Parliament Whips, Infringements of Human Rights Act.

Article 2

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected in law”.

The Offices, procedures and practises of the Whips in parliament infringes Article 2 by denying and overruling the constituent’s right to life and living, and supplants that rightful freedom of action, to influence a Member of Parliament; by supplanting that right, with the dictat of the political parties.

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to inhuman treatment.”

What could be more inhuman than denying the right of ‘freedom of action’ to participate unhindered in the democratic processes of elected government.

The Offices, procedures and Practises of the Whips in parliament infringes Article 3 by supplanting and over-ruling ‘the constituents rightful influence’ upon their Member of Parliament’, countermanding that influence, and instructing the Member of Parliament upon how they should vote; thus introducing the intervention of the dictat of the political parties; is inhuman treatment indeed.

Article 5

“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person”

The Offices, procedures and Practises of the Whips in parliament infringes Article 8 by demolishing the security of person and right to self determination in the manner in which the constituent rightfully influences his or her Member of Parliament; and, supplants all of that right; with the dictat of a political party. Under such an arrangement constituents have no security of person at all.

Article 8

“Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”

The Offices of the Whips in parliament and their procedures and practises involved in the democratic processes of parliament, infringes Article 8, because it interferes in the constituents right of correspondence. The right to influence a Member of Parliament, and the manner in which the constituent applies that influence, which can rightfully be determined as ‘correspondence’; within the meaning and intent of Article 8.

Article 9

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”

The Offices of the Whips in parliament and their procedures and practices involved in the democratic processes of parliament, infringes Article 9, because it intervenes and over-rules the constituents right to influence their Member of Parliament unhindered; and supplants that right of influence, with the dictat of a political party.

It infringes the right to impart to a Member of Parliament ‘freedom of thought’ and ‘conscience’ in respect to political matters, and law making.

Article 10

“Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority “

The Offices of the Whips in parliament and their procedures and practices involved in the democratic processes of parliament, infringes Article 10, because it interferes with the constituents right of ‘freedom of expression’, and their ‘right to receive and impart information and ideas’ to a Member of Parliament in order to influence, without interference from any source. The Whips do interfere in that process. The Whips supplant all the constituents’ right of influence, with the dictat of a political party.

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

The key criterion here in understanding how the Offices of the Whips in parliament and their procedures and practices involved in the democratic processes of parliament infringes Article 14; is in the true examination, of the influence of the political parties in respect of the manner in which the British People are governed and the political process. And, the ‘discrimination’ involved.

FACT: 1

There are 61.2 Million People in the United Kingdom today.

There are 40.88 Million People who are classified as adult.

FACT: 2

As of 15 March 2010 the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties shows the number of registered political parties as 367 in Great Britain, and 46 in Northern Ireland; they are listed as follows,

• 174 parties have their name registered for use only in England

• 1 party has its name registered for use in England and Scotland.

• 9 parties have their name registered for use in England and Wales.

• 156 parties have their name registered for use in England, Scotland and Wales.

• 17 parties have their name registered for use only in Scotland.

• 10 parties have their name registered for use only in Wales.

• 46 parties are on the register in Northern Ireland, including the Conservative Party who will fight elections in the province under a new joint-ticket agreement with the Ulster Unionist party.

• 6 parties are registered as "Minor Parties", who stand for elections to community councils (in Wales) or parish councils (in England) under slightly modified electoral legislation.

FACT: 3

Conservatives retained the largest individual membership of any British political party until the 1990s, with membership peaking at nearly 3 million in the early 1950s. By the mid-1990s, membership had substantially declined and stabilised at around 400,000. The Daily Telegraph report in July 2008 that the last official party estimate registered 290,000 members in 2006.13 A subsequent News Of The World report in December 2008 claimed to have uncovered Conservative Party documents showing that membership had fallen to 250,000 – if correct, this would imply a 40,000 drop over the duration of David Cameron’s leadership.

