Is the Bill of Rights of 1689 still valid?

#1
If I remember correctly, some geezer in London, I think his name is Webb, has been successfully fending off paying the inner-London driving costs (or whatever it's called) for yonks by citing the 1689 Bill of Rights. What I don't understand is why he's succeeded to date and why this fella hasn't.
http://www.anoasis.co.uk/content/2005/11/19/Law/the_english_1689_bill_of_rights.html
So what’s the score? I have no grounding at all in law (I'm a translator, FFS! But I have an awful lot of experience when it comes to such legal translations!).

I certainly welcome clarifying comments from wholly trustful fellas like Iolis and his ilk, but would rather not hear from such folks as the supremely arrogant and condescending cüntnut Judge Dredd, who tend to set their sails to the prevailing wind and see what they can get from the corresponding financial upset.

MsG
 
#2
I don't know, in theory the Bill of Rights still stands but Blair and Brown have rode roughshod over it over the last 11 years.
Technically it is illegal under the Treason Act to pay taxes to a government guilty of treason, as the Lisbon Treaty is Treason then we are all legally obliged to withold tax payments anyway. Can't see anyone being allowed to get away with it though.
That said, the Lisbon Treaty is Treason, Gordon Brown has signed it and seems to be getting away with that just fine so who knows?
 
#3
Please forgive my ignorance Jagman but could you explain exactly why the Lisbon treaty is treason preferably quoting the relevant section of the treason act, and if that is the case how have the cnut's in charge managed to get away with it.

I'm not trying to get a rise by the way I am genuinely interested.
 
#4
zippy483 said:
Please forgive my ignorance Jagman but could you explain exactly why the Lisbon treaty is treason preferably quoting the relevant section of the treason act, and if that is the case how have the cnut's in charge managed to get away with it.

I'm not trying to get a rise by the way I am genuinely interested.
Under the Treason Act it is illegal (and Treason) to hand the power to make law to a foreign country. The Lisbon Treaty does exactly that.
As its a Saturday evening and I don't have a great deal to do I shall poddle off and read through the act to find the specifics. I may be gone for some time but I shall be back!
 
#5
zippy483 said:
Please forgive my ignorance Jagman but could you explain exactly why the Lisbon treaty is treason preferably quoting the relevant section of the treason act, and if that is the case how have the cnut's in charge managed to get away with it.

I'm not trying to get a rise by the way I am genuinely interested.
This for starters-

This provision of the Treason Act 1702 is the important one, as it states that treason may be defined as meaning that any person who signs away the power of the crown over the territory of the realm, with dominion also meaning the APPLICATION OF THE POWER of the royal prerogative over Britain itself.

Dominions and territories applies not just to the Commonwealth but also Britain itself.

The Crown is not just the person of the Queen or King, it is the power of the Crown in Parliament and thre power of the Royal Prerogative.

The imperial crown represents the sovereignity of the Crown in this country, meaning the power of the Crown is the ultimate authority of Parliament and the Royal Prerogative.

Power may not be lawfully excercised unless done through the Crown.

Treason is therefore done when a Minister of the Crown signs a treaty that permanentaly revokes the power of the Crown as excercised via Parliament or through the Royal Prerogative in Britain. This is because they have signed a treaty that ensures the Crown no longer has the exlusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative in those areas defined in the treaty AFTER THE PRESENT QUEEN ABDICATES, as it from henceforth binds all her successors, and therefore makes the Crown subservient to the EU. This is also confirmed by the fact that Parliament may no longer prevent foreign judges from imposing laws directly upon British citizens simply by bypassing Parliament and the Crown.

In previous treaties the power of the Crown was said to be operated in the name of the Crown via the EU and that the authority of the EU laws was based on them being produced as a result of this shared control of the power of the Crown and the Prerogative with the EU. The government allowed the EU to enact laws in the name of the Crown via the EU treaties and this meant those laws becme laws in the UK under the authority of the Crown.

The EU did not permamently revoke the power of the Crown but excercised the power of the Crown in the name of the Crown via the EU. This treaty though removes and surrenders totally the power of the Crown over those areas defined in the treaty and hands full power over exclusively in perpetuity to the EU. That is a fundamental legal shift.

