The Leveson Inquiry

 

Was set up to closely examine the practises, role, and culture of both Press, and, Media; In public life. It is now due to publish its report.

 

The very first thing the Inquiry ought to have addressed is “LAW”

Because, “LAW”; in Great Britain today, is not properly understood.

It is generally known and accepted by, nearly all, that, “LAW” is something that must be obeyed.

Yet, that is not “LAW” at all.

The ‘true ‘definition of “LAW” is, as described by LORD HAILSHAM, an ex-Lord Chancellor of England.

Who always said, this:

 

“Law is a myth without the consent of the People there is no Law”

 

Thus, “LAW” is naught but the voluntary consent of the People to live by “The Rule of Law”.

The ‘key criterion’ here, therefore, is, “The People”; and, not, the Judiciary, the police, the politician, or, the, ‘profession of law’; that, are merely, ‘administrators’ of law.

 This is where “The Leveson Inquiry” has miserably failed.

Lord Leveson has heard witness testimony from virtually all walks of life in respect to Media, Press, Television, Law, and Show business. The so-called ‘celebrities’ of the nation have been heard in full. Yet, “LEVESON”, has not heard one word of ‘evidence’ from the ‘common people’, at large.

 In all the comment and speculation taking place now throughout the entire British Media and Press, speculating, on what the ‘report’ will reveal in respect to any ‘statutory’ controls to be announced in the report, when, it is published in a few days time. Not, one word is being heard from the ‘common people’. Every, TV studio and all ‘news’ programmes are full of, Politicians, lawyers, celebrities, and the ‘vested interests’ of the Media; but, in all of the debates and interviewing taking place; Not, one Member of the ordinary general public is being seen; or, their, voices, being heard.

 

The entire “LEVERON INQUIRY” and, all public debate and discussion about it taking place in the nation today; is all about, “The Elite”.

 And, that is a disgusting ‘travesty of law’ and a disgrace.

Because,

It is, “The People” who matter most of all.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

LAW: Living today, in a terrible time...

Where, 'LAW' and, true 'LAW', mean nothing at all.

Today, the general concept of 'LAW' held by almost everyone is that,

LAW MUST BE OBEYED

Yet, that is not, 'LAW'

Law is as, Lord Hailshan, an ex Lord Chancellor of England, always used to say,

"LAW IS A MYTH WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE THERE IS NO LAW!

Thus, it is WE THE PEOPLE and, our freely given consent, to 'live by the 'Rule of Law'. That is, LAW.

Great Britain today desperately needs and requires a full scale national debate in respect to LAW.
Because, the travesty's of LAW that are taking place daily now, in respect to the police, and, our Courts and, the Judiciary, are positively obscene.

EXAMPLE

Both the BBC and ITV have succumbed to the intimidation and blackmail of LORD McALPINE and his lawyers, who have threatened them both with prosecutions for libel. Both, have agreed to settle out of court with McALPINE. The, BBC, paid him £185,000; and, ITV has just paid him, 125.000.

Yet, neither, the BBC or ITV, has 'accused' him of being a paedophile. Which, is the assertion, that both McALPINE and his lawyers, are making.

The BBC in the "Newsnight" programme, complained of, never even mentioned LORD McALPINE's name.

And, ITV, who were being blackmailed by McALPINE, in respect of an incident occurring during a "This Morning" programme, never 'displayed' or 'mentioned' his name, or, accused him of being a paedophile. It is alleged by, McALPINE and his lawyers, that when PHILLIP SCHOFIELD passed over a list to the Prime Minister which SCHOFIELD asserted was a list of names that he had secured from the Internet, "in just five minutes of browsing"; that, the 'name' of LORD McALPINE, could be seen by the 'viewer', on that list.

Yet, not a shred of proof has been produced verifying that this is so.

I witnessed the original TV footage clip of that incident, featured on my own television receiver; and, I assert, that in those fleeting seconds, when the list was passed to the Prime Minister, I could not discern any names;, even though I tried slow motion and, stopping the frames. If, I, could not see 'names' on that list; then, nobody else could see them, either.

For, McALPINE's and his lawyers assertions to stand up in 'LAW'; everyone has the right and entitlement to actually see the proof that, McALPINE's 'name' can be clearly seen on that list.

PROOF HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN ORDER THAT 'THE PEOPLE' OF THIS COUNTRY CAN SEE THE TRUTH FOR THEMSELVES.

As, I could not see or, distinguish LORD MCALPINE's name displayed on that list. I am wholly confident; no one else could see this, either.

So the obvious conclusions to all this are:

A. That LORD McALPNE and his lawyers, are 'conning everyone' and, they are using blackmailing
and intimidation, in order to secure settlements 'out of court'.

B. That, cowardly, both the BBC and ITV, has succumbed, to that intimidation.

Whatever:

Until irrefutable 'evidence' is produced by McALPINE and his lawyers that, McALPINE, has been truly 'libelled', and, that his 'name and reputation' has been truly damaged;

ALL OF THIS IS MERELY A GREAT TRAVESTY OF, "LAW".

And, the 'establishment' and the 'elite' of this country; are merely treating the 'common people', as, MORONS and IMBECILES.

