DEFAMATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS

 

That right-wing Tory arrogant freak, JULIAN SMITH MP; the Chief WHIP in Parliament, readily asserts that he will 'sue' anyone who makes defamatory remarks or claims in respect to the WHIPS activities in parliament.

 

Well, let the bastard 'sue' me; because I specifically loathe the WHIPS in parliament continually depriving me of access to a 'true democracy'; and, I assert and claim, that by 'precedent of law' the political party WHIPS in Parliament, has no legality at all.

 

I ASSERT THAT THE FUCKING POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT AND THEIR UNDEMOCRATIC ACTIVITIES IN PARLIAMENT, HAS NO FUCKING LEGALITY AT ALL.

 

Is that sufficient ‘defamation of the Whips activities’ for JULIAN SMITH to ‘sue’ me? Perhaps not; so what if I accused JULIAN SMITH (as Chief WHIP) of behaving like ADOLF HITLER, and provide the ‘evidence of proof’; that, should be sufficient for him to carry out his ‘promise’, to sue.

 

TODAY ACTS MOTIONS AND BILLS ARE BEING CREATED AND PASSED IN PARLIAMENT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF JULIAN SMITH MP AND THE WHIPS; IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY AS ADOLF HITLER AND THE NAZIS CREATED THEIR OWN LAW.

 

ADOLF HITLER HAD THE PERFECT LEGALITY TO CREATE HIS OWN LAW; BECAUSE HIS "ENABLING ACT" HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE GERMAN REICHSTAG (PARLIAMENT) BY 441 VOTES TO 94. BUT, THE BRITISH, "ENABLING ACT", THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT; HAS NO SUCH 'LEGALITY' AT ALL.

 

WHY?

 

Because, the WHIPS instruct elected Members of Parliament on how they should or must vote upon the issues presented to parliament for the vote; this overrules and supplants all 'rightful influence' that might have been placed upon those MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT by the constituents. This therefore creates the, “Prejudice of the People.”

 

Yet, "PREJUDICE OF THE PEOPLE", is wholly proscribed by the 'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed". This paragraph of the "Bill of Rights 1689", specifically instructs parliament, that parliament may enact any of the "PREMISES" of that Bill, providing that parliament, "OUGHT NOT PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE".

 

THE POLITICAL PARTY WHIPS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES IN PARLIAMENT DO "PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE"; AND, THEREFORE; AND, THEREBY; BY THIS 'PRECEDENT OF LAW'; THE WHIPS IN PARLIAMENT HAS NO LEGALITY AT ALL.

 

_{Note: The paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”, is the overall superior authority of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, It claims within its text, that it has the authority over all the “PREMISES” of the  Bill.}

 

 

_{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