Gun Culture

Liberty

Monday, January 21, 2008

Power without law, making laws means no man or his property is safe

As seen on the SAGBNI website, which looks a lot better these days, a letter to the Guardian from Elizabeth Beckett in response to an article by George Moonbat.

Grave Ignorance or Serious Deception:
“Power without law, making laws means no man or his property is safe”.

In the Guardian on January 1st, 2008 you published an article by George Monbiot entitled; “How Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people - “Not having a written constitution allowed Blair and his advisers to go to war without reference to parliament or the public.”

What you have stated above, the claim we that we do not have a ‘written constitution’, is misleading, since technically it means we do not have a codified constitution. Perhaps you would like to point out to us where it is not codified?

We have observed that Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, these are indeed codified. The claim that we do not have a written constitution is usually made in comparison of the codification of the American constitution, which is Masonic, and was made at one time. But it should be born in mind that the claim that we in Britain do not have a constitution is used as propaganda formulated against the Rights of the People and in so doing is taking us down the path of tyranny, as made clear by Tom Paine when he said ‘…the constitution was made for the people and not government’.

With reference to the right to go war in your article; in fact what Tony Blair did was he acted outside the ‘prerogative’ which is in the hands of the monarch in accordance with their Coronation Oath. Blair had not at that time, with the help of Lord Faulkener (Lord chancellor), put through the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which is clearly against Halsbury, Jowitt (legal reference books of great prestige) and earlier, Sir Edward Cook made it plain, “The Royal Prerogative is part of the personality of the monarch and can not be taken from them even by an Act if Parliament.” The ‘prerogative power’ is lent to the monarch by the People at the coronation for the life time of the monarch!

Mr Brown is now in his governance of Britain, is trying to give the ‘prerogative’ to Parliament or the People which would mean removing the ‘prerogative’ from the protection of the monarch and the judiciary. As in the Chagos Archipelagos case, the Law Lords ruled that Parliament had already acted outside the ‘prerogative power’. Now we as a People, are in GRAVE DANGER because there will be no power to control the impartial power to protect us, against tyranny, as was set out by our ancestors as described by Lord Chatham – (Pitt the Elder). “…the genius of our ancestors” … The removal of the ‘prerogative’ is TREASON against the principles of our country which protect the People against tyranny.

For the record; we the People of Britain do indeed have a constitution and in accordance with it’s statues, the matter of going to war lies with the monarch NOT Parliament! We in Britain have a republic in which the Peoples’ power (the ‘prerogative’) is held by the monarch for their life time. Parliament does not hold that power, further more an Oath of Allegiance has to be taken by anyone who wishes to take a seat in Parliament, this incorporates the laws of our land.

Charles the 1st warned: ‘...Power without law, making laws means no man or his property is safe.” Therefore by Parliament now attempting to take over the ‘prerogative’ it is attempting to take the power from the People.’

Mr Monboit’s article shows a lack of constitutional grasp by writing as he has - by referring to a “unwritten constitution” and calling it a “gentleman’s agreement”, and by not correcting such misinformation. It is this ignorance that has been deliberately propagated amongst the people of this nation which has effectively so far, allowed Blair to act as a dictator. What Mr Monbiot has suggested in his article about the constitutional reform, is too weak and incorrect, because it clear he does not seem to realise what the government is proposing do to our enshrined laws and in so doing, you as a paper, are supporting the uprising of treasonable power.

The Fabian strategy is globalisation, Iraq and Afghanistan are merely part of this plan to which the People of Britain and other countries come a very poor second. It should be noted that Blair was head of the Fabian’s before becoming leader of the Labour party.

Last year 2007, we Britain supposedly celebrated the end of slavery which often involved the use of physical chains and forced labour, now the dynamics of the game have changed and far from been abolished there is evidence that our parliamentarians have put the people of this nation even more deeply into the slavery into the European Union with its ever mounting tyrannical laws and controls including the loss of our inalienable rights, not least Habeas Corpus.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence from government documents that Edward Heath and others committed treason in taking us as a nation into the European Union. See http://tinyurl.com/2pfmcd

We look forward to hearing from you and trust you will correct this information in your newspaper and thus provide your readers with the truth of our very real ‘written constitution’.

