Is the Bill of Rights of 1689 still valid?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Bugsy, Apr 11, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.
    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.

  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. 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. This for starters-

    I'll troll through some more in an effort to find the actual bit of the Treason Act that spells it out
  6. 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

    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. 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)
  10. Thanks Jest, appreciate the input
  11. 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. 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. 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.