All men are equal in the eyes of the law

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The law is the law and all men are equal in the eyes of the law.  This is one of the most fundamental concepts in English law but the most serious of crimes – treason – is committed regularly and goes unpunished.  Other fundamental rights that we have had for centuries and are guaranteed by the constitution are ignored.

Federal Europe 

Membership of the EU is not only damaging to the economy and bad for democracy but is illegal.

Firstly, the 37th article of the 1563 Articles of Religion says that “The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction”.

Secondly, the 1689 Bill of Rights says “And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God”.  The important bit isn’t the term “forreigne prince” (although the President of France also takes the title of Prince of Andorra when taking office) – it is the word “potentate”.  A potentate is an ambassador performing negotiations on behalf of a large group.  A foreign prince is merely a person holding a royal title in another country who the monarch allows to use that title in this country.

Catholics on the Throne

Last month, the Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Devine, criticised No Mandate Brown for failing to support calls for the Act of Settlement to be amended to allow Catholics to become King or Queen.  Attempting to change the line of succession is High Treason under the 1702 Treason Act and the penalty is life in prison.

Abolition of the Monarchy

There exists a Campaign for an Elected Head of State which seeks to remove the Queen as head of state and replace her with a president.  Anyone connected with the campaign or supporting their aims is guilty of treason under the 1848 Treason Felony Act.  The Campaign for an Elected Head of State claims, in its FAQs, that because the House of Lords declared the 1848 Treason Felony Act incompatible with the Human Rights Act that it is no longer against the law.  The ruling was actually a statement by Lord Scott and doesn’t change the law.  Lord Scott said that “in a mature democracy people do not get prosecuted for advocating political change by peaceful and constitutional means”.  Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said that the Treason Felony Act did not breach the right to freedom of expression and refused permission for the Guardian to appeal against the ruling that they had committed treason.  The law, as it stands, holds republicanism as felony treason and punishable by life in prison.

Fighting for a foreign power

When Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, the military found several men who hold British passports fighting against our troops.  Again, this is high treason by giving aid to the enemy.  However, rather than being tried for treason, they were packed off to Guantanamo Bay or brought back here and tried for terrorism-related charges.

Summary Justice

The 1689 Bill of Rights says “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”.  Summary justice – parking tickets, speeding tickets, on-the-spot fines for drunken behaviour or dropping litter, etc. – is illegal and any fines are void.  The Bill of Rights is a constitutional law and is not assumed to be repealed if another law is passed that contradicts it.  This was the ruling in Thorburn -v- Sunderland, also known as the metric martyrs case.

The right to trial by jury

Magna Carta gives the right to a trial by jury of your peers.  As with the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta is a constitutional law and cannot be repealed by implication.  The abolition of jury trials – first with the establishment of the county court system in the late 1800’s and more recently with the removal of the right to trial by jury for complex fraud cases – is unconstitutional and illegal.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,


  1. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Federal Europe

    I think there are 2 things that spoil this bit.

    i)1603 & 1707 union of the crowns,there was a lot of legal malarkey on both sides of the border with both parliments, to make the act legally permissable and I think, she is no longer the ‘English Queen’ but the ‘British Queen!’ and i think that is the compromise the way around both parliments.

    ii) The commonwealth 1650-1655 The Parlimentarians abolished tons of parlimentary rulings and re-introduced them as a new complied and concise set of laws, so although the post 1655 laws are spiritually descended from their ancesters, there is no actual legal connection

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter that it says English Queen any more than when a law says “he” or “him” when it refers to both men and women. The UK is the successor state, ultimately, to England.

    The laws I’ve mentioned in this post are all still in force – either in full or in part – today.

  3. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Yes it does matter that is says ‘English Monarch’, such a post no longer exists, it is ‘British Monarch’.

    And the law being the law must be precise, so unless the relevant laws were updated and mentioned in the current version because she is not ‘English Monarch’, it does not apply.

    A petty legal triviality I know but this is one of the reasons that lawyers are so rich, arguing over crap like this.

  4. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Funny old laws

    Berwick upon tweed, was under an ownership struggle to see if it was part of england or part of scotland, in the mid 19th century and for a while it was treated as a seperate entity, until the legalities were resolved.

    1914, we go to war with Germany, on the same side as Russia, only to discover that technically, berwick upon tweed was still at war with russia, it had declared war with the rest of the empire in 1853 but in the ensuing excitement, had been finally and legally incorporated into England.

    So although common sense would say as representitive of the British Empire, the peace signatories ended the war, poor old Berwick was not included.

    And this is the dull guff we are up against when looking for any sort of reform.

  5. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    I’ve read the Berwick on Tweed being at war with the USSR thing before.

    On the subject of the “English Queen”, it really doesn’t matter. The Queen didn’t stop being Queen of England and started being Queen of Britain, she took on additional titles and, eventually, combined them all into one title.

    A court ruling against Mr Smith doesn’t cease to have effect because Mr Smith changes his name to Mr Jones or becomes Lord Smith. If you’re the Managing Director of Axel Widgets Ltd and Axel Widgets Ltd becomes Wonko Widgets Ltd, everything you did under the old name doesn’t become void.

  6. GUTHRUM (5 comments) says:

    Well thats me buggered on a number of points especially my unswerving republicanism

  7. axel (1214 comments) says:

    ‘Well thats me buggered on a number of points especially my unswerving republicanism’

    Well you know what proison is like nowadays, you will be able to whistle out of both ends, simultaneously!

  8. axel (1214 comments) says:

    no, the ‘Royal personage’ always exists, regardless of who it is actually is at any one time

    ‘The King is dead, Long live the queen’

    Also the union happened in the reign of Queen Anne, so technically her or her legal team might have had the ability to query it but George I, her successor was King of Great Britain and he had never been KIng of England etc.

    It is all down to the legal minutia.

  9. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Also, Anne was the last of the Stuarts and there must have been some monkey business with the new guy, as seen with 1715 and 1745, there probably is some Parlimmentary method for deposing the soverign and his heir?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.