Yours Sincerely

Elizabeth Beckett

I believe I met Elizabeth at a political meeting with Richard North a few years back.  A formidable and forthrite woman.

Monday, July 16, 2007

ACPO wants open ended internment

Generally when I hear that ACPO has asked for something, I think it is a fair bet it will be bad news for freedom.
So when I saw a representative of ACPO on Sky News talking about what a mistake it was to specify a number of days for internment detention without charge, I knew what he really meant was he wanted unlimited detention.

‘We should never have got involved in the 90-day debate. In hindsight, we should have said that we needed an extraordinary mechanism to give us the ability to investigate these complex cases under judicial supervision,

Ah, here we go.

Ken Jones, the president of Acpo, told The Observer that in some cases there was a need to hold terrorist suspects without charge for ‘as long as it takes’.

Of course this would only ever be used in the case of terror suspects wouldn’t it?
Just like these cases:
On 22 March 2003, the police used surprisingly extreme tactics to prevent more than 120 activists from reaching a legally sanctioned anti-war demonstration in Fairford, (Gloucestershire, UK).
Terrorist Act used to detain 82 year old heckler at Labour Part Conference

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

“Rights” won and rights lost

One of the things about a private space is that you should be able to set your own bounds of acceptable behaviour.  This should apply even when you open your private space for the public to enter for the purposes of trade, for example a shop or cafe.  Up until July 1st cafes are allowed to restrict smoking for example, if you come into my cafe then you may not smoke an owner may say.  Generally we accept and understand this and if people wish to smoke they are welcome to go elsewhere, although after July 1st they will be shit out of luck.  So we accept that a proprietor can set his own bounds on his own ground.
The propose so called ‘Right to breastfeed’, on the face of it A Good Thing removes some of the rights of the proprietor.  It says that someone cannot prevent a mother whopping her milk bar out in their private property.  I think we can all agree that mothers should be more able to feed the issue of their loins without feeling shunned, however to enshrine this in law is to restrict the rights of property owners and I have a problem with this.  By all means lets try to promote breast feeding and reduce some of the perceived stigma but to be perfectly frank I don’t really wish to be in a top drawer eatery (like Burger King) and have a women bring her milk shake to the yard.  I just don’t know where to look.  I feel like if I’m looking away that I’m ignoring them or looking snooty, and if I look then I am a perv trying to catch a flash.
Anyway back on track, individuals who have the ‘right’ to go elsewhere’ should not expect to impose their ‘rights’ on property owners actual rights - regardless of how noble the motive seems to be.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Relegalise Guns - Power to the People

What a great title for a press release from the Libertarian Alliance.
Freedom for Tooting under the Tooting Popular Front!

“RELEGALISE GUNS: POWER TO THE PEOPLE”, FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK TELLS BLAIR GOVERNMENT

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties policy institute, today calls on the British Government to take firm action over the shootings of young men in South London.

It believes the best action would be to relegalise guns and let ordinary people fight back with lethal force against the violent criminals who presently rule the streets of our cities.

Libertarian Alliance Director, Dr Sean Gabb, says:

“The Libertarian Alliance believes in a return to the wise laws of our ancestors, under which a person could walk into a gun shop and, without showing a licence or any form of identification, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as he pleased, and could keep these at home, or carry them about in public, for the defence of his life or property.

“We have the most restrictive laws in Europe on gun ownership. These have plainly not worked. In 1968, in 1988, and twice in 1997, we were promised a safer country if only we gave up our guns. We were cheated.

“In fact, the only people who have no guns are the respectable. Those who do commit assaults are no more likely to obey the gun ban than they are to stop listening to horrid music or to wash their hands after using the toilet.

