Supremacy”, nothing should prejudice the people.

 

Question 4.

The British Judiciary has always denied the people all right to challenge parliament in law.

How do the Judiciary deny this right?

Is that 'denial' lawful? Or, unlawful?

Explain how and why.

The Judiciary deny the people this right by incorrectly reading and interpreting the “Bill of Rights 1689”. The Judiciary has always claimed and ruled that “Article 9” of that Bill, protects parliament from all challenge from within LAW; Article 9, reads as follows:

 “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”

And, the Judiciary has always claimed and ruled that this prevents all challenge to parliament in the Courts. But, the correct reading and interpretation of the entire “Bill of Rights 1689” reveals the existence within that Bill of the paragraph “The Said Rights Claimed”; and, this determines that anyone is free, in law, to challenge parliament in the Courts; if, and, whenever, parliament ‘prejudice the people’.

 Question 5.

The British Parliament claims its "Supremacy".

Explain:

How parliament got this 'Supremacy' ?

What is the 'Supremacy' for?

Does anything 'overrule' this "Supremacy”?

 

The, GLORIOUS REVOLUTION and the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 set up by Prince William of Orange, created a ‘Rights Committee’ in order that they could produce a list of ‘rights’ parliament required, of a King. Parliament did not want to have to put up with the same interferences that it had endured under the previous King. King James the Second; who the CONVENTION, had removed from the throne. This ‘Rights Committee’ produced the “Bill of Rights 1689” which under “Article 9” provided parliament with it “Supremacy”.

Parliaments “Supremacy” provides that the Freedom of Speech, Debates, and Proceedings of Parliament, are protected by law.

Parliaments “Supremacy” can be over-ruled, by the authority and, ‘precedent of law’, set out in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed” within the “Bill of Rights 1689”. Which provides, that anyone may challenge parliament if and whenever parliament, ‘prejudice the people’.

Question 6.

Each 'Reigning Monarch' sitting on the throne is provided with two legal instruments which enable them to do 'something important’ in respect to parliament.

What are these 'legal instruments' called?

What are they for?

One of these legal instruments is involved in a particular way with every Bill or Act passed by parliament.

Explain:

How?

When was the last time this instrument was used?

These legal instruments are: “The Royal Assent” and “The Royal Prerogative”.

They are provided to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ and, they have been specifically designed for only one purpose, the protection of the “Crown’s Subjects’. They have no other purpose at all.

One of these ‘legal instruments’ the “Royal Assent” is provided in order that, the ‘Reigning Monarch’; whose duty it is to protect the Crown’s Subjects; shall monitor parliament and the Bills and Laws created by parliament, in order to see whether they are created honestly and without corruption; granting the “Royal Assent” if they are in the interests of the country and the Crown’s Subjects; refusing, the ‘Assent’ if they are not.

The Royal Assent has not been refused since 11^th March 1708, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland.

 Question 7.

It is universally believed throughout our land, and, the British People have always been taught, that the most important thing about the 'Glorious Revolution' is that it provided Parliament with its "Supremacy".

But, is this the most important feature of the 'Glorious Revolution’?

What other more important features did it produce?

Parliaments “Supremacy” is not the most important feature provided by the “Glorious Revolution”.

The most important feature of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ and the CONVENTION (Parliament) it created; is the paragraph within the ‘Bill of Rights 1689’ created by the ‘Rights Committee’; for the protection of the people. This paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed” over-rules all other ‘Premises’ of the Bill, including, even the “Supremacy” of parliament itself, whenever parliament ‘prejudice the people’.

This is the most important feature provided by the, “Glorious Revolution”.

 Question 8.

King James the Second was removed from the English throne.

Explain:

How and why?

What affect does this have on the present 'Reigning Monarch' of today?

KING JAMES II was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 for, “Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People”. The CONVENTION ruled and determined that he had thereby ‘abdicated’ his duty and that thereby he had ‘abdicated’ the throne. The CONVENTION declared the throne was, Vacant. And, Prince William of Orange was offered the throne. He accepted, and, became the next King.

