ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORISM
And, the "Headless Chicken's" trying to combat it.......
Every time that there is a terrorist attack, all the Western World Leaders, Politicians, Security Experts, and Senior Military Officers; all rush around like "Headless Chicken's" pondering what to do next. All, consistently proclaim, "Life must go on as normal"; and, that this terrorism, "Has nothing to do with Islam".
But, none of them have even bothered to look for or at the, "CATALYST", which is the true cause of the problem.
Islamic Fundamentalism, DAESH, AL QEADA, or whatever the terrorist calls themselves, can never be beaten; because,
You can never defeat an, 'IDEA'
IDEAS of Humankind can never be beaten or destroyed. ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, is an IDEA. And, this is the "CATALYST" of the problem.
WHY DO YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ACT AS SUICIDE BOMBERS AND KILL THEMSELVES? This is what must be properly understood; to even properly understand and get to grips with the problem.
THEY WILLINGLY 'KILL THEMSELVES' FOR AN "IDEA".
And, that, "IDEA", is predicated in the ISLAMIC "QURAN".
The "Quran" specifically instructs every Muslim to perpetually harass and 'destroy' all, 'Unbelievers' -
"When Ye meet the Unbeliever in Fight, Smite at their necks" - (Sura 47 Ayat 4).
The "Quran" is prolific in providing instructions to every Muslim; ordering them to "continually' harass Unbelievers; force them to pay fines in order to survive; force them to 'convert'; and, if they refuse to convert, to kill them.
The, ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORIST, complies with these instructions implicitly; literally, 'word for word' as set out in the "Quran". That is why at ever terrorist atrocity, wholly innocent people are slaughtered. And, when they seize 'hostages'; those 'hostages' are then, 'forced to pay huge fines', 'forced to convert'; and, when they refuse to convert, they are then 'beheaded' or killed.
The, ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST TERRORIST, carries out the "QURAN's INSTRUCTIONS" to the very letter.
WHY? Because they implicitly believe in the "cause" and the "rewards" in "PARADISE"; that the "QURAN" promises:
In, KILLING AS MANY "UNBELIEVERS" AS POSSIBLE, the "ISLAMIC QURAN" promises every Muslim; that they will join with the 'Prophet Mohammed" in PARADISE, to be treated by 'virgins' catering to their every need.
This is why they strap that 'suicide belt' to their bodies and activate the bombs, killing themselves.
THEY DIE FOR A CAUSE. The Muslim Islamic Terrorist does not fear death; they ecstatically and religiously, welcome DEATH. And, they kill, as many 'unbelievers' as they can.
Every Islamic terrorist in Syria might be killed; but, within minutes, there will always be other Muslims being prepared to 'Wage the Jihad' that the "Quran" demands.
This is something that the "HEADLESS CHICKEN's" will never understand.
The Headless Chicken's
One of these "Headless Chicken's" (the British Foreign Secretary) proposes to spend 197 BILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money: 30 Billion Pounds for the building of four nuclear submarines, and, 167 Billion Pounds for the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system; which he asserts will protect Great Britain from any such attack. He must have meant this "Islamic Terrorist" threat; because, there is no such 'threat' from RUSSIA today.
Another, "Headless Chicken", a senior military officer and a so-called 'expert in warfare', proposes the immediate mounting of a "boots on the ground" force comprised of British, European, and NATO, troops to fight in 'hand to hand' combat in Syria, to defeat the terrorist forces prevailing there now.
These ludicrous resolutions to combat the "Islamic Terrorist" threat; is a futile as "KING CANUTE" trying to control the tides of the sea.
YOU CANNOT DEFEAT "ISLAMIC TERRORISM" like this
because, the Islamic "JIHAD" is an, IDEA. And, the 'terrorism' is predicated, by the Islamic, "QURAN".
The one remedy that might work:
ISLAM MUST BE TOLD TO, "PUT IT'S OWN HOUSE IN ORDER"; to, root out and 'give up' every terrorist within it's midst. And, to stop the, "Preaching" of Jihad.
ISLAM, Worlwide, has vast massive resources. If it can be persuaded to 'clean up' its own 'House'; this might bring about the cessation of the terrorism.
Yet, ISLAM will be faced with a huge dilemma in this; because, ISLAM, cannot either 'abolish' or 'amend' the Islamic "QURAN"; because the Prophet "Mohammed" himself has proclaimed within that, "Quran", that no one could write a better book; and, challenges, all Muslims to try.
HEADLESS CHICKENS, will never understand, "Dying for a Cause",
BOBBY SANDS killed himself starving and dying a horrible death in a British prison; he did this because the 'cause' that he wanted to highlight, the British domination and control of his own homeland, had no true legality at all. He killed himself, wholly believing in that, CAUSE.