“Even turning the country into a police state, with powers of random stop and search and scanners in public places, will do nothing to disarm these creatures. Such laws will only inconvenience the respectable. They subject us to the indignity of being searched by police officers who are increasingly useless and corrupt. They disarm us to the point where criminals can roam among us like foxes among chickens.

“Laws against keeping guns at home and carrying them about for defence of life and property are an infringement of our liberties.

“We need to get back to the sane legal climate of the Victorian era, when citizens were expected to take part in defending themselves, and were encouraged to use lethal force when they believed it necessary.

“At the same time, we need real punishments for real crimes. Those who commit assaults on others should be caught and punished with terrifying swiftness and severity. Assuming due process of law, I see no objection to the use of the death penalty.”

The Libertarian Alliance believes:

* That there should be no controls on possessing and carrying weapons, including handguns, for self-defence, and that accordingly the Firearms Acts 1920, 1937, 1968, 1988, 1997 (one and two), and all other restrictive laws should be repealed;

* That there should be a legal and moral climate in which, where believed necessary, the use of lethal force to protect life or property is celebrated;

* That all persons found guilty under the existing laws against self-defence should be pardoned and where appropriate compensated;

* That all criminal laws should be repealed except those directed against force or fraud;

* That all agencies of inspection and control set up to implement laws against victimless crimes should be immediately abolished, and that their records be destroyed;

* That all investigatory powers given to the authorities for the prosecution of victimless crimes should be immediately abolished;

* That any organisation arguing against the above should receive no public funding or charitable status.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Renew for freedom

Did you renew your passport yet?
You’ve only a couple of days to go......

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Plod tells you what crimbo presents to buy

John over at The England Project tells us about GMP top woodentop’s call for a ban on parents buying toy guns for their offspring at Crimbo.  I seem to remember telling John of a similar incident which occured in the Cumbria region back in the days of Frontrank.  Just like this instance part of the justification was because armed woodentops can’t tell the difference between replica guns and the real thing.  At this point I am contractually obliged to mention Harry Stanley, shot by armed plod for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag.  It is clear that Stanley was shot because the plod were pumped up and had been told that Stanley was an Irishman with a shotgun (this was in the IRA period), one of the officers even just started shooting because his colleague did.  Given that plod don’t know a table leg from a gun I think we perhaps should be worried about police training/procedures but not what toys we give nippers.  Another example of (senior) police trying to set the political agenda.

This reminds me of my niece who won a prize on a fairground stall.  She didn’t want any of the girly toys, oh no - she wanted the toy gun!  A passable facsimilie of a 1911 as it goes, certainly enough to fool the SAS wannabies in the ARVs.  You go girl!  She’s only about 5 BTW.

Friday, November 04, 2005

The Religion of Peace

I have seen my arse with Islam.
Normally I like to consider myself a good libertarian, I consider that you can do what you like.  Provided that it does not impinge on my (or others) rights to do likewise.  Hence I have been trying not to consider Islam per se to be a danger or a negative thing, and it certainly has been trying.  Whilst we have seen terror attacks in our own nation and abroad I have tried to hold to the view that these are crazies on the fringe, that the majority do not share these views and are as horrified as I am.
The steady drip drip of incidents and baffling suppresion of English culture to accomadate an immigrant minority belief have taken it’s toll.  Nothing can exist in a vacuum and it seems to me that the Religion of Peace we keep hearing about is either a myth or in fact the true extreme of the religion.
What do I propose we should do?  Wipe Islam from the face of the Earth?  No, I still can’t bring myself to come to this conclusion.  We should however cease pretending that Muslim is a peaceful tolerant religion and we certainly need to stop making accomadations to these minority.  If I want to have a piggy bank then I shall, if I wish to fly the flag of my nation then I shall, if I wish to denounce Islam then I shall.
If you don’t like it Mohammed Ahmed, or Tarquin Tofu Guardian-Wank-Boy then I invite you to go and fuck yourself.