Furthermore, McALPINE and his lawyers are also intimidating many users and those who post 'tweets' on the social network website, TWITTER. One person so intimidated is SALLY BERCOW, the wife of the “Speaker” of the House of Commons. She posted a 'mischievous comment' about LORD McALPINE. But, it should be recognized and acknowledged by, 'LAW', that posting 'opinion' 'assumptions' and, 'speculations', freely on the Internet, is not LIBEL. It is perfectly legal and lawful to publish the 'opinion' that someone might be a paedophile. I, assert, and contend that this is merely 'free speech', and, 'free expression'. It becomes LIBEL, only if it is asserted, that, they are, a, paedophile.

 It appears to me that both McALPINE and his lawyers; and, virtually all of our People today, cannot istinguish the difference. Or, they are so apathetic that they don't care a damn. And, this is the reason why, McALPINE and his lawyers, can get away with getting, 'big wads of cash', for merely making 'false claims'.

Sincerely
Gordon J Sheppard

 

“Conspiracy to commit a misconduct in Public Office”

 London 20^th November 2012

Today, British Crown Prosecutor’s, charged, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, two executives who had previously worked at the “News of the World” newspaper, with the criminal offence of, “Conspiracy to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

Now, this is very interesting: because, presumably, when these two face trial; the trial will be held before a Judge; a, Member, of the British Judiciary. Yet, what is so interesting, is the fact, that, the British Judiciary has, for the last three hundred and twenty four years, been committing, exactly the same offence. For, all this time and, even now today, the entire British Judiciary, has ‘conspired with each other’ to lie to and, deceive, the British People, that, it is, LAW, that denies, all ‘challenge’ to ‘elected’ Parliament in their Courts. And, for that denial, of the right, to challenge ‘elected’ Parliament in the Courts, the British Judiciary has conspired and deceived the British People, that, “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, prevents that challenge.

This, assertion, lies, and deceit, of the British Judiciary, is the clear stark ‘evidence’ that they, “Conspire to commit misconduct in Public Office”.

In consequence; I assert, that no Member of the British Judiciary is, fit to try, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, for the same criminal offence.

 

The proof that the British Judiciary lie, deceive, cheat, and manipulate, LAW, to their own ends; and, exercise, unlawful  power; rests in the fact, that the “Bill of Rights 1689”, far from denying the British People the right to challenge Parliament in the Courts; actually, provides the ‘precedent’ in British, LAW, whereby anyone may challenge Parliament in the Courts, whenever, Parliament, ‘Prejudice the People”.

 "Article 9" of the “Bill of Rights 1689”, reads:
 
"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, the "Rights Committee" of the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, who created that Bill; made provisions within the Bill, for the protection of "The People". The, ‘Committee’, in creating that Bill and, the ‘rights’ Parliament was claiming from the King, were well aware, and, they knew, that the Bill was only required and necessary, to protect Parliament, from a King. It was never required or designed in order to protect Parliament from, “The People”.  However, the ‘Committee’ was concerned that their Bill, might be misinterpreted and be misused.

So, they, specifically determined, in the Bill, in the paragraph inserted, directly below the listed number of 'rights' Parliament, claimed, from the KING; that, when Parliament 'enacts' "Article 9" or, any of the other "Premises" of that Bill; that, Parliament must comply with the conditions set out in, the "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed". This, Statute' determines, that, in Parliament applying “Article 9”; nothing, "SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE."

 This is the text of that Statute:

“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”

 Here is the stark vivid proof that the British Judiciary is corrupt.

 

Gordon J Sheppard

"Putting rain back in the Sky"

One of the greatest failings of Humankind in Great Britain today, is the way that
'Yesterday' is always judged by the 'standards' of, 'Today'.

And, this has always resulted in great injustice.

Here are two stark vivid examples of this travesty:

The first:

The Nuremberg Tribunal Trials.

Virtually every NAZI war criminal tried at the Nuremberg Tribunal for horrific crimes, pleaded as their defence, that they were only obeying the orders of a superior.

But, the Tribunal judges, corruptly, would not accept this defence. They, ruled that everyone, must be 'individually responsible', for one’s own actions.

These judges, "Put rain back in the Sky".

Because, they completely ignored all that had happened in NAZI Germany, from the very moment, ADOLF HITLER, became 'Chancellor of Germany' in 1933; thru, to the end of World War II, in 1945. HITLER, created the law in Germany known as, the, "FuhrerPrinzip"; (The Leadership Principle);  And, this law, first, applicable to the Military, but, later, during World War II, became applicable to everyone in Germany; required, that every German citizen, must obey the order of a superior officer or, a superior, under the pain of imprisonment, and, even death; if one refused.

The, "FuhrerPrinzip", was an established fact in, German law. And, it, was, LAW.
Yet, the judges in the Nuremberg Tribunal, would not 'recognise; this.
They,

 

 "Put rain back in the Sky".

Every war criminal pleading the defence of "FuhrerPrinzip" spoke the truth in those trials.
But, the 'Judges' corruptly ignored that. “LAW”, for, expediency: The, 'Law of the Victor', of World War II, demanded; that, the 'Vanquished', had no right of claim, to LAW.

Every defendant at Nuremberg was found 'Guilty' of the crimes for which they were tried.

They were either imprisoned for very many years, or, they were executed; hung, by the neck, until dead.

