Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Labour surrender democracy

Much as I detest the idea of having a monarch as head of state, Im
willing to concede that its probably better than having a president.

Whats bugging me is the thought of our children being asked swear an
oath of alligence to the queen , why not an oath expresing loyalty to
democracy and the British people that way everyones included.

To my mind there is nothing worse than the sight of labour toadying to
the establishment , still if we had a president you could end up with
someone like Blair(thankfully his busy cashing in ).

On balance God save the Queen

Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com


  1. I agree with your on balance reasoning that a monarchy is best - but the idea of swearing an oath to anything! I don't think it's even included in a wedding ceremony any more

  2. I cannot remember the quote but wasn't it along the lines of 'patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels'?

  3. I thought we showed our allegiance to our country by not breaking its laws...

    Royal patronage has been slowly but surely removed from the monarchy and is now in the arms of our Prime Minister.

  4. James your profile puts you at 24 with a history of being a governor of a college and a school. I am gob smacked. Are you saying you would be happy for what you just said to be taught in classrooms ?

    I copy below extracts (from net)from Common Law Informations laid which describe the constitutional position.

    (The Common Law referred to of Misprision is the law by which I laid Common Law informations of Acts which would weaken or tend to weaken the ability of the Realm to resist an enemy. Meaning knowledge of the sabotage of backup generators and the attempted suppression of reports, by Kent Police, called for by PSNI Special Branch)

    But I think the Magna Carta people who drew up the below Information do spell out the constitutional position.

    Section 1, Treason Act, 1795
    Section 3, Treason Felony Act, 1848
    Laying of Information
    Names of Suspects:

    I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and wish to remain so. I am aware of her solemn Coronation Oath to the nation in 1953, to govern the British people 'according to their laws and customs'.

    As a loyal British subject, it is my duty to bring to your attention any actions or planned actions which may amount to treason by any individual or group of individuals, or which may occur in the future if not prevented, so that the appropriate action can be taken.

    It is AN OFFENCE at Common Law ("Misprision of Treason" - see Halsbury's Statutes, 4th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 818) for any person who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a Justice of the Peace.

    It is an offence under Section 1, Treason Act 1795 'within the realm or without...to devise constraint of the person of our sovereign, his heirs or successors'. It is also treason to take any action which would 'overthrow (or tend to overthrow) the laws, government and happy constitution' of the United Kingdom.

    It is public knowledge that the said European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is not one of Her Majesty's Courts and is not subject to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Courts, being located outside the realm.
    Indeed, on the contrary, the European Court of Justice is necessarily convinced that Her Majesty's very person is subject to its own jurisdiction under Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, signed at Maastricht, by which 'every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a 'Citizen of the [European] Union'. Indeed, Rt. Hon. John Major, the then British Prime Minister, publicly announced at the time his government signed the Maastricht that the status of the Queen had been degraded to that of a 'Citizen of the European Union'.
    The Government has claimed that there are 'no plans to use the (aforementioned) civil disorder squad for law enforcement or crowd control within the European Union'. But if the above proposals to remove 'all measures' concerning the area of Freedom, Security and Justice from national control were to be incorporated into the new Treaty, this proviso could readily be reversed by Qualified Majority Voting, against which any opposition by Her Majesty's representatives would thereby be rendered powerless.
    The intention to set up a single European Army and a single European Police Force has many times been publicly stated by leading politicians in the European Union, not least the European Commission President, Romano Prodi, who called for 'rapid progress' to be made towards establishing a single European Army. If majority voting were to be adopted, the said paramilitary civil disorder squad could be deployed even within the realm at the behest of European Union authorities who are not Her Majesty’s servants.
    An incipient European Police Force, EUROPOL, already consisting of over 2,000 officers, has already been established. Based in The Hague, Holland, its officers have already been granted, by virtue of European Union decisions and regulations passed by our Parliament, lifetime immunity from prosecution whatever offences they may commit in the course of their duties, contrary to common law.
    A civil disorder squad, such as proposed by Heads of Government in Portugal, could be deployed at the request of either the Rapid Reaction Force or EUROPOL or other organs of the European Union.
    It has been public knowledge for more than three years that a plan has been drawn up on the orders of the European Commission, known as 'Corpus Juris' (see 9th Report by the House of Lords, Session 1998-9, House of Lords Paper 62, HMSO, 1999), which seeks to introduce a single, uniform system of criminal justice for all Member States of the European Union, with supremacy over national systems of criminal justice, which would gradually be phased out and replaced. ‘Corpus Juris’ was subsequently approved by the European Parliament by a large majority.
    This plan explicitly does away with the right of British people, officially confirmed and vouchsafed by Magna Carta in 1215 and maintained for eight centuries since, to be tried by a jury of their fellow citizens (see Article 26.1 of the said 'Corpus Juris', given on page 42 in Appendix 3 of the said House of Lords Report). The Magna Carta provisions relating to jury trial remain part of the constitution of the United Kingdom as all expert commentators agree.
    Moreover these rights and freedoms were reaffirmed in the Declaration of Rights 1688, and entrenched in Statute Law in the Bill of Rights 1689. Both included the words ‘And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.’
    On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’
    If 'Corpus Juris' were to be voluntarily adopted by the United Kingdom, or if it were imposed on the United Kingdom by Qualified Majority Vote of other Member States, it would 'overthrow the laws, government and happy constitution' of our country, a breach of Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795, which stands on the UK’s Statute Book to this day. To sign any Treaty which would in any way permit this to happen would unquestionably constitute the offence of treason. Further, if the veto on justice and home affairs is given up at Nice, the EU will acquire the power to impose ‘Corpus Juris’ on the UK even against the will of Parliament. The intention to impose ‘Corpus Juris’ on the UK by majority voting has already manifested itself (see section 9 below).