I’ve added a graphic to the sidebar which shows the number of terrorist attacks by followers of the ‘religion of peace’ since the twin tower attacks.  Thanks to Isiah for pointing me to The Religion of Peace

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Take the ID Card Pledge

Michael Parker of No2ID wants you to remember to sign the pledge;

I’ve already signed it, have you?

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

ID Cards

From the Graniad

The cabinet has decided to rush through its controversial identity cards legislation, one of the centrepieces of tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech, to try to take advantage of the Tories’ post-election disarray to get it through the Commons, Whitehall sources have confirmed.

No doubt also whilst pro-freedom groups find their coffers empty after the election push as well.

If you haven’t already, then go to No2ID right now and start reading.  When you’re done reading then start acting.
Now.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Short Memory?

Cor lummy guvnor.  I’ve been quoted at The Edge of England’s Sword by Drake.
Admittedly he is saying he doesn’t agree with me, but hey I take it where I can find it....
Since TEES doesn’t do comments I’ll post my repost here.

The problem is that the rejectionist argument invariably seems to include things like “I am not one to pretend that such a threat does not exist, however I do doubt greatly the scale of the threat” even from people who are otherwise sensible. You see I just don’t believe that. I think the threat is real and awesome. I think that Blair probably sees terrible things come over his desk each time one of the batches of terror arrests is made here. Furthermore I think that in the name of good public policy we have to take him at his word that the threat is real: saying the threat is less is a good way to excuse oneself from the really hard decisions, because after all if the threat is less severe then you can reject all the proposed measures with a clear conscience.

My emphasis obviously.
Firstly ‘otherwise sensible’ can’t be referring to me!
But the other points regarding the things Blair sees and taking him at his word.
I really can’t see my way clear to that old chap.  Firstly Blair is a compulsive liar and secondly the last time we took his word regarding intelligence it proved to be a monumental load of old cobblers.
I can see Drake’s problem with siding with the Lib Dems, but I don’t think siding with Blair is an acceptable alternative.
More words on the matter from Samizdata where an excert from a letter in The Times is reproduced.

Tony Blair claims that “there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack”.
He is wrong. If the 20th century teaches us anything it is that the greatest threat to civil liberty comes from governments that have been allowed to exercise excessive power over their own people. The greatest civil liberty is to live securely protected from government intrusion. We have seen that, while terrorists can threaten the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands, governments can oppress and maltreat entire peoples and can do this for decades.

Quite.

Thanks for the link BTW Mr Drake!

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Destruction of liberty

The Government is hell bent on taking away our liberty in the name of protection against terrorism.
I am not one to pretend that such a threat does not exist, however I do doubt greatly the scale of the threat.  Those who perpertrated the outrage on September 11th 2001 did not really expect that their crazy plan would be so devastatingly successful, the threat on our own shores can surely be no higher than we faced at the peak of the PIRA atrocities.
Times such as these require vigilance, strong border controls and good policing and security force work, not outrageous laws which threaten the very fabric of the relationship between citizen (subject if you prefer) and state.  Labour would have been the first in the line to howl down these laws were they proposed under a Conservative Government and yet when the power is in their hands they are no different in wishing absolute power for themselves.
Surely unprecedented in modern times is the scale and ferocity of the attack on liberty by Government, Blair’s Enabling Act, ID Cards, detention without trial etc.
Those who looked at NAZI Germany and say such things could not happen here are not only blind but dangerous because they are the ones who’s comlicity allows Government to get away with this.

I notice Blair is trumpeting that safety is more important than liberty.  I disagree.  Liberty is everything, without liberty we do not have lives - we have existence as slaves to a government master.