It was the greatest travesty of, 'LAW' and 'JUSTICE’ of this Century.

 

The ‘Holocaust’ and the horrific crimes of Nazi Germany, deserved the severest punishment; but, every defendant at the, Nuremberg Tribunals, deserved a fair trial. They did not get that ‘fair trial’, because, the ‘corrupt’ Judges, “Put rain back in the Sky”.

The second example:

The 'Child Sex Abuse' hysteria prevailing in Great Britain today.
In this wild hysterical furore, escalating, in more and more allegations of, 'child sexual abuse', being revealed every day, there is the demand being made by Government, many politicians, and, the 'Child Protection Agencies', for an 'Inquiry' to be set up, in order to investigate, "The Culture of the BBC". Allegations, are being made, every day, asserting that, BBC stars, deejays, and celebrity personalities, abused young children on the premises of the BBC. It is not the 'Culture of the BBC' that, requires, to be investigated. What, needs to be understood, is the 'culture' prevailing throughout the entire country, at that time:

 

To, judge, "The Culture of the 1960's thru, to the early, 1970's"; in, order to understand; the, accusations being made today. To, judge, these, allegations, being made today, completely ignoring the 'national culture' that was in existence in the country when these 'asserted' child abuses took place, is to completely deny, all that happened in this period, as though, it had never taken place at all.

 

It, is, to, "Put rain back in the Sky".

 

The 1960's brought about the most massive explosion of sexual freedom the country had ever seen, in my lifetime. All the censorship of sex and sexuality, all the repressions, of censorship, sex, sexual experimentation, and, sexual exploration, of both Church and State; were all swept away. Providing the greatest era of SEXUAL FREEDOM, the country had ever seen.

 

Women had the 'pill' which enabled them to experiment and enjoy their sexuality without the fear of pregnancy; The 'mini-skirt' was born, allowing young girls and women to display their legs, high up, almost to their 'bum'; where, their knickers, were frequently 'on show', when they walked in the street or danced in the disco's. Grown up adult women were even whipping off their 'erotically’ charged 'wet kinickers' , throwing them at TOM JONES as he sang and performed. Commercial radio with the, 'pirates' , had smashed the previous radio monopoly of the BBC; and, the radio 'deejay' and the 'pop music artists and groups' , became big star attractions, virtually overnight. Young girls, throughout the Kingdom, embraced this, FREEDOM; and, they joined in. Every pop concert attracted hordes of sexually charged 'horny' young girls 'screaming their heads off' as they watched these artists perform. Anyone who witnessed these young girls at a, “Beatles Concert", could not mistake the 'sexuality' there involved. Young girls became 'fame chasers' throwing themselves at the pop star, pop groups, deejays, and celebrities, exploring, their sexuality; and, even, in some cases, 'notching up conquests on their bedposts', in competition, for sexual favours received.

There was, SEX and SEXUAL FREEDOM, everywhere. A, great, SEXUAL EXPLOSION, for all ages and classes; and, the young girls, were affected as well.

 

 

EXAMPLE: Personal experience:

 

From late 1965 thru to May of 1976 I served as the promotions manager of two commercial radio stations: Pirate, Radio London, and, Capital Radio. During this time I was responsible for all publicity activities of these companies, outside of the actual broadcasting studios. I mounted concerts, pop shows and disco's all over the catchment area, of Greater London. Daily, I was in the thick of, showbiz, and, the pop groups, pop stars, and the pop music industry. Throughout the whole of this period, although, I, witnessed, thousands of young girls and the celebrities; I never once saw any young girl being sexually abused. I, frequently, saw them being 'fondled', often, seeing their 'boobs' being touched; but, always with their complicity, or, at their consent. I also frequently witnessed many of these young girls, competing with each other, to gain points, for the 'sexual conquests' they had achieved.

 

On one occasion, which I recall vividly, I had to accompany a famous American pop group to a BBC studio. They had a 'hit record' out at that time; and, promoting, that record, they were scheduled to perform at the BBC. On arrival at the BBC, the schedule indicated that they were not required immediately, so I left these boys in the dressing room and went out to see the show. Nearing the time when they were required I returned to the dressing room to alert them to get ready. The dressing room was full of young girls, there was smooching and groping, being performed, by all. And, the drummer was missing. Frantically, I searched the building for this drummer; and, I eventually found him in a 'toilet cubicle' with three girls. I screamed at him to get back to the dressing room, and as he sheepishly left; the three girls emerged, 'laughing their heads off', from the toilet cubicle. Wholly, ignoring me, standing there, they then each in turn, claimed that they had won the competition, describing in detail, what they had sexually done to the boy, and, what, sexually, he had done to them. The details described, ranged from the showing and touching of 'boobs', all the way thru, a sexual agenda, culminating, in anal sex.

Now, these girls were not whores and slags, or, of the sex industry. They were ordinary young girls, thoroughly enjoying their sexuality, and, experimenting, with, sex. I made no attempt to report them or to lecture them. I merely 'laughed with them', recognizing fully, that it was the 'culture', of that time.

 

In judging today, anything that happened 'sexually' then; is to ignore the 'culture' of that time.

 

It is,

 

 "Putting rain back in the Sky".