Labour Party membership remained relatively constant through the 1980s and early 1990s, before experiencing a rise as Tony Blair led a major membership drive in the mid-1990s. Having reached 405,000 in 1997, membership has since steadily declined every year to reach 166,000 in 2008.

Liberal Party membership peaked in the 1980s – reaching approximately 183,000 in 1983 and 138,000 in 1987.17 However, doubt over the accuracy over their figures arises from the sudden reduction that appears to occur once membership figures provided by the party became available in 1988. Alternatively, this departure in the series could be explained by a reduction in membership resulting from the merging of the two parties to form the Liberal Democrat Party in 1988. Shortly following the inception of the Liberal Democrat Party, membership increased from around 80,000 to 100,000 – where it remained until 1996. However, between 1997 and 2001 membership fell steadily to reach approximately 70,000. Individual membership then remained fairly constant until 2006, where after it fell away to 60,000 in 2008.

FACT: 4

Individual party membership for the year 2008: Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat /000s

Conservative Labour Liberal

250,000 ? 166,000 60,000

Therefore; of the approximate total of the three most prominent political parties in the country and parliament, political party members only number, 476,000. Yet, the total adults in the country number 40.88 Million.

Yet, this total of only 476,000 Members of the three most prominent political parties involved in parliament and our legislation and law making; are provided by parliament with an unfair advantage; they are allowed to discriminate against, and, to the disadvantage of, a total of 40,404,000 adults in the country, who are not members of political parties at all. That ‘unlawful’ advantageous obscenity in favour of the political party members in parliament is ‘discrimination’ in parliament, on the widest possible scale.

The mere fact that the WHIPS in parliament can over-ride, over-rule, and supplant any right of the constituent influencing a Member of Parliament, with the instruction and the dictat of a political party, that has such little Membership representation in parliament and the country; is wholly obscene.

The ‘discrimination’, as illustrated, in all vivid clarity here, infringes Article 14; and it is proven here without a shadow of doubt.

The illegality of the WHIPS;

The ‘Offices’ procedures and practises of the WHIPS in Parliament profoundly 'prejudices' The People. The WHIPS were created and 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.”

Yet, 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 prevented The 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, it 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 Offices Procedures and Practises of the WHIPS in Parliament does ‘prejudice’ the People. And, thereby, those ‘offices’ and, those ‘procedures’; has no legality at all.

Illegal CONLIB Coalition Government

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

Religion - the case against blaphemy law..

RELIGION

The believer and the non-believer

In January 2008, a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the Government would consider the repeal of the blasphemy laws during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The Government is to consult with the Church of England and other churches before reaching a decision.

The Case against ‘Blasphemy’ Laws.

There is nothing wrong with religion, religious faith, or the religious conviction of individual humankind. Providing it is confined to the individual and to their right to believe. And, to their right to practice or worship what they believe. What is wrong, however, is when ‘believer’s’ collectively depart from that personal and individual right of faith and their right to practice that faith and worship; then seek to use ‘what they believe’ in such a manner that they claim “the right of truth and reality” for that belief. Claiming this as evidence of their right, to special consideration or claim in law for themselves. Or when they organize collective religious and political action in campaign for positive discrimination, in law, for special privileges, for themselves; or for the faith or fantasy, of which they believe.

Yet, in doing so, demand negative political discrimination, in law, for those that do not believe; what they believe.

This is wrong; because the belief, fantasy, or faith that they hold to; has no right of existence in Law. It simply does not exist as a reality in the scientific knowledge and experience of humankind. It only exists, as a faith or dream-like fantasy, for those that claim, that they believe. As such, what they believe has no legal right of existence in Law. Or right, to the protection of Law. All that can rightfully be given the protection of Law is the individual’s right to believe, and, their right, to practice and worship, what they believe.

Thus, it is not possible, in Law, to defame or blaspheme God.

God, has no legal or lawful right of existence in Law. Therefore none can prove the existence of God in either life or in Law. It must then follow that in truth, freedom, justice, intelligence, logic and rationale; that none can defame or blaspheme God; in Law.