ETHEL AND JULIUS ROSENBERG, COMMUNISTS, we're murdered by the Americans, putting them to death in the 'electric chair'. Yet, right up to the very moment of their execution they could easily have 'saved' themselves, all they had to do was to admit to 'Spying for Russia' and to 'name' others who had assisted them in that cause. The American State Prosecutors and Security Services were convinced that they would 'capitulate' when actually being scheduled to die, and, there was an official State representative executive waiting for the moment in the prison, when they would 'crack' and reveal all. But they both went to their deaths without admitting any guilt and without mentioning any 'names'. They, refused to betray their associates; dying for their,"Cause".
ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS are just as dedicated to their cause; and even more so; because, their cause is a, RELIGIOUS CAUSE.
RELIGION, throughout the history of Humankind; has always been responsible for the worst tyranny and terrorism, of all.
Gordon J Sheppard
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Friday, March 25, 2016
RADOVAN KARADZIC found guilty by War Crimes Trial...
WAR TRIAL TRIBUNALS, and, corruption.
THE
HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) - Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was
convicted of genocide and nine other charges on Thursday at a U.N. court,
and sentenced to 40 years in prison. The Yugoslav war crimes tribunal found
Karadzic guilty of orchestrating Serb atrocities throughout Bosnia's 1992-95
war that left 100,000 people dead.
The U.N. court found Karadzic criminally responsible for genocide in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in which 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered. He was also held criminally responsible for murder, attacking civilians and terror for overseeing the deadly 44-month siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, during the war.
However, the court didn't hold Karadzic responsible in a second genocide charge, for a campaign to drive Bosnian Muslims and Croats out of villages claimed by Serb forces. Karadzic had faced a total of 11 charges and a maximum life sentence, but was given 40 years imprisonment.
The U.N. court found Karadzic criminally responsible for genocide in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in which 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered. He was also held criminally responsible for murder, attacking civilians and terror for overseeing the deadly 44-month siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, during the war.
However, the court didn't hold Karadzic responsible in a second genocide charge, for a campaign to drive Bosnian Muslims and Croats out of villages claimed by Serb forces. Karadzic had faced a total of 11 charges and a maximum life sentence, but was given 40 years imprisonment.
Inserted
from <http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/karadzic-convicted-of-genocide-sentenced-to-40-years/ar-BBqSg4b?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=ansmsnnews11
This tribunal did not even consider or even mention the American culpability in respect to all of this; and these war crimes. The 'alleged' genocide of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre would not even happened at all; if America had not intervened and persuaded Alija Izetbegović to withdraw his name and his consent to the LISBON AGREEMENT, that he had already signed.
If that
Peace Plan had been adopted and carried through there would have been no
'SREBRENICA' MASSACRE at all.
The
Carrington-Cutilero Peace Plan
The original
Carrington-Cutileiro peace plan, named for its authors Lord Carrington and Portuguese ambassador José Cutileiro; resulted from the EC Peace Conference
held in February 1992 in an attempt to prevent Bosnia-Herzegovina sliding into
war. It was also referred to as the Lisbon Agreement (Serbo-Croatian: Lisabonski
sporazum). It proposed ethnic power-sharing on all administrative levels and
the devolution of central government
to local ethnic communities. However, all Bosnia-Herzegovina's districts would
be classified as Muslim, Serb or Croat under the plan, even
where no ethnic majority was evident.
On 11 March 1992, the "Assembly of the Republic of Serb Bosnia-Herzegovina" unanimously rejected
the plan, putting forth their own map which claimed almost two thirds of
Bosnia's territory, with a series of ethnically split cities and isolated
enclaves, and leaving the Croats and Muslims with a disjointed strip of land in
the centre of the republic. This plan was rejected by Cutileiro. However, he
put forth a revised draft of the original which stated that the three
constituent units would be "based on national principles and taking into
account economic, geographic, and other criteria."
On 18 March 1992, all three
sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats.
On 28 March 1992, after a
meeting with US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermannin Sarajevo, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and
declared his opposition to any division of Bosnia.
The Americans had
persuaded Alija Izetbegović to withdraw his
name, advising him that they had a far better solution to bring about the
recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, than signing this Treaty; they
proposed to 'bomb Serbia into submission' by merely waging war.
THUS: The AMERICANS
must bear the responsibility for, 'SREBRENICA' and all the other atrocities of
that war. Because they need not have happened.
THE HYPOCRISY
OF GENOCIDE
AMERICA drops
nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI, murdering and
maiming thousands of innocent civilians, excusing the responsibility, and, the
culpability, on the grounds that this "Saved American Lives". Yet
all those deaths were, GENOCIDE.
Great
Britain, and America dropped millions of tons of bombs on the civilian
population of Germany in World War II, evading the responsibility and the
culpability, by merely using the excuse that, "It was necessary to
win the war." Yet, every one of those deaths were, GENOCIDE.
THE
ONLY CRITERION IN, 'JUDGEMENT', FOR ALL OF THIS ATROCITY, SOLELY DEPENDS UPON,
WHETHER
'YOU ARE' THE VICTOR OR THE VANQUISHED.
Radovan
Karadzic did exactly the same as AMERICA and GREAT BRITAIN; as a ‘War Leader’
he was merely responsible for the "Waging of War".
