Bradford West by-election, 2012

[Yorkshire Dog]

He was voted in by muslims to act for muslims and put them at the top of the tree.

Bottom line.

The scan of that letter, earlier in the thread, that he sent out leaves no room for ambiguity.

[Plutonium]

I hear white coats flapping in the wind....

Neither of the Magnae Cartae (do these guys not even know the plural of Magna Carta?) referred to are in force and nor are they relevant to today's circumstances. Only 3 sections of MC 1297 remain in force; the Master of the Rolls reminded us all of that in court only a few weeks ago.

The Treason Act 1351, as amended, remains on the statute books:

I have no idea what these people are smoking, but there is nothing there that changes anything. The law has not been used and I guess won't be. The 'King's enemies' does not include any nation we are at peace with or where we have signed a treaty. The EU and NATO are the King's/Queen's allies as are our colleagues within the UN. Sh@gging Princess Diana could have been considered treason, but no action was taken against any of those accused of so doing. The Treason Act 1695 placed a 3 year time bar on treason charges.

The Act of Supremacy 1534 was repealed by Mary Tudor in 1554. Elizabeth I passed a fresh Act of Supremacy in 1558 (in force 1559).

This made the Queen head of the Church of England. It is still in force. There is talk of disestablishment, but that will only be debated after HMTQ dies and not before.

The Declaration of Rights became the Bill of Rights, 1689. It has been amended on a number of occasions. I reckon these people (the DNPs) are amongst the class of morons who think that the Oath of Supremacy, which relates to spiritual and ecclesiastical matters only (targets the Pope in particular - if you know your history you will understand why), can be used to get us out of the EU. It can't. All the sophists who spout that rubbish about the Bill of Rights have not read the whole Bill, know nothing of the Test Acts nor Clarendon Code nor of the history of the period. It is clear that, when addressing Parliament on this matter, William III wanted to allow Dissenters to take the Test and said so (the speech is recorded). John Somers therefore put that into the Bill of Rights during the Convention Parliament. He and the other draughtsmen were thinking about stopping James II supporters having any role in governance, not of the EU.

The Act of Settlement 1700, as amended by the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and other statutes, remains in force. It decides who will be King or Queen and ensures no Roman Catholic can ascend to the throne. There might indeed be a discussion on the inheritance by RCs in the future, but that's not an issue today. The coronation oath is amended by the 1910 statute.

I guess the DNPs are referring to the Treason Felony Act 1848. The key provision is:

See also s10 - don't bring a private prosecution.

Now I'm a lawyer, of sorts, and I see things that the lay men might not notice.

Firstly, the words are not to be interpreted by fools to mean that HMTQ is any less of a Queen by being sovereign of an independent EU member state. She remains Queen and that is it.

Secondly, in theory at least, all the countries that have become independent and have removed HMTQ as Head of State are in breach of this law, but nobody has gone to Kenya and told them they are guilty of treason. A variety of laws have been passed giving independence to many of her dominions and countries. They have superseded the act. New laws abrogate old laws. That's the end of the matter.

I do not know why the DNPs think these laws are the most relevant, but it is clear that they have not a single lawyer within their ranks to put them right on these idiocies.

On the basis of that part of their manifesto alone I would contend that no sane nor educated person should waste their vote on such fools.

To be fair, Aardvark, people cannot be expected to have this kind of detailed knowledge, without some legal training; the Law is a very complex and difficult area to master.

On the other hand, I would expect any candidate asking to represent people in Parliament to have a basic knowledge of their native language.

From the "Democratic Nationalists" website (as kindly quoted by SDP):

"The Democratic Nationalist Party (DN) was founded by a group of British Patriots, Nationalists who were not very impressed by the range of Nationalist organisations that were available for them too join."

Maybe these people would be better advised to get some basic English lessons, instead of setting up obscure political parties which nobody is going to vote for.

[Plutonium]

I love reading through the posts about the predictions... did none of you see it coming? Or just didn't believe, or want too? It was obvious Labour wouldn't, their attempt was ridiculous. Come on, extreme Galloway was the obvious winner!

All the "experts after the event" are coming out of the woodwork I see ...

Incidentally, the comment in my previous post is apposite here too ...

[Plutonium]

He was voted in by muslims to act for muslims and put them at the top of the tree.

Bottom line.

The scan of that letter, earlier in the thread, that he sent out leaves no room for ambiguity.

Well, unfortunately YD, there isn't a box on the ballot paper requiring you to state your ethnicity or religion. So how many Muslims or non-Muslims voted for Respect, Labour, or any other party, is a matter of guesswork.

However, it has been noted that the BNP did not put up a candidate, so the question is obviously where would-be BNP voters went to. Given that the "Democratic Nationalists" and UKIP failed to benefit from the lack of a BNP candidate, to my mind it would be a fair bet that they either stayed at home, or voted for Galloway as the best way to give Labour a bloody nose. A practice generally known as "tactical voting".

Of course, as I said, this cannot be either proven nor disproven without precise knowledge of voters' ethnicity or religion, but it seems to fit with the known facts.

[rjt]

He was voted in by muslims to act for muslims and put them at the top of the tree.

Bottom line.

The scan of that letter, earlier in the thread, that he sent out leaves no room for ambiguity.

I certainly beleive that he secured the majority of the Muslim vote by some way, but did not a lot of non Muslims vote for him as well? What was his appeal to them.

[brianm]

I certainly beleive that he secured the majority of the Muslim vote by some way, but did not a lot of non Muslims vote for him as well? What was his appeal to them.

None that I can see. He's a traitor for inciting opposition, not discounting violent opposition, to British troops.

Indirectly, there's every possibility of British blood on his hands.

I'd love to see him in another of HM's buildings.


As for a large number of people of Bradford West... Disappointment isn't remotely a strong enough word to describe them.

[rjt]

None that I can see. He's a traitor for inciting opposition, not discounting violent opposition, to British troops.

Indirectly, there's every possibility of British blood on his hands.

I'd love to see him in another of HM's buildings.


As for a large number of people of Bradford West... Disappointment isn't remotely a strong enough word to describe them.

Democracy doesnt always give you the result you want I am afraid.

[brianm]

Democracy doesnt always give you the result you want I am afraid.

Very true.

Democracy is far from perfect - but despite these flaws its as good a system as we're likely to achieve.