Thus, the Law of Blasphemy is not a rightful Law upholding or enforcing or even protecting the existence of God. It is an abuse of Law. Or sheer legal trickery. In that it provides and ensures, the protection of the believer and their claim to special positive and illegal discrimination, for themselves; and for their faith or for what they believe; on the grounds, that what they believe, is ‘sacred’ to them. And, therefore, may not be ridiculed, questioned, challenged or attacked.

However, that belief fantasy or faith, is only ‘sacred’ to the believer.

It is not ‘sacred’ to the non-believer. Yet, the non-believer has the same or ‘equal’ right in Law, to doubt or not believe. Because the right to ‘not believe’ to the non-believer, is as ‘sacred’ to them, as the right to ‘believe’ is ‘sacred’ to the believer.

In Law, both the believer and the non-believer are entitled to ‘equality in law’ and to the same human rights. Special consideration or positive discrimination for the believer, over the rights of the non-believer, has no right in Law. Yet, in “Blasphemy Laws”, the believer is provided with that right of discrimination, over the non-believer. That is not right, nor lawful, nor just.

None of humankind has ever returned from dying to prove that there is a life after death.

In consequence, therefore, there is no legal or scientific proof that there is that ‘life’ after death. Thus, none can prove that there is a God. Until such times as there is this legal and scientific proof, of the existence of God, this faith held by the believer, must be determined, in Law, as being naught but the rightful, personal, yet fanciful faith, of the believer. But, that belief, and that faith, held by the believer, has no foundation of reality in the legal or scientific sense. As such it has no rightful claim for lawful validity, or for the protection of Law. What is believed simply does not exist in Law. And, therefore, may not be accorded the protection of Law. What the believer believes cannot be given the protection of Law. All that may be given the protection of Law, in respect to religion, is the believers right to believe.

It is only the individual Human being, having that faith, and which faith is ‘sacred’ to them, that may be given the protection of Law. That protection: for their right to believe. But, that protection of Law, does not lawfully or legally prevent or exclude, that faith or that belief, held by the believer, (or any faith, or any religion), from the rightful probe, challenge, attack or ridicule, of the non-believer. Because in Law the non-believer has the same or equal right as the believer: to believe or not to believe. Yet, Blasphemy Laws deny the non-believer that right.

Such rightful probe challenge attack or ridicule, must be lawful, for it is the faith or fantasy of what is believed that is challenged and attacked; and not the believer, who holds that faith, and has every right, in Law, to believe.

For the doubter and the non-believer, the claim of the believer, of the existence and reality of ‘God’ has no more rightful or legal validity of claim or, of making sense, than to claim the existence of Santa Claus. To the non-believer, it is naught but a fairy tale. Thus, the non-believer has every right to challenge and question that myth. Especially when it is the non-believer’s life and freedom that is attacked through the unjust favours of, positive discrimination, awarded in Law, to the believer. In true and just Law, the believer may say and claim “I believe there is a God”; but the believer may not claim, “That there is a God”.

Law may uphold the believer’s right and, provide protection for the former claim, but Law, may not uphold the believer’s right of claim or provide protection, for the latter claim. Because there are none, in religion, or in law, or in the entire experience of humankind, that can prove that ‘God.’ exists.

In ‘consenting to live by the rule of Law’ both the believer and the non-believer are entitled to equal rights; and to equal protection of Law. The believer, for the right to believe; and the non-believer, for the right to doubt or not believe.

For these reasons, the Blasphemy Laws, is an abuse of Law.

Britain today is no longer a so-called ‘Christian’ country. There are as many, if not more, ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’, as there are believers. Today, also, there are vast numbers of ‘ethnic’ citizens following their own numerous faiths and religions. The so-called ‘Christians’ of this country are no longer entitled to the privileges of discrimination for themselves and for their religion, that they presently hold.