Gordonj
Thursday, March 17, 2016
GEORGE OSBORNE's WICKED CUTS....
GEORGE OSBORNE in his budget, cuts disability
allowance.
Yet, with impunity both he and his rotten Tory government; and, a wholly totalitarian parliament, can readily approve the spending of BILLIONS OF POUNDS on armaments and weapons that the country does not really need.
167 BILLION POUNDS in the renovation and repair of the entire TRIDENT NUCLEAR MISSILE system.
Yet, with impunity both he and his rotten Tory government; and, a wholly totalitarian parliament, can readily approve the spending of BILLIONS OF POUNDS on armaments and weapons that the country does not really need.
167 BILLION POUNDS in the renovation and repair of the entire TRIDENT NUCLEAR MISSILE system.
PLUS,
MILLIONS OF POUNDS, (The total cost as yet not determined), in the building of a
'High Speed Train Link" between London and Birmingham, destroying hundreds
of homes and the present beautiful environment; just so that in travelling this
distance by train, the train will arrive in Birmingham ’20 minutes earlier’
than it does now.
This is the 'totalitarian Governing' that the British endure now. Consider,
NICE, the, "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" is the governments scrutinizer of all National Health spending; NICE investigates in the finest detail how much the NHS can afford, or refuse, in respect to all medicines and medical treatments, for those in need.
NICE, the, "National Institute for Health and Care Excellence" is the governments scrutinizer of all National Health spending; NICE investigates in the finest detail how much the NHS can afford, or refuse, in respect to all medicines and medical treatments, for those in need.
NICE continually refuses to allow
treatments and medicines necessary to those that desperately need that
treatment, solely on the 'criterion' that the NHS cannot afford to pay for all
medical need; because it would cost too much.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE A, 'People's, "National Institute for Examination of the Wasting of Income Tax". (NIEXTAX)
WHY DON'T WE HAVE A, 'People's, "National Institute for Examination of the Wasting of Income Tax". (NIEXTAX)
It is
no use relying upon the 'scrutiny' of Parliament; Parliament is wholly corrupt
creating laws and Bills in exactly the same way as ADOLF HITLER did in
Nazi Germany. Though, HITLER, did have the legality of his "Enabling
Act". This Act had been passed by the German parliament, 441 votes to 94.
But, the British parliament in the application of the diktat of the political
party WHIPS instructing Members of Parliament how they should or must vote on
the issues presented to parliament for the vote; has no 'legality' at all. The
WHIPS political party domination of parliament flouts and breaches the
'precedent of law' set out in the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights
1689/ "The Said Rights Claimed". Which, specifically instructs
parliament that when parliament claims or applies its, "SUPREMACY";
that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE. The WHIPS in parliament therefore,
do 'prejudice the people', and thereby, the WHIPS in parliament has no
'legality' at all.
Here, CAMERON and his rotten government is making a total commitment to spend "197 BILLION POUNDS" of taxpayer’s money on building and renovating a so-called 'nuclear deterrent'; that is not a, DETERRENT' at all; and, where the actual 'tax payers'; all those that pay that tax; have no say in the matter at all.
And, yet, very sick, and disabled people, actually needing those medicines and medical treatment; NICE, will continually deny.
My
petition demands that GEORGE OSBORNE and his rotten government, 'think this thru again'. I respectfully urge all to sign it, and to persuade others to sign.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
"The Original Contract"
The
British Monarchy
&
“The
Original Contract”
The
Contract betwixt King and Subject
Throughout British history
and even now today in this 21st Century, there are those that
believe the British Monarchy originates from the divine right of Kings. But there
are others in the Kingdom, by far in the majority, who contend that Man created
the institution. The British Monarchy, deriving only from the consent of the
People. In the long dim distant past of British history it is difficult now, if
not impossible, to determine the exact moment when the British Monarchy was
created and how it all came about. One thing certain is that it originated from
the poor, the weak and the defenceless, seeking protection from the rich and
the powerful. “Allegiance was given to
the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege
Lord.” That, Allegiance, is
determined in Old English Law as a
contract. The contract betwixt King and Subject is known in English Law as the Original Contract. Disputes have always raged over its lawful validity;
as to whether it exists in law or not. Yet none may dispute it, because the
true evidence of its existence in English
Law is overwhelming. A living and
lawful King was removed from his Throne for failing to honour it. The Convention (parliament) of 1688 declared that King James the Second
had “broken the original contract between
King and People”. The Convention
determined that he had failed to protect the people. That he had abdicated from
Government and that thereby, “The Throne was Vacant”.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Original Contract exists in English Law.
The following, are extracts
from the speeches of Members of the Convention of 1688 that took part in the
Special Conference known as "The Debate At Large" held in the Painted
Chamber of the Commons on 4th, 5th and 6th day of February 1688. The
Conference, between Lords and Commons, was at the request of the Commons, and
was to determine the words:
"ABDICATED"
and "THAT THE THRONE IS THEREBY VACANT”
In consideration of the Commons Vote;
and Resolution, of 28th
day of
January 1688:
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.
Ordered.
These
speeches, irrefutably, make it clear, and the Commons resolution and Lords
concurrence "without
Alteration," of 7th February 1688, make it even clearer in law: that
when the Monarch fails to provide that, Protection
of the People, then the Monarch maladministrates
Monarchy; and the Throne is thereby
Vacant.
There
are none that can dispute this, whether the date is 1688, or today in 2016; The
Statute in Force: “Bill of Right”, of
1688" has never been amended. In English
Law, it is as valid today, as it was then.
It
is the "Speeches of this Special Conference" that provides evidence
in support of this; but it is the concurrence of the Lords conclusions of 7th February 1688 , "Without Alterations”; that ensures
the precedent in English Law.
The
Speeches
(Extracts)
The Speaker of the Commons, HENRY POWLE ------------------------
"To
the First Amendment, proposed by the Lords to be made to the Vote of the
Commons, of the 28th January, Instead of the Word Abdicated, to insert the Word Deserted,
the Commons do not agree; because the Word Deserted doth not fully express the Conclusion necessarily infer'd
from the Premises, to which your Lordships have agreed; for your Lordships have
agreed, That King James the Second hath
Endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the
Original Contract between King and People, and hath violated the Fundamental
Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom.
Now the Word Deserted respects only the Withdrawing, but the Word Abdicated respects the Whole; for which
purpose the Commons made Choice of it. The Commons do not agree to the Second
Amendment, to leave out the Words, And
the Throne is thereby Vacant.
1st. Because they conceive, that, as
they may well infer from so much of their own Vote as your Lordships have
agreed unto, That King James the Second has Abdicated the Government and that the Throne is
thereby Vacant; so that if they should admit your Lordships Amendment, That he hath only Deserted the Government; yet
even thence, it would follow that the Throne
is Vacant as to King James the
Second, Deserting the Government,
being, in true Construction, Deserting
the Throne.
2dly. The Commons conceive they need
not Prove unto your Lordships, That, as to any other Person, the Throne is also Vacant; your Lordships
(as they conceive) having already admitted so by your Addressing to the Prince
of Orange the 25th of December last, To take upon him? The Administration of
Publick Affairs, both Civil and Military; and to take into his Care the Kingdom of Ireland
3dly. 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."
Mr. Serjeant HOLT. --------------------
"Your Lordships Second Reason, for
your First Amendment, in changing the Word Abdicated
for the Word Deserted is, Because in
the most most common Acceptation of the Civil Law, Abdication is a Voluntary Express Act of
Renuntiation. That is the general Acceptation of the Word, and, I think, the
Commons do use the Word in this Case, because
it hath that Signification: But I do not know, whether your Lordships mean a
Voluntary express Act or Formal Deed of Renuntiation:
If you do so, I confess I know of none in this Case: But my Lords, both in the Common Law of England, and the Civil Law, and in common Understanding, there are
Express Acts of Renuntiation that are
not by Deed, for if your Lordships please to observe, the Government and
Magistracy is under a Trust, and any Acting contrary to that Trust is a Renouncing of the Trust, though it be
not a Renouncing by Formal Deed : For
it is a plain Declaration, by Act and Deed, though not in Writing, that he who
hath the Trust, Acting contrary, is a Disclaimer of the Trust; especially my
Lords, if the Actings be such as are Inconsistent with, and Subversive of this
Trust : For, how can a Man, in Reason, or Sense, express a greater Renuntiation of a Trust, than by the
constant Declarations of his Actions to be quite contrary to that Trust ?
This my Lords, Is so plain, both in
Understanding and Practice, that I need do no more but Repeat it again, and
leave it with your Lordships, That the
Doing an Act Inconsistent with the Being and End of a Thing, or that shall not
Answer the End of that Thing, but quite the contrary, that shall be Construed
an Abdication, and Formal Renuntiation
of that Thing."
Mr. Serjeant MAYNARD ---------------------
"My Lords, when there is a present
Defect of One to Exercise the Administration of the Government, I conceive, the
Declaring a Vacancy, and Provision of a Supply for it, can never make the Crown
Elective.
The Commons apprehended there is such a
Defect now; and, by consequence. a present Necessity for the Supply of
Government, and that will be next for your Lordships Consideration, and theirs
afterwards.
If the attempting the utter Destruction
of the Subject, and Subvertion of the Constitution, be not as much as an Abdication as the attempting of a Father
to Cut his Son's Throat, I know not what is.
My Lords, the Constitution,
notwithstanding the Vacancy is the same;
the Laws that are the Foundations and
Rules of that Constitution are the same : But if there be, in any particular
Instance, a Breach of that Constitution, that will be an Abdication; and that Abdication
will Infer a Vacancy."
Continuing
further in his speech:
"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 intrusted 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?
My Lords, Abdication (under Favour) is an English
Word; and, your Lordships have told us, the true Signification of it is a Renuntiation. We have indeed, for your
Lordships Satisfaction, shewn its Meaning in Foreign Authors; it is more than a
Deserting the Government, or Leaving
it with a Purpose of Returning. But, we are not, I hope, to go to learn English from Foreign Authors, we can,
without their Aid, tell the Meaning of our own Tongue.
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."
Lord Bishop of
ELY. -------------------
"But
here is one thing that is mentioned In this Vote, which I would have well
considered, for the Preservation of the Succession,
and that is the Original Compact : We
must think sure that meant of the Compact,
that was made at the first Time, when the Government was first instituted,
and the Conditions that each Part of the Government should observe on their
Part, of which this was the most Fundamental, That King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, should have the
Power of making New Laws, and altering Old Ones. : And that being one Law
which settles the Succession, it is
as much a Part of the Original Compact as
any : Then if such a Case happens, as an Abdication
in a Successive Kingdom, without
doubt, the Compact being made to the King, his Heires, and Successors, the
Disposition of the Crown cannot fall to us, till all the Heirs do Abdicate too.
There are indeed many Examples, and too
many Interruptions in the Lineal
Succession of the Crown of England : I
think, I can instance in Seven since the Conquest, wherein the Right Heir hath been put by : But that
doth not follow, that every Breach of the First Original Contract, gives us Power to Dispose of the Lineal
Succession; especially, I think, since the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth, and King James the First, that have Established the Oath of Allegiance to the King, his Heires, and Successors, the Law is stronger against such a Disposition
: I grant that from King William the
First, to King Henry the Eighth,
there has been Seven Interruptions of the Legal
Line of Hereditary Succession; but, I say, those Statutes are made since
that Time, and the making of New Laws being as much a Part of the Original Compact, as the observing Old
Ones, or any thing else, we are obliged to pursue those Laws, till altered by
the Legislative Power, which singly,
or joyntly, without the Royal Assent, I suppose, we do not pretend to; and
these Laws being made since the last Interruption, we are not to go to any
Precedent that was made before making those Laws.
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
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.
NOTES. 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"
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
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."
NOTES: 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
realised, 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.
The Earl of NOTTINGHAM . -----------------------
"The
Learned Gentleman that spoke last, says, It is
necessary to prefer the Premises before the Conclusion, as being the Foundation
of the Superstructure. Truly, I apprehend, that this Word Abdicated was part of the Conclusion, and not of the Premises; the Vote runs thus, That by Breaking the Original Contract,
having edeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, and having
withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, he has Abdicated the Government, and the
Throne is thereby Vacant.
I take it to be (as I say) part of the Conclusion, the other part being joynd
by a Copulative; therefore that which is but the other part of the Conclusion, is not to be inferred from
the other part of the Premises.
The Earl of NOTTINGHAM , continued: -----------------------
But take it to be (as you say) that The Vacancy of the Throne is another Distinct Conclusion from all that
preceded as the Premises, and therefore it is to be considered last; I
would then beg the Favour of You Gentlemen of the House of Commons, to answer me one Question about this Point of Abdication, Whether you mean by Abdication, a Renouncing for Himself, or
for Himself and his Heirs?
If you mean only Abdication for Himself, it will have a different Influence upon the
Debate and Resolution of the Case, as to the meaning of that You call the Conclusion ; for then, How can the Throne be Vacant ?
But if It be meant for Himself and his
Heirs, then I apprehend It is no more than what you say at the End, That the Throne is indeed Vacant; and
then this Abdication cannot be part
of the Premises, but must be the same
Thing with, or part of, the Conclusion. I
will not undertake to dispute, Whether a King of England
For a King to say, He will not Govern according to Law; and for a King to Act contrary to Law, and do that
which would subvert the Constitution, is (I
think) the same thing.
But then I must say also, That I think
there is a Difference between Saying so,
and Doing something inconsistent with what the Laws require; for every
Deviation from the Law, is a kind of Breach of the Fundamental Laws; for I know
no Law, as Laws, but what are Fundamental Constitutions; as the Laws are
necessary, so far as to support the Foundation."
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. As to the rest of that which his Lordship is pleased to
say, I perceive he does (as he must) agree to me, That a King may Renounce by Acts, as well as Wards or
Writings"..."when he doth Violate,
not a particular Law, but all the Fundamentals; not Injure a particular
Person in Religion, Liberty, or Property, but falls upon the whole Constitution
it self, What doth all this Speak?
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.
Where shall any Man come to have
Redress in such a Case as this, when the Malefactor comes to be Party, unto
whom all Applications for Relief and Redress from Injuries should be made, and
so he himself shall be a Judge of his own Breaches of Law."..."It is
because the King hath thus violated
the Constitution, by which the Law
stands, as the Rule both of the King's
Government, and the Peoples Obedience, that we say, He hath Abdicated and
Renounced the Government; for all other particular Breaches of Law, the Subject
may have Remedy in the ordinary Courts of Justice, or the extraordinary Court
of Parliamentary Proceedings : But where such an Attempt as this is made on the
"Essence of the Constitution", it
is not We that have brought ourselves into this state of Nature, but Those who
have reduced our Legal well-established Frame of Government into such a state
of Confusion, as we are now seeking a Redress unto."