  5. I pledge allegiance to independent thought.
    I take an oath to fight the idea of Thought Crime.
    I express loyalty to a political system other than a monarchy, Constitutional or otherwise.
    I know what my answer would have been when I was 18 to this suggestion. I can't print it here unfortunately.

  6. James if you have a monarch who is a citizen then the independence and Crown Authority (making police and govt our servants not our masters) of Judiciary and Constables is smashed. Govt becomes master and we become servants of the state. Thought police, political correctness, nanny state, over riding power of govt public interest secret custodianship. Then that power stolen by govt from Crown (all of us) surrendered to Europe.

    And principles held dear by the British are lost.

    Be you ever so high the law is above you (by the authority of all of us through the Crown) LOST.

    The law must not be broken to enforce the law LOST

    A constable is an independent ministerial officer of the Crown whose master is the law and the discharge of duty to Crown independent judiciary. LOST

    (Mind you that one has been lost by default to date Winston Churchill, Enoch Powell and Sir Robert Mark did give warnings which were ignored. "We no longer recruit the most able but the most malleable as police officers")

  7. Sue

    In a constitutional monarchy you are part of the Crown. Part of the authority by which govt and police serve US.

    Outside of it you are part of the Crowd. And the police are a force of Crowd control.

    Beware of sacking the nurse when she will be replaced by something worse.

  8. I refer you to my own blog. Village Voice. The Queen is a different subject to our Country

  9. I think more people would prefer to swear an allegiance to the Country than to the Queen. I can imagine what youngsters of 18 would answer if asked, and I must say I most probably would have said the same at that age! I must admit that I am not particularly pro Royal. I have preferred Land of Hope and Glory to God Save the Queen for many years.

  10. Ah yes, Land of Hope and Glory!

    Which country was this relating to by the way!

    Surely not the sceptred Isle that now is a third world nation thanks to the Labour years of dismantling anything that is British, and has handed our soul to a European committee!

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. What I said is perfectly sound Rick. Whilst by law the Queen has the patronage to declare war, in practice its the Prime Minister who actually does it. Furthermore, the Government is proposing giving the right to declare war to Parliament (which will really mean the Commons since the Commons has primacy in Parliament).

    Schools already have Citizenship classes and General Studies was created in part to address the Citizenship agenda. While its easy to think that if we go the American route of flag waving and oath swearing patriotism, then everything will sort itself out, the truth is Britain doesnt have that mindset. Britain is far more restrained than that.

  13. I really can't see people in their late teens having a desire to swear an oath of allegiance to anyone.

    I can't imagine that many schools would necessarily want to get into this. In a lot of cases, the whole oath swearing ceremony could end up as rather an embarrassment, especially if some of the children tried to make a mockery of it.

    Swearing an oath on entering the police, army or parliament is something that people may be proud to do as part of the entry into the profession or establishment - with a bar to access if they refuse to do so.

    I'm not sure how you force someone to swear an oath of allegiance when they don't want to.


  14. James

    The Prime Minister has Royal prerogatives.

    Below is the copy of a 2005 Commons debate I put on Gazunder in which the Office of Constable is set out.

    The first is the historical significance and importance of the office of constable. The second is an understanding of the way in which the Bill, as presented, proposes to give what might broadly be described as "police powers" to SOCA staff.

