ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

9 years, 5 months ago - Marlom Tander

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be a pillock.

And gives you the freedom to rebut. But do a Google first - if his docu has sunk without trace don't give it the oxygen of publicity by writing a detailed blog or wikipedia page on it/him.

9 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

I feel for you Ana. There's a powerful element right here in the UK who assert, with nothing more than the confident aplomb of conditioned ignorance, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we have no supreme and indeed written constitution here in the UK either. Unfortunately for us that lie is not just being reiterated by some singular plebeian pillock but also by most of the mainstream media too! Fortunately though, the days of wilful ignorance are surely numbered.

9 years, 5 months ago - Stuart Wright

Making A Murderer is just one point of view that since broadcast has been criticised by the points of view it doesn't cover ... Ps The U.K. doesn't have a constitution. It has laws and acts of Parliament but unlike say the USA it doesn't have a piece of paper that all other laws and rights are born. The U.K. Is an evolutionary system based on precedence and legal challenge.

9 years, 5 months ago - Dan Selakovich

HA! He must be a VICE producer. The world is full of these. They are not really documentaries, but propaganda. Most people, I hope, can tell the difference.

9 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

Ironically the heading for this strand is about the lack of research supporting assertions. Stuarts assertions are commonly reiterated not only by ordinary cap doffers but by far too many lawyers. Fortunately even some Law Lords agree with me. (I prefer to call them Law Lords because the construction of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional.

I've copied below one of my essays on the matter for those who might actually be bothered about facts, as opposed to the false conditioning and legal babble of treasonous politicians and their sycophantic gang over at the Ministry of Justice.

A confusion of Constitutional Supremacy

In the Times of the 14th February 2014 Lord Neuberger is reported as saying that we don't have a written constitution and reasserts the brazen myth of Parliaments Supremacy. It’s actually quite scary that the head of the unconstitutional Supreme Court (for reasons relating to its unlawful acquiescence to its own expulsion from the House of Lords) is a party to these misdirection’s. The only mitigation of this disgrace is that Neubergers opinion is not unanimously shared by all of his Peers on the supreme bench. This constant reiteration by some judicial elites that seem to be trying to say that we have a constitution, but that on the other hand we don’t, is a self evidently wrong assertion. The notion that our constitution is not written must be wrong otherwise how can there be one at all when we have a Constitutional Monarch, by virtue of her Coronation Oath (a written Constitutional Instrument as opposed to an Act) and when one can read all of the Constitutional Instruments in all their written glory in the Palace of Westminster Constitutional Library!? What these establishment lovies mean is that we don’t have a codified constitution, but the term codified in this context merely means conveniently indexed for ready referencing. Whether or not our constitution is so ‘codified’ and I believe one can argue that it is, has no bearing on whether or not we have a supreme constitution. We can however easily reference 1215 Magna Carta and more profoundly the entirely in force and unamended 1688 Declaration of Rights consequential to the constitutionally entrenched ‘Glorious Revolution’ of the same year.

The question of the status of any statute is not at all arcane and the eyebrow raising discussion as to what these descriptions of constitutional statutes and constitutional instruments actually mean is worrying in that there should be absolutely no doubt about it. Law is wholly constitutional, statutes derive from Acts of Parliament which are not Law and neither has any such Act ever committed the treason of declaring itself to be Law. This is the difference between Constitutional Law and Statutory Legislation, the term Statutory Law is a technical misnomer, a reality that's not at all arcane, even though seemingly hidden in plain sight. Governments through Acts and Judges through case law precedents cannot make Law or Constitutional Instruments. In any conflict between Law and statute, Law must always be supreme, therefore any statute, Bill or Act must be Lawful if it is to have any legitimacy whatsoever, it must follow that it’s not Parliament that’s supreme but the Law, which derives its supremacy from the higher Constitution and not the inferior Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, our constitution is formed from three unassailable things, Constitutional Instruments (1215, 1688 etc.) Common Law (as first codified by Alfred the Great and ultimately determined by juries at the Queens Bench and not judges, which is why juries have been described as ‘little parliaments’) and the most inferior of those three foundations, Case Law precedent (which can only define and clarify law, not make it and which must follow law, which is wholly constitutional, to be legitimate). It is pertinent to note that the 1689 Bill of Rights (a Constitutional Statute) which is so often held up to represent the more superior consequence of the Glorious Revolution is not at all superior and only derives its constitutional authority from the 1688 Declaration of Rights (a Constitutional Instrument) which is a superior Law and not an inferior statute. One can be certain that if this were not so politicians and their corrupt lawyers, who secretly hate the Declaration of Rights would have amended what they wickedly regard as an obstructive Bill, but they can't because an Act has no power to usurp an Instrument and they know it, and so use every lie and obfuscation to get around it. This illustrates clearly that no one, not even an elected parliament or a Constitutional Monarch, may change or usurp Constitutional Law. Only a further Constitutional Instrument can alter an existing one; otherwise what would be the point of having a constitution? Which by the way makes the ceding of ANY sovereignty to a foreign power treason; one could hardly make that up either!

We are now entering an unprecedented period of learned enlightenment amongst a growing body of the citizenry on these islands and within other Common Law jurisdictions (Canada, Australia and the USA etc., yes, that’s correct, the USA is a Common Law jurisdiction whose constitution fundamentally depends on what is in fact English Common Law, the tenets of which are written into it) who are increasingly unwilling to put up with the false and indeed treasonous assertions of tyrannical elites, their sycophantic followers and corrupted lawyers who seeks to empower, and indeed enrich themselves, by creating non secitur arguments within a scotch mist of false legalise.

©John Lubran 2014