The ‘atheist’, the ‘non-believer’ and the ‘doubter’, are as entitled to the same recognition and entitlement, in Law, and, to the same voice and participation in our national media and, in the life of the nation, as the believer. To that end: ‘atheists’, ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’ are just as entitled to sit on the Boards and Quango’s, as the believers.

When ‘Reverend Gentlemen’ can sit on the Board of the Broadcasting Standards Council; and other organizations; representing their ‘God’ and their own vested religious interests, on every issue that comes before them for consideration; ‘Atheists’ ‘non-believers’ and ‘doubters’ are as entitled to the same representation.

When each Sunday religion is broadcast ‘pumped into British homes’ in radio and television transmissions paid for out of an imposed common statutory license fee. The ‘non-believers’ are just as entitled to the same ‘airtime’, for them to be featured in programming and, for them, to proselytize and ‘recruit’, as the believer.

The time has come for so-called ‘Christianity’ to be cut down to size.

The, ‘atheist’, ‘non-believer’, and ‘doubter’, should put massive pressure on both Government and Law. They should challenge Members of Parliament and the entire British broadcasting and media, for their rightful voice to be heard. To secure that rightful voice and participation; And, to abolish the present discrimination, tearing up the Blasphemy Laws.

Gordon J.

Poem: What have you been doing today daddy?

“Porton Down”

(Her Majesty’s Government Chemical Weapons Establishment)

What did you do today Daddy?

Mummy and me had a lovely time

We went to the park

The sun was bright, the clouds were white

The sky, was Oh! so blue

There was nice green grass

Beautiful flowers, big tall trees

Singing birds and buzzing bees

What did you do today Daddy?

The Scientist:

I had a lovely time today darling

I tested X today, darling

I wore a pure white coat, black rubber boots and gloves

And a shiny black mask

I squirted X on a little white rabbit

And I watched it kick, scream, bleed, vomit, squirm and die

Nobody questioned, nobody asked

I can but wonder why

I had a lovely time today, darling

I tested X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.
What did you do today Daddy?

The Workers:

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I pressed a button; I turned a switch; I pulled a lever

I picked it up; I put it down; I turned it round;

I inspected it;

I poured it out; I bottled it;

I stored it;

I only typed the work schedules; I only made the tea;

I only manned the switchboard, anyone can see;

I lifted it; I moved it from here to there;

Where’s it going? I know not where

As long as we are alright, darling, I just don’t care

I had a lovely time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

Parliament:

I had a boring time today, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I sat in the House of Commons, the People’s Parliament

I saw the WHIPS today, darling, and voted as was meant

Forgive me, darling, I’m not bold

I vote, the way I’m told

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I must wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

What did you do today Daddy?

Everyman:

Today, as everyday, darling

I helped make X today, darling

I conformed

I paid my taxes

I obeyed the law

From life and responsibility, I abstain

From participation, I withdraw

I helped make X today, darling

I’m hungry; I’ll wash my hands and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling

The dissident.

Today I saw news on TV and I despair, darling

In dissent, I tried once more

To stop all war

In hearts and minds, darling

I’m sick, I cannot think, I cannot bear

Those Kurdish children, dead, just lying there

Hear the protests “We’re not to blame

For this crime committed, in our name”

Yet, all are guilty, just the same

I try each day to stop X, darling

If I say ‘NO’ I have my say

Taxation, if I refuse to pay

Will stop all wars, darling

From screaming ‘STOP’ my throats real sore

Participation, tis the Rule of Law

I’m so tired

I’ll try and eat now

Ask Mummy, what’s for tea today, darling.

When I wrote this, I wrote “X” as above. We now know it to be, “VX”

Its real name isn’t important. What is important, is to recognize, that in the life of Humankind, it seems, that there will always be an “X”

Throughout my life I have always wondered: How can any Human being become involved in the filth and obscenity of the creation and production of conventional, nuclear, or chemical weapons?

How do they do it? - And - What do they say to their children when they go home each night; when that child says:

What have you been doing today, Daddy?

For myself, I am convinced: If you are involved in the creation of weaponry - in any way - YOU, are always responsible, for what those weapons do.

Gordon J.

Constitutional Monarchy - understanding the implications:

Wickipedia Encyclopaedia in the section “Constitutional monarchies today” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Displays this information:

“In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.”

Particular attention should be paid to these words:

A. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians,

B. the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

It will be noted that throughout all the references to “Constitutional Monarchy” in the Wickipedia encyclopedia, they all refer to the options of Monarchy. Never ever to the People (or Subjects). Monarchy chose and elected to become a “Constitutional Monarchy” of its own volition, without any consultation whatsoever with its Subjects. That the Reigning Monarch was required to protect. In the Reigning Monarch’s relinquishing that responsibility and, that role, and, in becoming a “Constitutional Monarchy”; The People (or Subjects) were completely ignored. Not considered at all.

With reference to “A” above: an ‘interventionist monarch” protecting “Subjects” from the abuses or illegal actions by politicians; is not an option of the ‘Reigning Monarch’; it is an absolute requirement of the duty of Monarchy, and, of the Reigning Monarch, as determined by the compact it has with the people: “The Original Contract”.

The Original Contract is an 'unwritten' contract betwixt King and Subject. For the Subjects protection. It exists, and it is entrenched in English Law. It is best described by Henry Powle The Speaker of the Convention parliament of 1688. He, speaking in the special conference held in the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons, to determine whether King James the Second had 'abdicated the throne', said this:

"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."

The Reigning Monarch is required to provide protection of its Subjects, in this way. Each Reigning Monarch in the line of succession is required to Act as ‘Head of Government’ – monitoring parliament – in the interests and protection of its Subjects. Failure to protect the People (Subjects), automatically ‘breaks the original contract’; and thereby abdicates the Throne’.

In “B” above it will be seen that Monarchy chooses or elects to abandon “Absolute Monarchy” – and all of its responsibilities – to its Subjects; as enshrined in the “Original Contract”; and reverts to the lesser role of ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ purely in vested interests of its own. And, yet, in doing so, in the Great Britain case, makes no attempt of provision of a new ‘contract’ with its Subjects. No attempt was, or is made to release Subjects from their statutory obligation: of giving allegiance to the Reigning Monarch for as long as a Monarch shall reign.

Sir George Treby in his speech at the Convention (Parliament) of 1688 in the special debate with both Commons and Lords, at the request of the Commons, as to whether King James the Second had “abdicated the throne”. Made a very important speech in this regard. The Commons had declared that James II had “broken the original contract between King and People” and that thereby “The Throne was Vacant”. In this debate held in the Painted Chamber, both Commons and Lords considered whether this was true. The Lords, being required to give consent to what the Commons had declared. Speaking of King James II Sir George Treby said this:

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.'' (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

In reality; this is exactly what British Monarchy said, and did, when it became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. It "Assumed another Title to itself". It abandoned its duty. In England and in English Law the Reigning Monarch cannot ‘break the original contract’ and remain on the Throne. In failing to act as “Head of Government, monitoring parliament, and protecting Subjects: abdicates the Throne. Either there is an “Absolute Monarchy” or “No Monarchy” at all.

The Throne Is Vacant. Why? Because each succeeding Monarch in the ‘line of succession’ ever since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has ‘broken the original contract’ and has abdicated 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 paid as to what the Earl of Clarendon says about this in the same ‘Convention’ debate. He also was speaking about King James II but, as he says here, it applies also to each succeeding Reigning Monarch as well:

“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.” (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

Monarchy failed to understand that. Or simply did not care. When, it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. Parliament made no provision for the ‘Subject’ either. No one thought about the ‘Subject’ at all. No one re-negotiated with the ‘Subject’ for a new ‘contract’ for their protection; protecting them from the abuses of the ‘business’ of parliament and parliamentarians. There was no provisions of a written constitution, or a Bill of Rights, or access to a Supreme Court of Law. When the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy’ the Subject wound up, with no protection (in law) at all. It is impossible to fully understand all the ‘implications’ of “Constitutional Monarchy” without the full knowledge and understanding of all of this.