    Although today's police forces are the creation of statute and the police have numerous statutory powers and duties, from a legal point of view, a police force is essentially neither more nor less than several individual constables, whose status derives from the common law. The office of constable dates back to the parish constable, who, by the beginning of the 17th century, was responsible for the preservation of the peace in his bailiwick and for the execution of the orders and warrants of the justices of the peace. The constable's oath and close relationship with the justices of the peace characterised him as a ministerial officer of the Crown, like a sheriff or the JPs themselves, rather than as a local administrative officer. In short, constables have never been civil servants.

    Various enactments were passed in the 19th and 20th centuries, providing for the establishment of police forces. Powers were not conferred on members of police forces as such, but a member of a police force on appointment had to be attested as a constable by making a declaration. A member of a police force now has all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales.

    The hallmark of the present day constable therefore remains, as it was in the 17th century, his attestation. Until so attested, constables have neither the authority nor the status of a constable. Once attested, the constable holds that office. That applies equally to members of police forces, special constables, and, of special note, the director general and police members of the National Crime Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad.

    I draw attention to the fact that, when Parliament created NCIS and the NCS, it wisely saw fit to maintain the significance of the office of constable by creating a

    7 Feb 2005 : Column 1272

    category of police members of those organisations. The Bill will abolish NCIS and the NCS and absorb those organisations into SOCA. What, then, is the precise status of a police constable?

    When carrying out his duties as a constable, a member of a police force—of whatever rank—acts as an officer of the Crown and a public servant. Constables' powers are exercised by virtue of their office, and unless they are executing a warrant, the powers can be exercised only on their own responsibility. A police constable who deliberately fails to carry out his duties by wilfully omitting to take steps to preserve the Queen's peace or to protect a person under attack commits a criminal offence—the common law offence of misconduct of an officer of justice.

    The Crown is not liable for the wrongful acts of a member of a police force. Although a constable is an officer of the Crown and a public servant, his or her relationship with the Crown is not that of master and servant, nor that of principal and agent. He or she is a servant of the Crown only in the sense that any holder of a public office may be called a servant of the Crown or the state.

    Why does that matter in 2005? The answer is that it has important consequences for the nature of policing and the independence of our police force. Police officers cannot be dismissed on notice; they cannot take industrial action; they have a duty to act and report both on and off duty; and they are completely politically impartial. Those have all been characteristics of our police for at least the past 175 years. They derive from the office of constable. That is of great importance to the nature of policing in Britain.

  15. Ken

    I visited your blog but am unable to see what you are driving at.

    The Queen is not a separate thing from the country because the Coronation is essentially the marriage of the two.

    The Queen took an oath to become sole fount of justice.

    The administration of justice is by Crown Authority (Queen and Country) by independent judiciary (who cannot be sacked ... Act of Settlement) independent constables, magistrates and coroners. It is our check and balance against dictatotial government.

    (Yes I know Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair have ridden right over Crown Authority but we do not have a monarch representing the country with the intellect of a QE1)

  16. Ken

    I recall this sort of debate in the 80s in a pub in Broadstairs.

    A retired colonel was getting rather miffed with the very amusing Margate Museum curator John Williams (ex Ammo tech RAOC .. you know bomb disposal sort of stuff)

    The argument raged on.

    Eventually the retired colonel asked, given all the criticism of the country, would you fight for Queen and Country ?

    And John (a master of comic timing) drew on his pipe .... sipped his pint.


    The colonel flabbergasted asked "After all the criticism you would fight for the Queen ? WHY ?"

    John another puff of the pipe and a sip of his pint.

    "Habit" he said.

    And they both smiled.

    This debate will always end that way.

    Our nephew is staff PTI at Sandhurst and he is impressed with the officer cadets he trains (one ex Dane Court) these are the army commanders of the future.

    Now if thge Queen says to them arrest Gordon Brown and Gordon Brown says to them arrest the Queen.

    Brown's feet won't touch till they hit the tower.


  17. Atleast you can vote a President out but not the Monarch.

  18. Anonymous democracy is a funny thing, you get left with choices like say a choice between president Brown and president Cameron. I am often left wondering who is really running the country, the press, powerful lobbyists, eurocrats the people we voted for

  19. Anonymous 11.43 - oooh I bet you write lots of comments on the BBC HYS board about how labour have destroyed our country and sold us to Europe don't you? Maastricht treaty, led to the EU, Tory signature on that no?
    And it's the everyday man and woman on the street in this country that have made it what it is, a generation blighted by the tories who have spawned their own devil kids who dont care about anything. No government in the world could legislate against the state of our society. No amount of swearing allegiance will instil any moral responsibility in people who believe the world owes them a living, a sky box and a nice 4x4. I dont know what the answer is but I do know demonising Tony Blair isnt it.....