The Reform treaty removes the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the Crown and hands it to the EU.

Therefore the Reform Treaty binds the next monarch, and makes the Crown subservient to the EU and the EU judges. This means the Crown loses sovereign control of British territory and British dominions.

This means the act is treason.” Unquote.

So instead of chasing a referendum that Gordon Brown’s EU collaborationist puppet regime is never going to agree to, the Eurosceptic lobby would be best advised to pool their resources and to challenge the legality of the Lisbon Treaty within the context of our existing Constitutional legislation in our courts! Either Constitutional law has been revoked or the Lisbon Treaty is treason!
I'll troll through some more in an effort to find the actual bit of the Treason Act that spells it out
 
#6
zippy483 said:
Please forgive my ignorance Jagman but could you explain exactly why the Lisbon treaty is treason preferably quoting the relevant section of the treason act, and if that is the case how have the cnut's in charge managed to get away with it.

I'm not trying to get a rise by the way I am genuinely interested.
It depends on your definition of treason, the goal of the EU is a European single state (It already has a Parliament and "Upper Chamber"), and as such requires the powers that voters give to national parliaments.

Politico's are only too happy to give away these powers because it means that they would get a ride of the EU gravy train (imagine how bad the UK MP's are now and then with the whole of the EU subsidising them).

The EU wont survive for one reason, its too democratic. It takes on average 8 years for a single bill to become law (after being batted between the EU parliament and EU council more times than a tennis match). The Harder solution would be to give the council more power, but the fact that their are 27 member states would mean that they would each vote for their own candidate and you get nowhere. The Easier solution is to make a 'Peoples Republic of Europe' and run it as a socialist state - Hey Presto! No more problems with legislation and the population is forced to accept the EU is good mantra.
 
#7
Okay, here you go

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
Basically the 1702 addition to the Treason Act makes it an act of treason to deprive the Monarch (or his/her government) of the power to make the law in Britain.
Therefor, as the Lisbon Treaty hands that power to the EU, signing and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is an act of treason.
Would kind of explain Mr Brown's burning desire to get rid of the Treason Act wouldn't it?
 
#8
I remember reading many years ago that under one of the old pieces of English law, the Australia Act and the legislation that stripped us of being British Subjects was illegal. To the best of my knowledge it has never been challenged in the courts though.
 
#9
jagman said:
Okay, here you go

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
Basically the 1702 addition to the Treason Act makes it an act of treason to deprive the Monarch (or his/her government) of the power to make the law in Britain.
Therefor, as the Lisbon Treaty hands that power to the EU, signing and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is an act of treason.
Would kind of explain Mr Brown's burning desire to get rid of the Treason Act wouldn't it?
Actually Parliament is supreme (see Dicey) and can therefore make any law it wants. New laws enacted by Parliament override old laws (again see Dicey). We entered the EU on a referendum (see EC Communities Act 1972). Unfortunately parliament can give away any powers it likes but can also take them back if it wishes (ie Scottish parliament and the reason we are not a federal state)
 
#11
jagman said:
Okay, here you go

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
Basically the 1702 addition to the Treason Act makes it an act of treason to deprive the Monarch (or his/her government) of the power to make the law in Britain.
Therefor, as the Lisbon Treaty hands that power to the EU, signing and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is an act of treason.
Would kind of explain Mr Brown's burning desire to get rid of the Treason Act wouldn't it?
But the government hasn't deprived the monarch or itself of the power to make law in Britain, it has "just" allowed another body to also make law in Britain in the form of the EU.

Now don't get me wrong there is no sight i would rather see than this lots heads on stakes on Tower Hill, but as far as I read it, it is probably quite a flimsy case, and I don't want to be firing up the steed for a ride into London at the head of a lynch mob, if the argument is likely to be erroneous.
 