No more needs be said; the ‘Commons’ vote of 28th January 1688
declaring:
Resolved,
That King James the Second, having
endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, breaking the original
Contract between King and People, and, by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked Persons, having violated the fundamental
Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, has abdicated the
Government, and that the Throne is thereby vacant.
And 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.
Gordon J
Sheppard
Sunday, March 6, 2016
BANNING SWEARWORDS
Banning Swearwords
Corrupt government, Judiciary, and law makers always assume that "LAW" is only something that the 'common people' must obey; whilst they flout and breach "LAW" all of the time. Thus, they readily always assume, that they have the right to deny the NATURAL LAW inherent in the Gene.
They blatantly ignore the truth, fact, and reality that "LAW" is naught but the consent of all of the people; consenting to live by the, "Rule of Law"
Here, SALFORD COUNCIL assumes it has the right to ban and abolish the free expression of the right to use swearwords. This therefore is my reply
Gordon J Sheppard
Chief Executive,
Salford City Council
Civic Centre
Chorley Road
Swinton
Salford
M27 5FJ
Dear Sir or Madam
In response to the widely published intent of the council to ‘ban swearing’; I respectfully advise you that FREE EXPRESSION, the right to DISCRIMINATE and to OFFEND, are fundamental rights fully established, in ‘NATURAL LAW’ inherent in the gene. Man made rotten and corrupt ‘LAW’, has no right whatsoever to intervene. I respectfully submit a superb defence of the “F-word.
Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard
In defence of the F- word.
THE F-word slips easily, it seems, from the lips of the modern mandarin: Sir Richard Mottram in all other aspects infinitely forgettable as a manager of the Bradford and Bingley in West Wittering, has carved himself a niche in history, not for his pusillanimous part in the disgrace of Stephen Byers, but for a sentence that will surely be discovered in the next edition of Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.
It was a cry of despair. It expressed the dark night of his soul, the anguish of a man irrevocably excluded from celestial bliss, the misery of a man who has done with hope and honour. The prophet Isaiah, thumping his breast like a circumcised gorilla, put it very well in the elegant English of his Jacobean translators with: "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."
Mottram, however, put it thus: "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department's fucked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked" - lines of Gilbertian scansion that they quite certainly appear in a revised version of Sullivan’s Mikado at English National Opera.
I have some sympathy with Mottram. Fuck has the energy, explosiveness and brevity to be the unsurpassable expletive. The bottom lip is bitten by the upper teeth with just a hint of pain, air at higher pressure trapped within the mouth is suddenly released, and the brief procedure concludes with the sharp kick of the final consonant. As a letting-loose of tension it is very physical and it is an infinitely satisfying sound with which to assuage a bate of rage. I use it daily on the Underground. Damn and blast simply will not do; Heavens to Betsy and Lawks‘a Mercy went out of fashion with the parlour maid; and the Shit and Molasses favoured by my first sergeant-major was too surreal and often too resigned to have quite the same affect as the crescendo of F- words shouted in my ear by his minion corporal. There is, I fear, for those who deplore them, no substitute for F-words, nor for their derivatives, some of them gentle and affectionate.
I witnessed its affectionate use in hospital some years ago – fuck and fucking used by a dying man for his wife as what were, in the circumstances, expressions of love not matched in tenderness by any words put by Shakespeare into the mouths of Romeo and Antony - even Gielgud could not have matched the manner of their saying. They were his natural language, the only language at his command, and on his lips they were the purest poetry. I doubt if on my deathbed I shall conjure feeling quite so eloquent, even for a dog.
It is all very well for righteous columnists to deplore the range of F-words as, on the one hand, the yob chic of the elite, and on the other as evidence of the breakdown of society, the unmarried mother, the irresponsible father, the broken home and the delinquent adolescent, but those of us who have the advantage of more than Winston Churchill’s 600 words of Basic English must allow the uneducated to use what words they have. Would we rather have them mute? If our education system is so impoverished that it does not extend the vocabulary of children, if it gives them no alternative to the language of the street, if it leaves them hampered with illiteracy and a patois unintelligible beyond the county boundary, we have only our politicians and our educationalists to blame, not them, when we hear an F- word alternating with every noun and verb. At that level it is not the F- word that offends, it is that after so many years of state-regulated and mismanaged education, we are a nation that can barely speak its native tongue. Education or no education, however, we need expletives. There may be men so calm in temperament that they never need to swear, but I do not necessarily respect them for being so strait-laced. I prefer an honest show of emotion. Christ came nearest to humanity when he drove the traders from the temple, and if he then used whatever was the Jewish equivalent of the F- word 2,000 years ago, it would not one whit have diminished his purpose or his argument; a niminy piminy Christ is no man for the Day of Judgment. I fancy angry saints, not willing martyrs.