This decision of the CONVENTION affects not only the present ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the throne; but, also all other ‘Reigning Monarch’s’ in the “Line of Succession” who would also occupy the throne. For, the CONVENTION ruled in respect the “Lineal Descent”, that, “The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed, if the Successor broke the Contract, they too can be Deposed”.

 

Question 9.

In order for a country to be a true democracy certain criterion must apply.

What are these conditions?

Does your country meet this criterion?

Explain how and why?

In any country claiming to be a, DEMOCRACY, only one criterion applies:

A, GOVERNMENT AND A PARLIAMENT, WHERE THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES.

DEMOCRACY; is, “Government of the people, by the people, and, for the people.”

All other forms of Government are naught, but, the Totalitarian Regime.

 

Question 10.

In the UK National Census of 2011 the total adult population (being over the age of 20)

was declared to be 48,085,800.

Explain:

How many are there in the total membership of all the political parties, in the country?

Is it right that this tiny minority dominates and controls virtually every aspect of life, in the country?

How is this political party domination and control maintained?

 

The political parties in the country treat their Membership numbers as a ‘State Secret’ and, as highly confidential. Only the Labour Party immediately revealed these numbers when asked. The Tory and Liberal parties arrogantly refused to disclose. However, by diligent research it was ascertained that the total political party Membership in the country, was slightly less than, 400,000.

Is it right that this ‘less than 400,000’ should dominate and control virtually every aspect of the life of the, very slightly less, than 48,085,800 adults in the land; this is wrong; and, it is positively obscene.

This domination and control of the political parties in and over our lives is unlawfully maintained by the activities of the political party WHIPS in parliament; political, activities, having no legality, at all.

 

Question 11.

If you vote in General Elections,

What do you vote for?

What should you be voting for?

In General Elections the people afforded the right and the privilege of voting; they should be voting in order to select their ‘political representative’ to represent them and their interests in parliament.

THEY SHOULD NOT BE VOTING FOR A POLITICAL PARTY.

 

Question 12.

What is the "Original Contract”?

Explain in full detail:

How it came about?

What it is for? 

The ‘Original Contract’ is an unwritten contract; but, it is fully entrenched and established in Law. It derives from the long since distant days of the past, when there were many ‘Lords’ and ‘Kings’, constantly fighting each other for power and control. The, common people of the land, the, ‘serfs’, of that time; would give ‘allegiance’ to their Lord and Master for the protection of their, Lord and Master. And, when the British Monarchy was first formed this ‘idea’ was then adopted, as the requirement, of a King.

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

That, is the basis and the, concept, of the ‘Original Contract’.

What is it for? The ‘Original Contract’ is the requirement upon every ‘Reigning Monarch’, in the, ‘Line of Succession’, requiring them to act as ‘Head of Government; to, monitor parliament, in order to verify that the Laws and Bills passed by parliament have been created without corruption; and, that they are, in the interests of the country and its people. The ‘contract’ requires the ‘Reigning Monarch’ to protect, all the ‘Crown’s Subjects from the tyranny of the ‘abuses’ and the ‘prejudice’ of parliament.

Any, ‘Reigning Monarch’, failing to honour the ‘Original Contract’; ABDICATES THE THRONE. Precedent in law for this is determined, by the fact, that KING JAMES II, a living and lawful King, was removed from the throne.

 

Please note:

If, you cannot answer, all these questions posed above.

It is not your fault. You are not to blame.

Blame, must be laid at the door of the crass negligence and the fault of the inadequate entire British education curriculum; and, the way, that you were taught.

 

TRAVESTY OF THE OSCAR PISTORIUS MURDER TRIAL

Nominated, for an Oscar,

In the next, United States Film Academy Awards, is,

OSCAR PISTORIUS
 

Nominated, and, supported by, ALEX CRAWFORD and SKY NEWS. He is nominated, for his brilliant acting, vomiting, whining, weeping, and, wailing in the feature: "Pistorius Murder Trial". They both support him and, promote his innocence.

What is so outstanding in his performance is that all this acting was not for the plight of the young woman he murdered. It is solely in response, to his own present plight.

That, performance, most certainly deserves an, OSCAR.

It really depends on 'how many' are fooled?

Verdicts of,

'NOT GUILTY' establishes that the entire 'jury' is fooled.

‘GUILTY’ proves beyond doubt, that no one is fooled at all.

The World waits with bated breath.  

BRITISH SO-CALLED 'FREE PRESS'...

The British so-called ‘Free Press’ is naught but a joke:

How rotten and corrupt this so-called "Free Press" is in our country today. And, how, 'selective' they are, in vilifying that which they do not like or, those, that they deem to have done something wrong.

When, ever has this so-called rotten 'Free Press and Media' turned its investigative searchlight upon the real injustices? As, highlighted here:

1. A 'Reigning Monarch' that has broken the Law every day throughout her entire reign?  ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not honoured the requirement and duty of all 'Reigning Monarchs' that sit upon the English throne, once, throughout her entire reign. She has failed to honour the 'Original Contract' requiring the, protection of the Crown's Subjects', throughout all of the time she has occupied the throne.

 

King James the Second was removed from the throne in 1688 by the CONVENTION (Parliament) for: "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People"; and, in respect to the 'Lineal Descent' (all subsequent 'Reigning Monarch's'), the CONVENTION ruled and determined that,

 

 "The Contract is as binding upon the Successor as well as it was on the Deposed if the Successor broke the Contract, the Successor can also be Deposed".

 

The ‘Original Contract’ is an unwritten contract founded upon the principle established in, Ole English Law, that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”. There are many who today claim that there is no such thing as the ‘Original Contract’, and, they claim, that as such, that it has no validity in Law. But, the very proof of its true existence and its establishment and entrenchment in ‘English Law’ is determined by the fact, that King James II was removed from the throne for, “Breaking the Original Contract’; and, that, Prince William of Orange, then became the next King.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

2. The illegal activities of the political party WHIPS in parliament; whose political activities in Parliament 'prejudice the people' and, thereby, flout and breach the precedent of law set out in, "The Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

This paragraph, 'The Said Rights Claimed', set out within the 'Bill of Rights 1689' makes it abundantly clear that when Parliament 'enacts' its Supremacy, (legally afforded to Parliament by Article 9 of that Bill); or, if Parliament should 'enact' any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; Parliament should not 'prejudice the people'. The political party WHIPS and their political party activities within Parliament, thereby, has no legality at all.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

3. The British Judiciary has always denied the People of this country the right to test, question, or challenge Parliament from within, LAW. The judiciary has persistently, ever since the very creation of the 'Bill of Rights 1689' determined and ruled in their Courts that "Article 9" of this Bill, establishes, in, LAW, that Parliament and the business of Parliament cannot be challenged in the Courts. Yet, the very same 'Bill of Rights 1689', if it is read and interpreted correctly, and, in its entirety, determines to the contrary, that anyone may challenge Parliament from within LAW; whenever Parliament 'prejudice the people'. The, paragraph within the Bill, "The Said Rights Claimed", verifying that right.

For more than 326 years the British Judiciary has denied the British people that right.

 When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.
 

4. Each 'Reigning Monarch' of England sitting upon the throne is charged with the responsibility of honouring the 'Original Contract' requiring the, protection of the Crown's Subjects; protecting them from the tyranny of the abuses and the prejudice of parliament.

In order for each Monarch, to carry out that duty, each 'Reigning Monarch' is provided with two legal instruments to assist them in carrying out that role. These legal instruments are: the Royal Assent and the Royal Prerogative. These two legal instruments have been solely designed in order that the 'Reigning Monarch' can protect the People. They have no other function or purpose at all.

The Royal Assent provides each 'Reigning Monarch' with the right and duty to monitor parliament and the Laws and Bills passed by parliament in order to see whether they have been created and passed honestly in parliament, without corruption; to, grant, or, to refuse to grant, the Royal Assent, as the case maybe.

It is interesting to note: that the last time a British 'Reigning Monarch' refused to grant the Royal Assent, was on the 11^th March 1708, when Queen Anne refused it, for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland.

 

Thus, the British People, are then expected to believe, that every Law or Bill passed by Parliament since the 11th March 1708, is honest and without corruption. Yet, that is positively absurd. Hundreds of Bills and Laws have been created and passed in parliament under the influence of the political party WHIPS; yet, as already established above, the political activities of the WHIPS in parliament has no legality at all.

 

Today, the British do not have a ‘Reigning Monarch’ sitting upon the English throne; they merely have a village sub-postmistress franking and rubber-stamping every piece of paper laid before her, by parliament. Today, the British ‘Reigning Monarch’, abdicates the throne.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.

 

5. The Royal Prerogative provides each 'Reigning Monarch' with three options:

(a), to advise Ministers of Government.

(b), to warn Ministers of Government.

(c), whenever the wishes of the people are in direct conflict with the actions of the legislators, (Parliament), to order the dissolution of Parliament.

 

Yet, when, in the aftermath of the democratic General Election of 2010, when the people had voted in order to determine firstly, that no political party should have a majority in Parliament, and, secondly, that there should be a "Conservative led Minority Government"; the leaders of the political parties elected to Parliament in that election, did not like that 'People's Verdict'; so, they determined, that they could 'ignore' the People's vote and thence to proceed to create a government entirely on their own. In 'ignoring' the People's vote in this way they 'prejudiced the people'; and, thereby flouted and breached the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

 

Here, then, was the clear evidence that, "The wishes of the people had been directly in conflict with the actions of parliament"; yet, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, did absolutely nothing. She did not intervene to protect her people.. She ought to have ordered the immediate dissolution of Parliament. In consequence, today, the British People are being governed by an illegal coalition administration, that was not ‘elected’ at all.

  When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.

 

6. The British People have no right of access to:

A. written constitution;

A. proper 'Bill of Rights'; setting out the 'true citizenship'; and, the rights, and the responsibilities of, CITIZENS.

A. 'Supreme Court of Law'; where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of parliament, from within, Law.

There is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the English throne, charged with the responsibility of protecting 'Subjects'; yet, she provides no protection at all.

The consequence of all of this, wholly verifying, that the British, have no protection of law at all.

When has the so-called free press, ever turned its searchlight upon this.


A FREE PRESS?
No, not, at all. A, corrupt and rotten Press and Media, that does not investigate the wrong doing of the 'elite and the establishment' which it promotes and props up constantly. A, Press and Media, that does not report 'news'; but wickedly, speculates, assumes, and invents, all of the time. It, also elects to hurt, wound, vilify and defame, all it sets its sights upon.

 

In this nigh, "Totalitarian State", Britain has now become, the so-called, ‘Free Press and Media’, are the very worst tyranny of all.

 

 The 'elite' and the 'establishment' of Monarchy, Parliament, Politicians and the political parties; and, the Judiciary; all look upon 'LAW' as being something only the common people must obey. Whilst, they all, with impunity, flout and breach law every day.

PARLIAMENT REFORM..

Parliamentary Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

 

Written evidence submitted by Gordon J Sheppard (VUK 57)

 

1. There is only one major reform necessary; and, that is that Parliament must recognize that the People of this country in General Elections, 'elect' their representative to represent them in Parliament; they do not 'elect' a political party; and that therefore Parliament ought to be, a "People's Parliament".

 

2. Sadly, today, the 'People' have hardly any influence at all. Parliament, unlawfully, is wholly dominated and controlled by the political parties.

 

3. This wicked domination and control of the political parties is maintained in parliament by the political party WHIPS. The WHIPS countermand, overrule and supplant all rightful influence placed upon Members of Parliament by the Constituents; and, thereby 'prejudice the people'.

 

4. "Prejudice of the People" is wholly outlawed and proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed".

 

5. This paragraph in the Bill of Rights 1689, designed and created by the Rights Committee  of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, was solely designed for the protection of the People; and, it specifically requires and instructs parliament that when parliament 'enacts' its SUPREMACY (afforded to parliament by 'Article 9' of that Bill), or 'enacts' any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that parliament should not, 'prejudice the people'.

 

6. Thereby, whenever Parliament does 'prejudice the people' the very SUPREMACY of parliament becomes null and void. Thus determining by 'precedent of law' that the political party activities of the WHIPS in parliament, is wholly illegal and unlawful, and has no legal validity at all.

 

7. The WHIPS in parliament should therefore be abolished.

 

8. Every vote taken in parliament should be a FREE VOTE.

 

9. Thus, creating a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 

CONCLUSION

Sooner or later the People of Great Britain will secure their rightful access to LAW; where it is possible to test, question, and challenge the 'abuses' and the 'prejudice' of parliament from within law. Sooner or later the People of this great country will awake from their 'political' apathy and, the slumbers of the middle ages, emerging into the bright sunlight of the 21st Century; when they will destroy the present dominance and control of their 'elected' parliament, by the political parties. Sooner or later, Britain will create a TRUE DEMOCRACY.

 Sooner or later Parliament must recognize that at present the People (the 'common people' of this land have no protection of 'LAW' whatsoever. They have no true Citizenship recorded in Law; they have no 'written constitution', or proper 'Bill of Rights'; or access to a "Supreme Court of Law" where it is possible to test, question, or challenge the abuses and the prejudice of parliament from within law.

Furthermore, although there is a 'Reigning Monarch' sitting upon the throne charged with the responsibility and duty to honour the 'Original Contract' and provide the protection of the Crown's Subjects; throughout her entire reign, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, has miserably failed to provide any protection at all. Today, the British do not have a 'Reigning Monarch'; they have a village sub-postmistress franking and rubber-stamping every piece of paper laid before her by parliament.

 LAW today in Great Britain is looked upon by the elite and the establishment as being something that only the 'common people' must obey. Whilst, they, abuse and flout 'LAW' all of the time.

HISTORY:

King James the Second was removed from the throne by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688 for "Breaking the Original Contract betwixt King and People". The CONVENTION determined that he had thereby, 'abdicated the throne'; the throne was declared "Vacant" and Prince William of Orange was offered the throne. The CONVENTION, however, did not want the same problems and interference it had to endure from 'James II' and so therefore the CONVENTION appointed a Rights Committee to create a Bill that would protect parliament, from this interference by a King. The Rights Committee therefore knew at the beginning of their task, that the Bill was only necessary and required in order to protect parliament from a King. It was never intended to protect parliament from the people. And, so the Rights Committee had the responsibility, with any Bill that they created, to protect the people from any abuse. They had to ensure that the Bill that they created would not be misused or wrongly interpreted by parliament; and, therefore they created for insertion within their Bill the overruling paragraph guaranteeing the peoples protection.

 

Firstly, the Rights Committee set out a complete list of 'Articles' or 'Rights' that Parliament claimed from a King; then directly below this list they inserted the paragraph, "The Said Rights Claimed" and this 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”

Note: Everyone assumes that the most important feature of the "Glorious Revolution" and the "Bill of Rights 1689" is that it provides parliament with its SUPREMACY and its protection from a King. But, this is not the most important feature at all; the true most important feature of all of this is, that it provided the PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE from within law. It specifically determines that parliament may have its SUPREMACY but only on the conditions as determined by the "Said Rights Claimed".

The most interesting feature of all of this is that the "Said Rights Claimed" restricts parliament from 'amending' or even 'abolishing' the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, in order for parliament to try to do either; actually creates, 'prejudice of the people'. Parliament is thereby prevented from amending or abolishing the Bill on two counts: firstly, because it breaks the Law; secondly, the people have their protection afforded by "The Said Rights Claimed". They will never permit parliament taking that protection away.

 25 March 2014