#12
jest265 said:
jagman said:
Okay, here you go

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
Basically the 1702 addition to the Treason Act makes it an act of treason to deprive the Monarch (or his/her government) of the power to make the law in Britain.
Therefor, as the Lisbon Treaty hands that power to the EU, signing and ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is an act of treason.
Would kind of explain Mr Brown's burning desire to get rid of the Treason Act wouldn't it?
Actually Parliament is supreme (see Dicey) and can therefore make any law it wants. New laws enacted by Parliament override old laws (again see Dicey). We entered the EU on a referendum (see EC Communities Act 1972). Unfortunately parliament can give away any powers it likes but can also take them back if it wishes (ie Scottish parliament and the reason we are not a federal state)
So Jest have we now not got the so called Nuclear option of Her Majesty, dissolving parliament on her own say so?
 
#13
there's something in it about keeping and bearing arms, which I believe, the 2nd Amendment in the US is based on. Shooters in the UK like to quote this usually when something else is about to be banned. Never works (obviously).
 
#14
mac1 said:
there's something in it about keeping and bearing arms, which I believe, the 2nd Amendment in the US is based on. Shooters in the UK like to quote this usually when something else is about to be banned. Never works (obviously).

Yup thats absolutely true, only applies to Protestants though.

Parliament is deemed to be the same thing as the Monarch in terms of the treason act, as Parliament acts for the monarch.
The actual offence is to remove sovereign rights from the the monarch/parliament (ie to make the law)
The Lisbon Treaty takes those rights and places them in the hands of the EU.
Its pretty clear cut really, the Treason Act 1702 1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21 states that removing the power to make the law of Britain is an act of treason.
The Lisbon Treaty does exactly that.

Cut passed the 300 year old wording and its right there in black and white.
The Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and The Treason Act are the foundations of 800 years of law in this country. Those documents are what made Britain the place it is.

Blair and Brown think they know better, the law says not only are they wrong but what they have done is Treason. Brown & Co gloss over that and consider those documents outdated and un-necessary.
I know what I think, I also know the majority people neither notice nor care about what has been done. The fundemental basics of law that make us British are in the process of being removed from us. Thousands gave there all to make this country what it is, Brown and Blair have given it all away for free.
 
#15
If you are all right in your assumption that B-liar and the scottish idiot have committed treason, why has no solicitor keen on publicity, made a case against either of them or, for that matter, any member of the public with sufficient funds to start a case. There are surely enough lunatics and voters (I think most voters by now, given the state of the country) who would want to see those two in court. I would gladly contribute to a fund to start the ball rolling.
 
#16
bobos said:
If you are all right in your assumption that B-liar and the scottish idiot have committed treason, why has no solicitor keen on publicity, made a case against either of them or, for that matter, any member of the public with sufficient funds to start a case. There are surely enough lunatics and voters (I think most voters by now, given the state of the country) who would want to see those two in court. I would gladly contribute to a fund to start the ball rolling.
Beats me Bobos
I don't know why it has been ignored, its not an assumption either.
As stated above t is pretty clear cut
The biggest problem is that the Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights and the Treason Act all assume a degree of honour and integrity in the people responsible for upholding them. When we get people lacking those attributes (such as Blair and Brown) it has proven pretty easy to bypass those principals.

It all started with something very simple and suposedly beneficial to society, Gatso speed cameras. The right to silence was removed to force drivers to name who was driving a vehicle at the time is was captured speeding on camera. From that moment on the government had gotten away with destroying a fundemental basic right granted to people in this country for 800 years. They haven't looked back and we have been sleepwalked into the position were the rights granted to us with the blood of our ancestors are quietly being taken away from us.
 
#17
jagman said:
Parliament is deemed to be the same thing as the Monarch in terms of the treason act, as Parliament acts for the monarch.
So that being the case can the Monarch, or in this case parliament acting as Monarch be treasonous against itself.
 
#18
zippy483 said:
jagman said:
Parliament is deemed to be the same thing as the Monarch in terms of the treason act, as Parliament acts for the monarch.
So that being the case can the Monarch, or in this case parliament acting as Monarch be treasonous against itself.
Sort of I guess, more of a case of parliament commiting treason against the state.
I'm not a lawyer but as stated, according to the Treason Act, it's treason.
 
#20
CQMS said:
Is HMQ an EU citizen, could she be made the subject of an EU arrest warrant?
I believe so, perhaps an expert in constitutional law would be able to tell us. But then there is a remarkable silence on the whole sordid affair of the Lisbon Treaty
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads