Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by nodigitsever, Mar 23, 2007.

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. Met Police Asked to Investigate Blair Cabinet - 23 March 2007
    Media Release

    While EU celebrates 50th Birthday - New Offences Alleged Over EU

    Contempt of Statute : Breaches of the British Constitution :
    Breaches of Oaths of Office : Malfeasance all cited

    European Union’s elite are in Berlin this weekend to start their extravagant ‘celebrations’ of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established what became the European Union.

    Back in London, with no fanfares, more weighty matters relating to the UK’s membership of the EU are being drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police.

    In Berlin the EU’s German presidency is still trying to agree a 50th anniversary text on alleged EU achievements, values and future challenges – and whether or not the euro should even get a mention.

    Back in the UK, on Friday 23 March 2007 John Gouriet, (chairman, Defenders of the Realm, and director, Voters Research Association) and Ashley Mote MEP, (Independent, SE England) presented documents to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates (currently in charge of the cash for honours investigation) at New Scotland Yard.

    The documents invite the Metropolitan Police to investigate the activities of the Prime Minister and other senior members of the Cabinet, and hold them accountable under the law.

    The documents argue a prima facie case of misfeasance or malfeasance, contempt of statute, breaches of the British constitution and breaches of their oaths of office. The documents also invite the Metropolitan Police to consider other possible offences under the law.

    The papers prepared by John Gouriet are based on the fundamental premise that the act of joining the EU was unconstitutional because no parliament elected by the sovereign British people had or has the authority to surrender that sovereignty to others.

    The sovereignty of the British people is their birthright, enshrined in common and statute law, based on legally binding contracts between the monarch and British subjects. Only conquest by force could deprive the British people of their sovereign rights.

    The Metropolitan Police are therefore asked to investigate the following ministers with a view to prosecutions under the law :

    * The Rt. Hon. Anthony Charles Linton Blair MP, Prime Minister, for misfeasance, contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office, for deceiving HM the Queen on numerous occasions since 1997 amounting to treason.

    * The Rt. Hon. The Lord Falconer, Lord Chancellor, for misfeasance, contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office, and treason.

    * The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP, Secretary of State for Education, for contempt of statute, breach of the British Constitution and oaths of office.

    * The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, for misfeasance in unlawful disbursement of many billions of pounds Sterling since he became Chancellor in 1997 to a body whose accounts have not been signed off as correct for twelve successive years and where fraud and corruption is endemic, thereby occasioning actual loss and waste of public funds, contrary to the Government Resources Act, 2000.

    * Mr. Jimmy Hood MP (Labour), Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, for misfeasance in failing to ensure that his committee fully scrutinises the directives being imposed by the EU on the UK and adequately advises or informs Parliament and the general public accordingly of the implications contained therein.


    Full text available on website:
    Background notes and extracts:

    a) The British people have been gravely affected by the loss of lawful independent governance in the United Kingdom (UK), as a result of the impact of EU directives and policies imposed on government activities, national life and future prospects of Great Britain. The EU functions by swamping the parliaments of member states with regulations and directives. At the last count they run to over 600,000 pages. Since the Treaty of Amsterdam 1993 ‘fast-track’ procedures permit laws to be adopted in member states immediately after their first reading in the European Parliament. The proportion of fast-track legislation passed into member state law after first reading has increased from 20 per cent five years ago to 60 per cent of all legislation today. In all, over 70 per cent of legislation annually being imposed on Britain now emanates from the EU without Westminster being able to change a single comma.

    b) Our ancient and enduring Constitution provides entrenched legal safeguards that should clearly limit the government of the day in its activities and oblige it to govern at all times in accordance with the laws of the UK.

    c) It is clear that not only by the act of joining the then EEC in 1973, but on numerous occasions since in the form of treaties, acceptance of directives and other measures, successive British governments, Labour and Conservative, ministers and parliamentary committees have exceeded their lawful authority. Individuals have breached their oaths of office and the British Constitution. Furthermore by advising and requiring HM The Queen to assent to their unlawful acts, they have at various times deceived Her.. They have also placed Her in breach of Her Coronation Oath sworn in June 1953 to govern the people of the United Kingdom in accordance with British laws in force and the custom. This is treason.

    d) There is a common misconception in learned legal and political circles in Britain that imagines supreme power resides solely with Parliament, or more accurately the government of the day and the Prime Minister. It is claimed that any law, however controversial or contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom, may therefore be made, if necessary by invoking the Parliament Acts to force it onto the Statute Book. It can also just as easily be unmade by repeal or by simply introducing a new law to replace it and this includes constitutional law.

    This deliberately false interpretation of our ancient, well-proven and effective Constitution has even been published in a booklet Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution, sponsored by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and the Education Secretary, Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP and distributed to schools and seats of learning throughout Britain by a charity on whose board of trustees sits Mrs Blair, the Prime Minister’s wife, using public money unlawfully for party propaganda purposes. We submit that it is an entirely false, misleading and treasonous publication on behalf of which the Lord Chancellor as principal sponsor has abused his high office.

    ‘Parliament may not destroy its own omnipotence’(Sir Robert Megarry Vice-Chancellor).

    e) HM The Queen summed up the historical reality of our constitutional arrangements in Her address to both Houses of Parliament on 20th July 1988 to mark the 300th anniversary of the ‘Glorious Revolution’; Her speech included these words: “The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers, ushering in an epoch of freedom under the law … Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary. The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of parliamentary democracy rests …”

    The Sovereign retains the power and the duty to dissolve Parliament, refuse assent to Bills that conflict with the Constitution and/or are contrary to the national interest. The Sovereign is not bound to accept the advice of Her politically biased ministers, especially when it is judged not to be impartial or in the national interest.

    f) The late Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, presiding in the Court of Appeal (January 1977 Gouriet v. the Attorney General and Union of Post Office Workers and others); “To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago ‘Be you never so high, the law is above you’ … Is the Attorney General to be the final arbiter as to whether the law should be enforced or not? … I say that he has no prerogative to suspend or dispense with the laws of England. If he does not give his consent, then any citizen of the land, adversely affected, may ask this court that the law be enforced. … We have but one prejudice. That is to uphold the law.”

    Those words go to the very heart of this plaint against the proposed defendants and were echoed by Sir Edward Coke “No one, be he king or commoner is above the law”. The supremacy of the law is our essential safeguard against tyranny.

    g) The Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office originated in the premise that public powers are to be exercised for the public good. Parliament intends statutory powers to be exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred. The tort was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences. The offence of malfeasance takes the reckless element a stage further

    h) The offence of Misconduct in Public Office was defined in Russell on Crime (12th edn 1964 JW Cecil Taylor) ‘Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to statute unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable for not faithfully discharging that office’.

    i) Treason. According to Baroness Scotland replying to Lord Tebbit on 17 November 2004 (HL4921) “Treason remains a criminal offence under the Treason Acts of 1351, 1702, 1795 and 1842 and the Treason Felony Act 1848”, although the 1795 Act had in fact been repealed during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998 which inter alia abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy.

    Nevertheless treason still ranks above murder as the most serious crime of all. However the Treason Act (1351) is still in place and states ‘that treason is committed when a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm’. Under the Treason Felony Act (1848) it is treason if ‘any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen (Elizabeth) from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom’.

    Archbold Sect 25 quotes ‘High Treason being an offence committed against the duty of allegiance, it may be proper to consider from whom and to whom allegiance is due. With regard to natural born subjects, there can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and in all places. Natural allegiance is founded on the relation every man standeth in to the Crown, considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member. The duty of allegiance ariseth out of it and is inseparably connected with it. The subjects of the King owe him allegiance.’ In the treason case of R. v. Casement (1917) ‘Any act done by a British subject which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the Queen and of the country to resist or attack the enemies of the Queen and country, constitutes giving aid and comfort to her enemies within the meaning of the Treason Act (1351)’.

    EU law and the EU Constitution that is intended to give it formal legitimacy and supremacy over all national law is not treasonable as it stands but the act of accepting and practising its provisions as superior to and at the expense of existing British law, by overriding the British Constitution would undoubtedly be treason (see R. v. Thistlewood 1820)
  2. SNP will love this!
  3. Treason.........mmmmmm.........firing squad !!

    Ill get my gun !!
  4. Tad complex for simple souls like me.
    But I would like to think that Blair & Co will have their day in court.
    Ever the optimist.
  5. Bobos wrote - Firing squad.

    Can we hang, draw and quarter the guilty instead. Just think of the ticket sales.
  6. I thought that this matter had come before the courts before (possibly over the hunting ban) and was thrown out?

    Also, I have a suspicion that Mr Mote is still awaiting trial for false accounting - but the case was delayed because he claimed that his status as an MEP meant that he was immune from prosecution. The EU parliament lifted this immunity, but he's appealed to the European Court. I think that the appeal has yet to be heard.

    It strikes me, therefore, that he's endeavoured to use EU law to block the process of British law which seems to fit rather badly with the petition...

    [NB none of the above means that I'd find the sight of the PM leaving No 10 in handcuffs accompanied by two members of the local constabulary shortly after they've just guided his next-door neighbour into the back of a police car anything less than entertaining].
  7. Take the point about hanging, drawing and quartering, however, messy and needs a few people on ROPs to clear up. Look, a court case will be protracted and we will all have aged significantly because demon of Downing Street will no doubt have lots of legal loopholes for her husband to wriggle out of.

    lets cancel the court case (money saving idea) and go straight to the firing squad. If its me, I am a lousy shot so would probably wing him a few times so he would then have to queue in A & E for several days to be treated and either die of boredom or MRSA. Then we can blame the NHS just like bliar and his cronies so fond of doing
  8. If only these charges would be brought, but sadly I believe there is no chance.

    The 'Traitor' Heath and his part in this matter should not be forgotten. This unlamented man caused his Sovereign, to whom he had sworn allegiance, to become in effect a 'subject' to another 'state'.

    The post says that heads of state are in Berlin. Is HM The Queen in Berlin?

    Head of government 'Gorgon' Brown is not in Berlin as far as I am aware.
  9. Nice idea but I doubt any of the charges will stand up. "Breach of the British Constitution"? I thought we had an "Unwritten Constitution".
  10. I agree we do not have constitution set in stone such as the yanks do, but we have one that encompasses the best of statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701, also laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions, Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law and a case by case. Also we pay a number of constitutional egg-heads big fat salaries to make deliberations (allegedly for our benefit) on matters of the constitution, the recent problems around Charles and his latest wife being an example. Therefore, I suppose it is these experts who must determine if our unwritten constitution has been violated but then guess who pays them !!!
  11. We do have a constitution but it's just been ignored for fifty years. It is mainly written (in bold) and incorporates Natural Law, Common Law, Magna Carta, Act of Settlement, Declaration of rights, Bill of Rights etc.
  12. ... i'm down on my knees praying it will happen !!
  13. I favour a mass Crucifixion.........................................

    INRI = I'm Nailed Right In
  14. I favour a much more sadistic route, skin them alive, smash their teeth in, pull out their fingernails and toenails, roll them in lemon juice and salt then feed them into a wood chipper slowly, feet first. In a Earls Court, charge the TV channels for viewing rights and auction off tickets to the highest bidder to see who gets to press "START" on the wood chipper.
  15. Make that a public beheading at Marble Arch (Tyburn) or Trafalgar Square. Bliar and his crew will have probably allowed the introduction of Sharia law in a few years time to win a few key marginals SO IT COULD HAPPEN :thumbdown:

    SLR (Not to be confused with SLR Boy).