Aardvark

Jordan (Katie Davies) a topless model received 713 votes (1.8%) in the 2001 GE; Nikolai Tolstoy, UKIP, received 798 votes (1.5%) in 2005 and 941 (1.9%) in 2001. Tolstoy is fighting David Cameron at the next GE; we'd be better off with Jordan.

I think that puts it in perspective, wouldn't you agree?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

chikrodah

Well, that's demonstrated a new set of debating skills.

There's a very specific definition in legal terminology here; I appreciate the need to reduce the phrase "body of constitutional law" to the soundbite of "our constitution", but it doesn't make the soundbite factually correct.

BTW, I understand that how much being hit by a bat hurts depends on whether it's a Madagascan Fruitbat or a British Pipistrelle. In both cases, though, the RSPCA is likely to throw the book at you when they prosecute.

mattyr2k8

here is proof the government just ignores the people who dont agree with them anyway:


(this is while petitions with 100 and less signatures sometimes have replies)

Hunter

Governments have always ignored people they don't agree with, nothing new there. But with regards to whether or not we have a constitution, the question becomes irrelevant once the 'Treaty' is ratified as it hands over power to the EU Council of Ministers, who can, at will, change whatever law they wish, without reference to any member state.

aarable

aarable

It's interesting that government lawyers on behalf of The Commons Speaker, Michael Martin, depend upon “parliamentary privilege” granted by the Bill of Rights 1688/9 to stop the publication of a Home Office report on ID cards, when it was argued that Parliamentary committee discussions should be made available under freedom of information legislation.

Yet when the Bill of Rights is quoted “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void” in defence of parking fines levied without conviction, then it (the Bill of Rights) is ruled (by National Parking Adjudication Service – NPAS in the case of Barnby v NPAS) as being made for another era and dismissed; withCaroline Shepard, Chief NPAS adjudicator writing in Parking News issue 224, July 2006: “The Bill of Rights must be read in a contemporary light ………”

Similarly we have seen all governments from Heath to Blair and Brown ignoring the Bill of Rights when it comes to handing powers to foreign jurisdictions (the European Union for instance): “….. no foreign prince or person prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power supremacy pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm”.

So we now have a government that makes up the rules and bends the law to suit the particular set of circumstances it faces. We saw the same thing over the Metric Martyrs case where a judge arbitrarily introduces a concept of hierarchy of laws (constitutional laws and ordinary laws) to allow a judgment to be made that suits the outcome that the EU prescribes and government appears to desire.

I wonder whether there has been any judgment that has been beneficial to challengers ofthe EU integration process and “ever closer union” I know of none.

Can we expect any 'beneficial' judgements from our courts, when the Lisbon Treaty (93 to 96% of the EU Constitution) has been be adopted and the European Court of Justice control our judicial ‘process’ with their prescribed “Corpus Juris”.

Aardvark

aarable, what do you understand by 'particular persons'?

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

chikrodah

You've not quite got the hang of this discussion forum lark, have you aarable?

A simple "But, back to my original post" would have sufficed.

All you've done is proven, yet again, that you're happy to start threads, but not prepared to debate them. Try looking at my post on the subject of the Bill of Rights on this thread (number 13, I believe).

I think that might answer most of your questions.

Oh and BTW, as I've posted elsewhere, the UK has currently exercised its opt-out on the whole Justice and Home Affairs area of the Lisbon Treaty, so it's unlikely we'll get thumped with a whole new set of lawbooks even immediately after 2014 (when this area of the new treaty comes into effect.)

aarable

Elizabeth: “Talk about the Constitution. Research it. Know it. Know that it exists and help to keep it alive against the evil forces dedicated to its destruction. Please send donations however small, to Namaste Magazine for the Elizabeth Beckett Constitutional Legal Fund”

http://www.namastepublishing.co.uk/Elizabeth%20Beckett%20-%20News%20Black%20Out

chikrodah

Res ipsa loquitur, again.

It's not a discussion if you ignore people and post something else in larger than normal font!

Elizabeth Beckett's lack of legal knowledge has already been dealt with. Got anything else to shout at us with?