 

 

Gordon J Sheppard

 

Original Contract

ORIGINAL CONTRACT
For the British, the “Original Contract” is of vital interest, because
it is the very legal authority by which each 'Reigning Monarch' in the line of
succession, sits on the British throne. The Original Contract is the contract
that the Subject has, with the King. And, it is designed for the Subjects
protection. All born to the shores of Great Britain are bound, in law, to give
allegiance to each 'Reigning Monarch’ for as a Monarch shall reign’. In,
return, for this allegiance, that they give, the Reigning Monarch' is required
and obliged to provide their protection. The prime duty and responsibility of
each 'Reigning Monarch in the line of Succession’ is to act as 'Head of
Government' protecting the Subject. And, this is done by ‘monitoring’
Parliament in the country’s and the Subjects best interests, and, in the use of
the power of the “Royal Assent”. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ always has the power to
approve or reject law’s created by Parliament, through the granting or, the
refusal to grant, the “Royal Assent”.

The, 'Original Contract', although, 'unwritten' is nevertheless, fully
established in English Law. For, it was the 'breaking of the original contract'
that provided the 'legal instrument’’, by which, King James the Second was
removed from the throne.

On 28th day of January 1688 the ‘House of Commons’ 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.'

The CONVENTION Debate:
The CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, mounted a special debate held in
the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of
February 1688, held between both Lords and Commons, where, they debated the
words, “Abdicated" and "That the Throne is thereby Vacant".

At,the conclusion of this debate, both Lords and Commons accepted and resolved
that, King James II had indeed abdicated the throne. It was then determined and
ruled, that, "The Throne was Vacant".

Speeches from this debate:
(These speeches can be seen in the book “The Parliamentary History of
the Glorious Revolution” by the author David Lewis Jones. Published by H.M.
Stationery Office)

The Notes: are my own notes.

‘The Speaker’, Henry Powle

“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”.


Bishop Ely,

"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 an Abdication can only be a Forfeiture, as to the Person himself. 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."

NOTE. 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" That, the King, acting as ‘Head of Government’, participating ‘in Parliament assembled’, should have the Power of making New Laws. Bishop ELY, also makes it clear that the reigning Monarch must participate in Parliament. And, must participate in the ‘making of New Laws’.

Mr. Sergeant, Maynard

"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 entrusted 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.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."

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 we do
? And will not that make It Perpetually Elective; 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."

NOTE: 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 realized, 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.

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."

"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."

At the conclusion of this Debate the matter was finally resolved by 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.
King James the Second, was removed from 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 noted as to what the Earl of Clarendon says in this ‘CONVENTION’ debate:

“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.”

Note: Monarchy failed to understand that; or, simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current ‘Reigning Monarch’ ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not acted as
‘Head of Government’ and ‘protected’ Her Subjects, since the very first day she occupied the British Throne. She was unable to carry out that responsibility. “Constitutional Monarchy” prevented her, from being able to carry out that role. Every Monarch in the line of succession that has sat on the British Throne since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has renounced the ‘Original Contract’ and the responsibilities of Monarchy. And, in consequence, each in turn, has abdicated the Throne. (As, Earl Clarendon says,with reference to Lineal descent; in the CONVENTION debate.)

Note: And, they have each done this; so contemptuously; in exactly the same manner that Sir George Treby, explains, in this debate.

CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.

When the British Monarchy, of its own volition gave up being an
‘absolute monarchy’ and, became a “Constitutional Monarchy”; no one bothered to re-negotiate a new arrangement or ‘contract’ with its Subjects. For their
protection.

The Monarchy gave up the protection of its Subjects; but, the Subject was not released from the statutory and legal obligation of Subjugationand “Allegiance”, that the Subject was required to give to the Reigning Monarch
for as long as a Monarch shall reign. Even today, in this 21st Century,
British Subjects, are not Citizens. With, true, Citizenship recognized in Law.
Furthermore, Parliament, in making these new arrangements for “Constitutional
Monarchy”; and depriving the Subject of the rightful protection of Monarchy;
made no provision whatsoever for a new interpretation or ammendments of "Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689"; in order to allow Subjects to ‘challenge the‘abuses’ of parliament’ from within Law.

Parliament arrogantly took all the protection of the Subject away; Monarchy, threw it away; and, the Subject ended up with no protection of law at all.

Social Contract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ”Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous social contract thinkers. Each drew quite different conclusions about the nature of political authority. Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights,and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general
will".[citation needed] The Lockean concept of the social contract was
invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, and social contract
notions have recently been invoked, in a quite different sense, by thinkers
such as John Rawls.”

These great and famous ‘social contract thinkers’ all treat the ‘social contract’ as theory.

Yet, I treat the "Original Contract” (As it applies to the British)
as both ‘legal precedent’ and, current British LAW. It is the, lawful and legal contract existing “Betwixt the ‘Reigning Monarch’ and Subject"; and, it is created and designed, for the ‘protection’ of the Subject; in return, for the
‘Allegiance’ that the Subject gives. Thus, the “Original Contract” (in Britain)is not theory at all; it is solidly and fully entrenched and established in the country, as, LAW.

