This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Picture Penzance is free to join and use. So why not join our community. As a member you can upload images, add comments, participate in our contests and connect with like minded people.
    All the best,
    Halfhidden (founder member)

Sign up for free today
Membership Is Free
No Adds
Members Only Areas
And lots More!

CLICK HERE

For Monarch OR Country?

Discussion in 'Politics religion money and health' started by treeve, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    115
    Here is a thread suggested from a discussion at the Meeting last night. It was suggested to me that this country and its occupants are better served by being members of a United Kingdom, rather than being in a Federal State of Europe or a Republic of Great Britain.

    Please keep this thread on track and omit any suggestions of external interference from the US and any form of World Financial Domination Group - such posts will be deleted..

    This is about internal Law - the protection of the individual, related to European Law, and in relation to Law which is subject to the Law of the Realm.

    The question is .. would we be better off as Citizens of a Republic or as Subjects of the Crown. How important is it to retain the Monarchy?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2010
  2. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    To my mind, none of the above.
    The Monarchy, bunch of tax fiddling mostly foreign freeloaders, that have one good point: They bring in tourists.

    The European Union, bunch of tax fiddling mostly foreign freeloaders, that get free flights to meetings and receive extortionate wages and expenses. This bunch have no good points at all, and interfere with everything they can.

    I'm afraid whether we agree or not the world has already been divided up for us into;
    The European Union
    The North American Union
    The African Union
    The Asian Union
    The UK can't do anything else but join, owing to the size of our population we can no longer grow or provide the daily essentials needed for survival. Like it or not our lifestyle cannot survive without the help of other countries. It's just a shame that one of the most respected countries in the world, in many ways, has very little influence in todays decisions political or otherwise.
     
  3. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    115
    That just about sums up my opinion of Britain having short changed itself, and trying to grab a survival rope, as well as the EU and its abuses.

    But the question is whether our rights under the present Law structure, which have originated out of The Crown, are likely or not to be eroded by a home Republic or by EU determinations and adjustments to suit this nanny state world, and whether or not it would be better in terms of Law for the bloc of the British Public.

    If a monarchy is deposed, a republic is left in its wake, and cast adrift, the tendency will be to fully join the Federal Republic of Europe ... when it finally arrives ....
    Can a Law which has evolved over generations, survive that change and still provide protection for the individual?
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2010
  4. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think the Monarchy will ever be deposed, just sidelined as a quaint English thing as archaic as our present system of law. Yes we need to overhaul our laws and their makers from the ground up, to bring us up to date with modern problems. The European parliament just interfere in a bid to justify their existance. If they think one law for all whichever country, they are mistaken. Each country has it's own particular problems and their populus, Citizen or Subject, should have a louder voice in the making of those laws than a bunch of freeloaders in Brussels or wherever they decide to build the next Euro monstrosity within the Union, with marble floors and leather topped desks.
    Overall the current system of English law started as a fair system, it's all the add ons that have made it unstable. As to whether or not the future holds changes for the better in the justice system depends entirely on your point of view. At the moment (unless you happen to be a victim), if you believe the TV and press, people think the law is doing it's best under immense pressure from a society of benefit scrounging drug addicts hell bent on robbing your house. Bit of a bleak outlook, so introduce a few more laws confusing the already beleagured Judges. It needs stripping down and updating, or protection for each individual will steadily be erroded until we are no more than serfs, living and working at the behest of the politicians and law makers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2010
  5. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    115
    Nicely summed up - many of our Laws are based in Byzantium and Rome.
     
  6. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    The trouble with laws written by God Fearing Men is, they are weak. Owing to their beliefs they tend to err on the side of clemency. We need positive laws that apply to everyone, rich or poor. Laws that can't be misused or misinterpreted, and more importantly no holes for the slippery ones to slide out of under some little known clause dating back to 1830. Maybe then the cry of "Here Come De Judge" will mean justice irrespective of ability to pay...........
     
  7. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. treeve

    treeve Major Contributor

    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    115
    Point taken, but frankly whatever is siphoned off in that direction is peanuts in comparison to waste and diversionary finances elsewhere. Not done the maths, but I was under the impression that it constitutes 5 pence per member of the public. Anyway that does not answer the question as to whether it would be better in terms of protection of the law for the public, in terms of Kingdom or Republic. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2010
  9. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the World as it is, and Super States being formed, add to that our weak politicians, and we could finish up as a Colony.
     
  10. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have just been reading the The Civil Contingences Act 2004 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/1 ... tguide.pdf after attempting to try to establish how this concept ties in to Martial Law; it appears that during the Raoul Moat false flag incident The Civil Contingences Act 2004 was implimented and tested on the public!

    Part 2: emergency powers
    In the UK emergency powers allow the making of special temporary legislation to deal with the most serious of emergencies. They are not a means for instigating martial law, for undermining Parliament, banning political parties or anything else of that nature. An essential point to note is that Emergency Powers legislation is a mechanism for dealing with only the most serious of emergencies that require an urgent response, an instrument of last resort. The previous emergency powers legislation (the Emergency Powers Act 1920) was used twelve times in its eighty-four year history, the last time being in 1974. In the years since, a considerable amount of sector specific emergency legislation has been introduced which reduced the need to resort to emergency powers, in part because of a recognition that Emergency Powers legislation was inadequate.

    There was a long but interesting post viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18972&p=140799&hilit=The+Civil+Contingences+Act+2004#p140799 placed within the site which refrences the The Civil Contingences Act amongst others and states:

    The Civil Contingences Act 2004 allows government to confiscate anything you possess permanently; you have no right to object. This includes your house. It also gives government the right to forceably move its population around to different locations; you can be left with no place to call your own and live like a refugee. The only check and balance here is a Minister just needs to utter the words "This is a national emergency." If a demonstration or strike government doesn't like is being organised, they can cut off all communications in a town - phones, mobiles, the internet, TV, and block all access to that town including closing roads and railways. It has all the powers and more of Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933.

    Now add this to the additional concern the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre FTAC and all of a sudden your entire existance can be under their definitions "taken from you" and you can be held in their custody without legal representation or lawful right to recourse! I do believe this is what can be defined as Martial Law, it is a shame the Government seems to publish otherwise!
     

Share This Page