References: ‘Convention Speeches’, “Parliamentary History of the Glorious Revolution” by David Lewis Jones, published by Her Majesties Stationery Office, ISBN 0 11 701390 0. First published 1988.

CENSORSHIP - Whatever your God?

Whatever your God? Or whoever or whatever you believe created humankind; there is one irrefutable fact about our creation that applies to all. Barring the unfortunate handicapped; whatever created humankind, provided for all of humankind extraordinary and wonderful gifts.

The Gifts of the Senses.

All of humankind is equipped with eyes to see, ears to hear, a tongue to speak, and hands to communicate with. And with, a 'brain', for analysis, in order that we may determine what we might do or think.

Thus; It was the intention of the CREATOR that we should be able to receive and transmit, All Ideas.

ALL IDEAS IN COMPETITION FOR THE MINDS OF HUMANKIND.

In the “Realm of Ideas” everything is valid:

Peace is as valid as War.

Pornography is as valid as the Bible.

Communism is as valid as Capitalism.

Black is as valid as White.

Anti is as valid as Pro.

If it was the intention of the CREATOR that all humankind should be free to receive and transmit All Ideas. How dare any of humankind, have the arrogance, to 'attempt to intervene' in the intent of the creator.

Those that are of religion (whatever their religion) should ask themselves:

If, God has so made me so that I am able to receive and transmit All Ideas.

What right do I have to interfere or challenge God’s intent and purpose?

Were humankind not designed to receive and transmit All Ideas, then surely God would not have created humankind, as we are.

If God gave me eyes to see, I should see everything.

If God gave me ears to hear, I should hear everything.

If God gave me a tongue to speak, I should speak anything.

If God gave me hands to write, I should write anything.

If God gave me a brain to use, I should use it.

And, determine every thing for myself.

CENSORSHIP has nothing whatsoever to do with God; Or with, “The Creator”.

CENSORSHIP is solely the obscene and arrogant intervention of MAN. (Humankind as a species)

CENSORSHIP is always activated by those that are intent on CONTROL.

There isn't the slightest justification for it, in the intent of God.

Censorship, and the role of the Censor, is so very futile. Because as soon as any of humankind know that they, or anything, is censored; they will do their utmost to find out what has been denied. And ‘truth’ will always emerge in due course.

Throughout the entire history of humankind this has always been so. These three instances serve as demonstration:

Akhenaten(or rarely: Ikhnaton) meaning Effective spirit of Aten first known as Amenhotep IV (sometimes read as Amenophis IV and meaning Amun is Satisfied), Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, is especially noted for attempting to compel the Egyptian population in the monotheistic worship of Aten. He ordered the defacing of Amun's (the previous rulers) temples throughout Egypt. He sent his army to destroy all trace of the previous religion, and its God. Akhenaten's reign (subject to the debates surrounding Egyptian chronology) are from 1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC–1334 BC.

In Soviet Russia under the savage dictatorship and tyranny of Joseph Stalin Members of the Ruling Council (The Politburo) that fell out of favor with Stalin, were frequently subjected to ‘trumped up’ treason trials and were executed. After execution Stalin ordered the removal of their image from all official photographs. Their names faces and their very lives excised from all view.

In the United Kingdom the British Government censored the book “Spycatcher”.

It banned the distribution and sale of the book throughout the UK despite its open sale overseas. Mr. Peter Wright, the author, wrote Spycatcher upon retiring from MI5 and while residing in Australia; he attempted publication in 1985. The Government also attempted the banning of the book's publication in Australia as well, but lost that action in 1987; it appealed against that decision, but lost again in June 1988

British newspapers attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal allegations were served gag orders; and on persisting, they were tried for contempt of court. The charges later dropped. Throughout all this, quantities of the book were smuggled for secret sale in the U.K. In summer of 1987, a high court judge lifted the ban on newspaper reportage on the book, but, in late July, the Law Lords, again barred reportage of Wright's allegations. Eventually, in 1988, the book was cleared for legitimate sale when the Law Lords acknowledged that the overseas publication meant; it contained no secrets. Additionally, in November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British Government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its own newspapers. The British Government’s legal cost estimated was £250,000.