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

It was the ‘breaking of’ the “Original Contract”, that provided the actual ‘legal instrument’ used and utilized by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, in order, for them, to remove, KING JAMES the Second, from the Throne,


ORIGINAL CONTRACT

There is a very interesting footnote to all that is written above; that will demonstrate the true value and relevance of the, ‘precedent’ in British law; of the “Original Contract” for the British People:

Although, “Constitutional Monarchy”, prevents, the‘Reigning Monarch’, QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, from her responsibility, of acting as ‘Head of Government’ and protecting Her Subjects; As, the Subject,is still bound in subjugation, and, by law, is still required, in the giving of ‘Allegiance’ to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ for as long as Monarch shall reign; irrespective, of the ‘legal prevention’ imposed upon Her, that responsibility upon Her, still remains. Therefore, if the Subject of the Crown requests, or, requires, Her protection; She is then bound by the terms of the “Original Contract”, to comply.

The British Subject of the Crown has no other protection, of LAW.

The British have no “Written constitution”;

The British have no proper ‘Bill of Rights’;

The British have no access to the Courts; In, order to challenge the
‘abuses’ of Parliament, from within LAW.

The interesting thing is that both the “Original Contract” requiring the protection of the Subject by the ‘Reigning Monarch’; and, the “Supremacy of Parliament” protecting Parliament from interference from a King; both, derive the authority, in law, from the “Bill of Rights 1689”.

Therefore, in respect to the Subject’s protection from the ‘abuses’ of Parliament; and, although, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ is prevented from directly protecting the Subject, (by the terms of “Constitutional Monarchy”); the,Subject, nevertheless, can request that protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’;through, the ‘special provisions’ of the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, the,‘protection’ of the People against the ‘abuse’ of Parliament, is specifically,
set out in that Bill. In, the paragraph: “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights
1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Parliament’s “Supremacy” in law is provided by “Article 9” of the Bill. This reads:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought
not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Place out of Parlyament"

Both Parliament and the British Judiciary has always interpreted
that as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation requiring no other
considerations at all. In consequence of this interpretation, the Judiciary has
denied all questioning or challenging of Parliament in their courts for the
last 322 years. But, both Parliament and the Judiciary, for all this time, has
been interpreting the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. “Article 9” of that Bill,is not a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”, has always been dependent upon, the, conditions prevailing, in
another paragraph of that Bill: the, “Statute in Force/The Said Rights
Claimed”.This, determines, that in Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”,(And, all the other ‘Premises’ of that Bill); that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

If, and, whenever, Parliament ‘prejudice’ The People; the “Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed”, over-rules and supplants “Article 9”. And,Parliament then loses all its legality, to, its claim, for the “Supremacy”.

This “Statute” in the “Bill of Rights 1689” reads as follows:

“The said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises
as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements
Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said
Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or
Example”

Gordon J Sheppard

Big Repression threat facing Britain today..

Big Censorship and Repression threat facing Britain today:
The British should take a long hard and serious look at what is happening in the country today.

The people of Great Britain, today, through their apathy in not participating in politics as they should, are now entering into a period or, era of repression, not seen in the country, before.

A ‘freak’ living amongst us who does not wish to live in the real world (as most of us do); prefers instead to try and create this fantasy world; that exists, only, in, his own head. And, he wants to impose this fantasy world on everyone else. His voice is being heard ‘loudly’ in the country today. So much so, that even Prime Minister, David Cameron, and, other politicians are now considering these silly ideas. They are actually considering that this, fantasy world; should be given serious consideration; for implementation, as government policy. Ministers of Government, are, now proposing that these ridiculous ideas should now be adopted and be put into effect. This man is a lunatic; who, dangerously threatens, the very freedom of all. Endorsing and adopting his proposals will launch the greatest era of ‘repression’ the country has ever seen.

His name is Reginald Bailey, and, he is the chief executive of the ‘Mother’s Union’.

In a report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, he declares that, “Parents are deeply concerned that sexual imagery in television, advertising and pop videos is making children grow-up too fast.” His report calls for a hard-hitting crackdown on internet pornography, demanding tighter parental controls over access to explicit websites. Under his idea, of controls, he demands:

Laptop and computer manufacturers must provide their products with parental control filters already activated, prior to purchase. Consumers will have to specifically request to receive porn and adult content; if they want the product to provide access. (A complete reversal of the current position).

A crackdown on lewd ‘lads magazines’ such as “Nuts” and “Zoo”. Retailers being obliged to sell the magazines in plain wrappers or, put them behind ‘modesty boards’, preventing their lurid content from children.
Government to set up a single website where parents can report excessive sexual content on television adverts and, when high street stores and retailers sell inappropriate clothing to children.

Introduction of cinema-style age classification for pop videos. Raunchy music adverts to be banned on television and, in the ‘vicinity of schools’.
High street stores will have to sign a ‘code of conduct’ to prevent the sale of ‘padded bras’ and clothes emblazoned with sexual slogans being sold to children.
Mr. Bailey demands: That, retailers sign a voluntary ‘code of practise’ with clear rules on how to sell to children. Rather than relying on the ‘good taste’, of their own buyers.