If nothing else, the word should be respected for its age and originally dignified status. It has an ancient Greek parent, a Latin one too, futuere, from which come the Italian and French fottere and foutre; we got it from the German ficken. It is both noun and verb, transitive and intransitive. Strictly it is a term for sexual connection and has been a vulgarism only since the 16th century. It has subsidiary meanings as prefix to beggar, finger, fist and hole, and in the 1960s an American lexicon listed no fewer than 82 variations on the theme. In the interest of scholarship I must record that the insult fuck-face, absent from this lexicon, was common in my school throughout my unhappy years there in the 1940s. And we must not forget the adjectival form described half a century ago by the great Eric Partridge as "a qualification of extreme contumely”.
All this suggests that F-words are so established in our language that they deserve recognition as more than obscenity and slang. I am inclined, like DH Lawrence and James Joyee, to give the simple unadorned noun and verb respectability, to use it at least instead of the coy euphemisms to go to bed and sleep with that are so contrary to the sweating, gasping, grunting, draining and exquisite activity of the real thing. Even to have sex is in some contexts a misleading lessening of the fact.
Fuck is a fine, no-nonsense word, precise, even nice, for it is quite unmistakable in meaning; it has spawned some remarkably amusing imagery and metaphor, even a saying, that neatly encapsulates a moral message - "Fuck you, Jack, I’m all right" is a bitter reproach, laden with meaning and much more likely to change a man’s mind than a lecture on moral philosophy. Let us use the word without fear of Mrs Grundy. Let us use it in a translation of the Bible instead of all those carnal knowings and begats. Let us use it in law and literature. Let us use it unselfconsciously as the one accurate word for what it is. And let me use it as an expletive too, for I know no other that so immediately acts as a release and restores the normal sweetness of my temperament. In bringing F-words into the open, Mottram has done us all a great good turn.
Brian Sewell
www.thisislomdon.co.uk/briansewell
Corrupt government, Judiciary, and law makers always assume that "LAW" is only something that the 'common people' must obey; whilst they flout and breach "LAW" all of the time. Thus, they readily always assume, that they have the right to deny the NATURAL LAW inherent in the Gene.
They blatantly ignore the truth, fact, and reality that "LAW" is naught but the consent of all of the people; consenting to live by the, "Rule of Law"
Here, SALFORD COUNCIL assumes it has the right to ban and abolish the free expression of the right to use swearwords. This therefore is my reply
Gordon J Sheppard
Chief Executive,
Salford City Council
Civic Centre
Chorley Road
Swinton
Salford
M27 5FJ
Dear Sir or Madam
In response to the widely published intent of the council to ‘ban swearing’; I respectfully advise you that FREE EXPRESSION, the right to DISCRIMINATE and to OFFEND, are fundamental rights fully established, in ‘NATURAL LAW’ inherent in the gene. Man made rotten and corrupt ‘LAW’, has no right whatsoever to intervene. I respectfully submit a superb defence of the “F-word.
Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard
In defence of the F- word.
THE F-word slips easily, it seems, from the lips of the modern mandarin: Sir Richard Mottram in all other aspects infinitely forgettable as a manager of the Bradford and Bingley in West Wittering, has carved himself a niche in history, not for his pusillanimous part in the disgrace of Stephen Byers, but for a sentence that will surely be discovered in the next edition of Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.
It was a cry of despair. It expressed the dark night of his soul, the anguish of a man irrevocably excluded from celestial bliss, the misery of a man who has done with hope and honour. The prophet Isaiah, thumping his breast like a circumcised gorilla, put it very well in the elegant English of his Jacobean translators with: "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."
Mottram, however, put it thus: "We're all fucked. I'm fucked. You're fucked. The whole department's fucked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked" - lines of Gilbertian scansion that they quite certainly appear in a revised version of Sullivan’s Mikado at English National Opera.
I have some sympathy with Mottram. Fuck has the energy, explosiveness and brevity to be the unsurpassable expletive. The bottom lip is bitten by the upper teeth with just a hint of pain, air at higher pressure trapped within the mouth is suddenly released, and the brief procedure concludes with the sharp kick of the final consonant. As a letting-loose of tension it is very physical and it is an infinitely satisfying sound with which to assuage a bate of rage. I use it daily on the Underground. Damn and blast simply will not do; Heavens to Betsy and Lawks‘a Mercy went out of fashion with the parlour maid; and the Shit and Molasses favoured by my first sergeant-major was too surreal and often too resigned to have quite the same affect as the crescendo of F- words shouted in my ear by his minion corporal. There is, I fear, for those who deplore them, no substitute for F-words, nor for their derivatives, some of them gentle and affectionate.
I witnessed its affectionate use in hospital some years ago – fuck and fucking used by a dying man for his wife as what were, in the circumstances, expressions of love not matched in tenderness by any words put by Shakespeare into the mouths of Romeo and Antony - even Gielgud could not have matched the manner of their saying. They were his natural language, the only language at his command, and on his lips they were the purest poetry. I doubt if on my deathbed I shall conjure feeling quite so eloquent, even for a dog.