Censorship is always Futile: “Truth will out in the End”

Today, more than 4000 plus years later we know exactly what Pharoh Akenaten did. We know of all the ‘insignia’ that he had removed from the temples, we know all about the previous religion and its God, worshipped by Egyptian’s at that time. Everything that Akenaten tried to censor has subsequently been revealed.

Today, also, we know all that Joseph Stalin did. We know the names, and faces, of all that he tried to eradicate from ‘Soviet History’. That history, and all of those events, live on.

We can also see and ‘appreciate’ the utter foolishness of a ‘British Government’ that at exorbitant costs, attempted to censor a book.

Censorship is Futile: because it always fails.

However, there are grave dangers in censorship; and in tolerating censorship as well. As the history of Nazi Germany has shown:

The Nazi concept of a ‘pure German race’ as expounded by Adolf Hitler in his book “Mein Kampf” and, as carried out by his henchman Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Luitpold Himmler; brought about in Nazi Germany hatred of the Jew. Intent on the destruction of everything both Jew and ‘Jewish’, the Nazi’s burnt the books of Jewish writers and authors on huge bonfires throughout Germany. The famed picture of the ‘burning of the books at Nuremberg’, in order to eradicate the Jew, Was the very catalyst of the Holocaust.

Burning books to destroy Ideas, inevitably, ends up, in the burning of Man.

Ideas of humankind can never be destroyed. It is possible to destroy the human being; but never the Idea. Ideas always live on. Transmitted, one to the other, throughout the whole of humankind.

The Nazis tried their best to eradicate the Jew and ‘Jewish’ from Germany. But today both Jew and ‘Jewish’ lives on. And, thrives. We know all that the Nazis did in that terrible time. The censorship of Ideas; failed yet again.

Gordon J

Are the skids under parliament now?

In my blog “The State of the Nation (2008) I set out a clear and specific case that Monarchy (since it became a ‘Constitutional Monarchy’) has broken the ‘Original Contract’ and thereby, abdicates the Throne.

I further challenge both Parliament and the Courts over “The Supremacy of Parliament.”
I assert that for ‘their claim’ of that Supremacy; there is no ‘legality’ at all.

If you are concerned about the way that Parliament and Parliamentarians have behaved in recent times, and continue to behave now; with all the ‘Cash for Peerages’ affair and more recently ‘Members of Parliament employing and paying their own families to work in the Commons’ and ‘Illegal political party donations’. You might be so disturbed by all that you have read, and continue to see; that you might want to try and bring about change.

Make no mistake about it:

The Skids Are Under Parliament Now.

All of media has parliament in its sights now. And they are not going to let go.

Parliament is rotten, even corrupt, and it is time for massive reform. Day after day there are now more and more revelations of malpractice, fiddling expenses, deceit and spin; and it is obvious that the majority of our People, are sick and tired of all of it. And want change.

Read my blog “The State of the Nation (2008)” very carefully; then when you realize that for all of this, doing by parliament, as parliament pleases, without any right of challenge; in reality, has no legality at all. Understand that; ‘spread the word about my blog’; and we might bring about change.

With the right pressure by the People; demanding change we could now secure a written constitution, a Bill of Rights, and, a Supreme Court of Law. We could actually bring about the very necessary massive reform of Parliament now.

Finally, let me say this: I am quite prepared, and will accept, anyone having the right to determine that I am an idiot, and even claim, that I am wrong. But in order for any to claim that I am wrong, they must first do two things. They must ‘enter the debate’ and they ‘must prove’ that I am wrong.

GordonJ