Mr. Bailey insists that retailer’s comply with the code set up by the “British Retail Consortium” whose guidelines provide:

Slogans and imagery including licensed images must be age-appropriate and without undesirable associations or connotations – for example, sexually suggestive, demeaning, derogative or political material. ‘Humorous slogans need to be tested against a broad range of views as they can cause unforeseen and unintended offence.
Underwear ranges ‘require the utmost care’; knickers and pants must provide modesty.
Thongs are not appropriate for children.
Products must not treat young children as grown-up women.
Vests and crop tops should also be designed for modesty with no need for ‘structural support’.
Under-wiring is not necessary or appropriate for the smallest cup sizes. First ‘bras’ should be constructed to provide comfort, modesty and support, but not enhancement or under-wiring in any children’s ranges.
Mr. Bailey’s report calls for a ban on children’s swimwear in shop windows displays next to ‘sexy’ adult clothing. He asserts:
By far the most contentious issue is the availability of bras and bikini-style swimwear for the ‘under 16’s’.
Mr. Bailey says, children under 16, including celebrities and sports stars, should be banned from acting as ‘brand-ambassadors’ to sell products to children.


Analysis:

In looking at all this idiotic ‘repression’ the questions that must be posed are,

Why are the British so terrified of sex?
Why are they so afraid of their own sex and sexuality?
Why are they so afraid of the male and female naked body?
Consider this:

In virtually any large city throughout Europe, especially in Italy and Greece; one can readily see statues of the male naked body, with the ‘genitals’ fully on view.

Try and find such statues in Great Britain. There are none. At, least, I have never seen one throughout my entire life to date; all of 83 years.

Why is this? Why, in, centuries, of British art; why, hasn’t, any British artist, created such art.

Why is the penis of the male, both, flaccid and erect, so terrifying; that it must never be seen?

Yet, throughout the entire existence of Humankind on planet earth, virtually every hour of every single day, the erect penis of the male ‘services’ the female, for procreation purposes; or, just for sheer mutual pleasure of those participating. Why then, in Great Britain, are the genitals of the female and the erect penis of the male always hidden from view? Why? Because, the, British, are terrified of sex. Why is this so?

Because; Centuries of indoctrination by the repressive controlling influences of Church, Religion, and State, indoctrinating that, ‘sex’ is ‘dirty’ or ‘naughty’, has been drummed into mind. It has done immeasurable harm. It is also the basis or, the catalyst, for all sexual crime. The ridiculous notion and indoctrination of the church and state that 'sex' is predominately only for those 'married' and, or, for 'procreation'; is wholly demolished, in truth, by the reality and existence of the clitoris. This female bodily organ has no other function whatsoever, than, the receipt of 'sexual' pleasure for the female. It plays no part whatsoever in procreation.

Recently, in a Channel 4 television program attempting sex education of the young, before an audience of young boys and girls at a school, fully naked males and females were presented to the children to look at. The camera switching from the naked bodies to the children, revealed their attitudes to what they were seeing. Three boys were seen with their heads together as though they were sharing a secret or a private joke and, they were laughing and sniggering. The camera then switched to the young girls, showing a different reaction altogether. Some of them looked bewildered, some aghast, some screwing up their faces and covering their eyes with their hands, as though they were in pain. Some girls were seen giggling as well. Why this reaction? Because virtually all of their young lives from birth, they had been indoctrinated that their genitals were ‘privates’. And, that, their ‘privates’ should never be seen. That ridiculous indoctrination gets so deeply imbedded in the psyche of the young female; that even some married women will not undress in front of their husbands at night; without putting the light out first.

These anti-sex ‘influences’ are so well entrenched in the People, today; that, in the guise of ‘protecting children’; the repressive forces, of those so indoctrinated; now ‘harm the children’, that they claim to protect. By, denying a child of the enjoyment and exploration of their own sexuality; by, forcefully, delaying or stopping the ‘genetic’ onset transition of the female child to the becoming of a ‘woman’; those carrying out the very denial of the child’s ‘natural state’; and, their natural sexuality; are not protecting the child; they are ‘harming’ the child, by denying normal ‘natural’ development.

When the young female child first asks ‘Mummy’ for a sexy bra; even, unrecognized by the child, that young female is following the inbuilt natural ‘genetic’ influences of both her body, and, her mind: the compulsion to ‘sexually’ display. To, ‘display’ their own sexuality, to ‘flaunt’ that sexuality, in order to attract the male. The entire female species of planet earth animal as well as human sexually, ‘displays’, for the male.

The idiot censors and repressor’s that assume that they can impose restrictions upon the young girl in order to delay or stop this natural development, by, censoring sex and sexual content, from their lives; delude themselves; and, irrespective of whatever they do; ‘the biological clock has been set in motion’. Young girls will always find their own way, to pursue their own sexual development; irrespective of anything the censor employs.

Stopping and preventing the music and advertising industry from producing ‘raunchy’ videos of pretty girls singing and dancing in sexy underwear or costumes; will only infuriate the young. They see this ‘flaunting’ of female sexuality as being perfectly natural and normal. It is only the ‘repressors’, the ‘censors’, the political opportunists, and, those ‘terrified of sex’; who claim that it really offends.



Resisting this repression:

Clothing stores and retailers:

No big clothing store or retailer of clothes should ever agree to these proposals of, Mr. Bailey.

No big clothing store or retailer of clothes should ever submit to these repressive demands.

To do so, insults the consumer; for, complying with these proposed demands of Mr. Bailey, restricts the FREEDOM of every customer.