It is all very well for righteous columnists to deplore the range of F-words as, on the one hand, the yob chic of the elite, and on the other as evidence of the breakdown of society, the unmarried mother, the irresponsible father, the broken home and the delinquent adolescent, but those of us who have the advantage of more than Winston Churchill’s 600 words of Basic English must allow the uneducated to use what words they have. Would we rather have them mute? If our education system is so impoverished that it does not extend the vocabulary of children, if it gives them no alternative to the language of the street, if it leaves them hampered with illiteracy and a patois unintelligible beyond the county boundary, we have only our politicians and our educationalists to blame, not them, when we hear an F- word alternating with every noun and verb. At that level it is not the F- word that offends, it is that after so many years of state-regulated and mismanaged education, we are a nation that can barely speak its native tongue. Education or no education, however, we need expletives. There may be men so calm in temperament that they never need to swear, but I do not necessarily respect them for being so strait-laced. I prefer an honest show of emotion. Christ came nearest to humanity when he drove the traders from the temple, and if he then used whatever was the Jewish equivalent of the F- word 2,000 years ago, it would not one whit have diminished his purpose or his argument; a niminy piminy Christ is no man for the Day of Judgment. I fancy angry saints, not willing martyrs.
If nothing else, the word should be respected for its age and originally dignified status. It has an ancient Greek parent, a Latin one too, futuere, from which come the Italian and French fottere and foutre; we got it from the German ficken. It is both noun and verb, transitive and intransitive. Strictly it is a term for sexual connection and has been a vulgarism only since the 16th century. It has subsidiary meanings as prefix to beggar, finger, fist and hole, and in the 1960s an American lexicon listed no fewer than 82 variations on the theme. In the interest of scholarship I must record that the insult fuck-face, absent from this lexicon, was common in my school throughout my unhappy years there in the 1940s. And we must not forget the adjectival form described half a century ago by the great Eric Partridge as "a qualification of extreme contumely”.
All this suggests that F-words are so established in our language that they deserve recognition as more than obscenity and slang. I am inclined, like DH Lawrence and James Joyee, to give the simple unadorned noun and verb respectability, to use it at least instead of the coy euphemisms to go to bed and sleep with that are so contrary to the sweating, gasping, grunting, draining and exquisite activity of the real thing. Even to have sex is in some contexts a misleading lessening of the fact.
Fuck is a fine, no-nonsense word, precise, even nice, for it is quite unmistakable in meaning; it has spawned some remarkably amusing imagery and metaphor, even a saying, that neatly encapsulates a moral message - "Fuck you, Jack, I’m all right" is a bitter reproach, laden with meaning and much more likely to change a man’s mind than a lecture on moral philosophy. Let us use the word without fear of Mrs Grundy. Let us use it in a translation of the Bible instead of all those carnal knowings and begats. Let us use it in law and literature. Let us use it unselfconsciously as the one accurate word for what it is. And let me use it as an expletive too, for I know no other that so immediately acts as a release and restores the normal sweetness of my temperament. In bringing F-words into the open, Mottram has done us all a great good turn.
Brian Sewell
www.thisislomdon.co.uk/briansewell
Friday, March 4, 2016
TAXATION, SOCIAL NETWORKS and CONSUMER RETAILING
ATTENTION: Facebook Executive; and all, Users and Consumers of Social Networks and Retail Spending...
Both Facebook 'Executive' and, all users of the social networks, ought seriously to consider how governments use and abuse the 'taxation' they impose.
In consequence, I respectfully advise FACEBOOK EXECUTIVE to only pay the British government the taxation, actually required by law. To make every effort to use every means necessary in order not to pay 'unnecessary' tax. Thus, they should avoid the paying of tax not actually required and determined by law.
WHY?
Because the British government 'undemocratically' abuses taxation in order to spend the MONEY wherever it pleases, without "The People" having any say in the matter at all. Just look at the current proposals for the spending of tax:
(1), The British government proposes to build four new nuclear submarines at the cost of, 30 BILLION POUNDS.
(2), It is also proposing to renew "Trident Nuclear Missiles" at the cost of, 167 BILLION POUNDS, as well.
And, "The People " who have paid all that tax have no say in the matter at all.
Users of the social networks, FACE BOOK and TWITTER, and consumers that purchase services or products from AMAZON, GOOGLE, etc. are people of all political opinion; they may support the misuse and abuse of their taxation in this way; deeming that it is politically necessary in the ‘alleged’ defence of the country; but, likewise, very many may not hold this opinion. And, all Humankind are entitled to their own opinion. Therefore,
In my humble opinion I believe the 'Executive' of all of these organisations; must take this all into account.
When these organisations, pay more tax than they actually need to pay, MONEY THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY ALL THEIR USERS AND CONSUMERS, they must take account, the 'opinions' they all hold.
Gordon J Sheppard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