Those that value this FREEDOM, and, value and appreciate the ‘freedom’ of the Internet, providing ‘free speech’ and ‘free expression as its prime objectives; should boycott any clothing store or shop that capitulates and submits to Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Manufacturers of laptops and computers:

Manufacturers of these products should design their products to provide the consumer with the ability to access anything the consumer might want to access. On selling the product to the consumer; if the manufacturer wants to remain in business; the product at the time of sale should be in perfect ‘pristine’ condition for the reception and transmission of anything that the consumer wishes to access; the product should not be interfered with, in order to ‘censor’ or prevent’ the reception of any data; in any way. The manufacturer of these products, most certainly should not succumb, to Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Any manufacturer of this hardware that does submit to installing these repressive measures on their products, prior to sale; in order to comply with Mr. Bailey’s demands; they should be boycotted by every consumer; because by doing so; that manufacturer is taking ‘your ‘freedom away. If the product offered for sale is pre-fitted with censoring or filter devices that prevent free ‘access’ to receive data, in any way; even, if the devices can be switched off – if the consumer requests this – that is an imposition forced on the consumer that is specifically designed to take ‘your’ freedom away. The mere fact that the consumer is able to ‘opt out’ makes no difference at all. If such devices or systems are required by those wishing to activate filtering or censorship of content that the product is to receive in broadcast transmissions; then that consumer should be required to ‘opt in’. Let him pay for and buy, the censoring devices he requires.



The Video and Music Industry.

It will be an absolute folly and travesty if the Music and Video industry succumbs to Mr. Bailey’s demands. Mr. Bailey’s demands, triggered by misguided parents and censoring freaks complaining to OFCOM, are essentially based upon the alleged ‘suggestive dancing’ video, featuring ‘Rihanna’ in the TV broadcast of the X-Factor show. Mr. Bailey claims that 4,500 complaints were received by OFCOM about the ‘singing and dancing’ seen on this show. Take a referendum, or, an ‘opinion poll’, of all the kids in the country; or, all of the People in the country; there would be an overwhelming response showing ‘little concern’ at all. All, the young kids, and all the teenagers today, ‘flaunt’ their sexuality, ‘in dancing’; in this way. There was nothing ‘dirty’ in ‘Rihanna’s’ performance at all.

All the ‘dirt’ is firmly embedded in the minds of the misguided parents and the complainers to, OFCOM; and, the, censoring and repressive newspapers, like, the Daily Mail



The Music and Video Industry should resist this repression with all the force it can command.

Mounting, for instance, a massive ‘publicity campaign’. Motivate, and persuade all the kids and teens in the country, to swamp Prime Minister, David Cameron’s mailbox; with postcards declaring, ‘Hands off our videos, we like dancing in this way”. Motivate, all the ‘freedom loving’ users of the Internet, to resist this ‘repression’ in every way that they can.

Consumers should permanently boycott any of the Music and Video Industry that complies with Mr. Bailey’s demands.



Mr. Bailey does not like the “Real World”; let him create and live in the fantasy world in his own head; but, ensure, that he lives there, ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN.



RESIST CONTINUALLY ALL THIS TERRIBLE REPRESSION THREATENING OUR COUNTRY NOW.

Britain's "Arab Spring"

Britain's "Arab Spring"

The British People now have the opportunity to create a true ‘People’s Democracy’.
They can bring about a political REVOLUTION without a shot being fired.
Historically, all revolutions, are 'armed revolutions' bloody and violent.
But, here, all the People need to do, is to sign a petition.

The UK, although claiming to be a democracy; in reality, is not a democracy at all.
Democracy, is government of the People, by the People, and, for the People.
Yet, In the UK at present, this is not the case.
The sham democracy existing today in the UK is government by the political parties and their political diktat. Parliament, elected by the People, is dominated by the political Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS; that instruct Members of Parliament each week on how they should behave, and, how they should vote. The WHIPS activities in Parliament are wholly illegal; as will be fully explained here.

Current UK statistics verify that there are more than 50 Million adults in the country. Yet, in lumping all of the political parties together, in total; there are less than half a million adults that are Members of the political parties.

Why is it, then, both, lawful, or, right, that these ‘less than half a million’ should dominate our law making and our parliament?
By this statistic, 49.5 million adults have no ‘participation’ at all.

The proposition is wholly absurd. But, that is the situation prevailing in Britain now.

Parliament claims its “Supremacy” relying entirely upon “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”. This reads as follows:

“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedures of Parlyament ought not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

And, both Parliament and the Judiciary have always interpreted that ‘Act’ as the protection, Parliament, is afforded, from any challenge, from within law.

For, 322 years the Judiciary has always denied the questioning or challenge to Parliament, in their courts.
But, for 322 years both Parliament and the Judiciary has always ‘interpreted’ the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. They have always looked upon “Article 9”, within that Bill, as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation, requiring no other considerations, at all.

Yet, “Article 9”, is not, and, it never has been, a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; it has always been linked to the ‘conditions’, applicable, in another paragraph of the very same Bill: “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Parliament, in, claiming it’s “Supremacy”, relying on “Article 9”; in, the ‘application’ of “Article 9”; Parliament must comply with the ‘conditions’ applicable set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Therefore, in reality, and, in “British Law” the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”/; is the People’s protection against, the ‘abuses’ of Parliament.

It is interesting to be aware of the historical context of all this:

King James the Second, a Catholic, attempted to re-introduce Catholicism into the Kingdom. To the annoyance of Parliament he appointed Catholics to his administration, and, he appointed Catholics to the Army as well. He ordered Bishops to read Catholic proclamations and sermons from their Church pulpits; and, when they refused; he set up ‘special courts’ to try these Bishop's for treason. Parliament sick and tired of his interference approached Prince William of Orange in the Netherlands and, they requested him to come with his army and invade. They persuaded William to invade the Kingdom in order to protect the People and their ‘Protestant’ religion from the tyranny of King James. Prince William invaded the Kingdom, and, James the Second, fled to France.

Prince William then appointed an interim Parliament, the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688.

The CONVENTION had two tasks to accomplish: Firstly, to get rid of King James II, in order that Prince William could be the next King. James II was still the lawful King, and, he was living in France. The way had to be found to ‘lawfully’ remove him from his throne, without removing his head.

Secondly, they had to create a set of ‘conditions’ in order to protect Parliament from like interference from a King; if Prince William was to be offered the throne.
Parliament did not want the same troubles and interference that it had experienced with James II.

The CONVENTION created a “Rights Committee” charged with these tasks.
The CONVENTION set up a huge debate of both Lords and Commons held in the “Painted Chamber” of the Commons, held on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of February 1688, to debate the words “Abdicate” and “The throne is thereby vacant”, in respect to King James II.

It was decided in this debate that James the Second had “Broken the ‘original contract’ betwixt King and People”; that, he had, “Failed to protect the People and their ‘Protestant’ religion”; and, that, he had “Fled the Kingdom”; whereby, he had abdicated the throne. The CONVENTION determined that, thereby, the throne was VACANT.

The “Rights Committee” then set about preparing the list of ‘protections’ Parliament required of the King, in order that Prince William of Orange could be offered the throne.

The Committee drew up a list of 26 “Articles” for William to accept; but his advisors rejected this list finding objections to some of the items listed. Prince William became impatient in respect to the prolonged negotiations; and, he threatened that if the business was not completed promptly, he would return to the Netherlands, without taking up the throne.
Parliament wanted Prince William as the next King; and, so, faced with this ultimatum, the “Rights Committee” then settled for the 13 “Articles”; that to this very day, are present and recorded in the “Bill of Rights 1689”.

However, the “Rights Committee” had an overwhelming concern about their Bill. They were fearful that in future years the Bill might be interpreted incorrectly, and, that it’s true intent would not be seen.
The Committee wanted to be sure that the Bill’s true intent to protect Parliament from the interferences of a King; would not in any way provide, the wrong impression, where the Bill might be used, to protect Parliament from the People. Thereby, ‘prejudicing’, the People.

The sole intent of the Bill was to protect Parliament from a King. The Bill had never been created in order to protect Parliament from the People. And, so, at the conclusion of the full list of “Articles” of, the protection that Parliament was claiming from the King; the “Rights Committee” inserted the additional paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”. In, order, to specifically ensure, that in all the “Premises” of the Bill: NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.

This is, “The Said Rights Claimed”:

“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or Example”

It is interesting to note, that the “Rights Committee” fears were well founded. Both Parliament and the British Judiciary have been incorrectly ‘interpreting’ the “Bill of Rights” for the last 322 years. The ‘legal’ precedent, the “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/ “The Said Rights Claimed”; has been rejected, and, has been ‘ignored’ by both Parliament and, the Courts, continuously, for all this time.

The time has now come for the People – who elect their Parliament – to force both Parliament and the Judiciary to ‘acknowledge’ the People’s rights set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Unlike, in the “Arab Spring”, where the People required and mounted an ‘armed’ rebellion; the British People can assert their rights and can ‘initiate’ their own REVOLUTION, without a shot being fired. All they need to do is to ‘sign’ this petition:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/12771

This petition calls upon both Parliament and the Judiciary to ‘recognise’ and ‘acknowledge’, “The Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.

Neither Parliament or Judiciary can refuse this ‘recognition’; because Parliament claims its “Supremacy” relying on “Article 9” of the “Bill of Rights 1689”; but, for the mere ‘application’ of that “Article 9”, it is ‘linked’, in law, to the ‘conditions’ applicable, set out in, “The Said Rights Claimed”.

Therefore, refusal to recognise and acknowledge “The Said Rights Claimed” also refuses the recognition of, “Article 9”. And, in denying the existence and recognition of “Article 9”; Parliament, loses, all its claims to the “Supremacy”.

Massive signing of this petition will create a true People’s democracy. Once Parliament and the Judiciary recognise the legal precedent and the true existence of “The Said Rights Claimed”; the way will the then be open in, LAW, to challenge the Offices, Procedures and Practices of the WHIPS in Parliament; that presently ‘prejudice’ the People every day.

Elimination of the WHIPS in Parliament will abolish the political party’s domination of parliament completely. It would create the condition, whereby, every vote taken in parliament, would become, a ‘free vote’.

Sign this petition to end the dominance of the political parties in Parliament, once and for all.

Create, a true People’s DEMOCRACY.

Gordon J Sheppard