A couple of quotes from deeper thinkers than I

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

‘Necessity’ is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt (The Younger I believe)

Monday, November 29, 2004

Blunkett in Bother

All over the news at the moment is the spot of bother that Mad Dog has got into.
In any other government you could pretty much be sure that having been accused of cuckolding and then abusing his position by allegedly pushing a visa application through for his lover’s nanny, giving ministerial travel passes to same - that the minister would be ‘spending more time with his guide dog’.  However Trust Me Tony is fiercely defensive of his favoured allies so we see the most robust defence of a minister in stuck that we have seen in a long time.
In Mad Dog’s favour is the fact that the more underhand tabloids who would normally do this story to death (if it were not a Labour man) will be soft pedalling this one.  Mad Dog pushes the politics that the tabloids eat up, ID cards, police state etc.  He is very much their man, so it is left to the right wing press.  The Mail loves ID cards and will be unwilling to stick the knife into someone who they see as the best Home Secretary the Tories never had and the Telegraph will almost certainly back off now that an ‘independant’ inquiry is to be held.
The inquiry will allow the iron to cool and will result in a whitewash of the scale of the Butler and Hutton inquiries.
Game over and Mad Dog can get back to building the police state and destroying what remains of traditional English freedoms, a chance to spike a statist gun will have been missed.

A tragedy.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Civil Contingencies Bill Passed

As discussed previously here at Gun Culture, the Civil Contingencies Bill is a horrendous piece of legislation.  It gives the regime of the day almost unlimited powers to suspend any Bill/Statute whatever, seize any property and basically do what ever the hell they like.  This truly is a dictator’s dream.  It really cannot be stressed enough what a danger this represents.  Attempts by the Lords to exclude Magna Carta from the reach of the act were defeated and we really have no defence whatsoever against this.

What opposition have we seen from HM Loyal Opposition?
Nichts, nowt, yadda.
What chance that a future Conservative Government will repeal this revolting legislation?
See above.

The ban on foxhunting is as nothing to this bill, but it seems to me rather expedient that the Bills were enacted so closely together thus ensuring that media attention would focus on the men and women in pinks.

RIP freedom and democracy.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

The Dictatorship

The following was sent to Steve Black from well known patriot Bob Lomas.  It’s quite a long piece, but a worthwhile read.  In this mini essay you see how we have been betrayed by treasonous politicians and let down by a Monarch who has either been poorly advised or threatened into complicity.  We see how our country has been given away to a foreign power, how our ancient and wonderful legal system has been systematically picked apart in favour of Code Napolean and how the people of the UK have had their rights taken from them.

THE DICTATORSHIP

Under British law we can do virtually anything we wish providing there is no law against it.

In Europe you can only do what the law says you can.

In the United Kingdom the state is the servant of the people.

In Europe the people are subjects of the state.

In the United Kingdom we have inalienable common law rights that the state cannot deny us or take away from us.

In Europe rights are awarded by the state and can be withdrawn at the state’s discretion.

In the United Kingdom the people control the state, for the sovereignty rests with the people.

In Europe the state controls the people for it is the state which is sovereign.

In the United Kingdom we do not have a state police force, we have county police forces accountable to the Crown which represents the people.

In Europe they have state police forces whose job it is to enforce state policy.

The Anglo-Saxon state system of the United Kingdom, backed and upheld by a national constitution that has evolved over a thousand years, is the absolute antithesis of the European system. As an example of this totally opposed way of thinking one only has to look at the first draft of the EU constitution in which it says,” everyone is entitled to compulsory education”. What advancement could possibly be gained for the British people by abandoning a thousand years of common sense development and embracing the doctrines of people that are by comparison in the infancy of democratic development?

There can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there never was, is not, nor could there ever be, any advantage or gain to be made for the British people from the United Kingdom being a member of the European Union of the Regions, not strategically, culturally or economically. It is a matter of chalk and cheese, the mixture of which defies the palate of all, and enforced ingestion results in nausea.

So why is the United Kingdom a member of the European Union? A membership that has cost us billions of pounds, destroyed our industries, in particular our steel, coal. farming, fishing and vehicle manufacturing industries. A membership that has caused the premature deaths of hard working farmers and destroyed their families, and made honest traders common criminals for refusing to bend the knee to a foreign political dictatorship. A membership that has destroyed the social structure of our small, and in particular rural, communities by making it impossible for small businesses, local shops and post offices, garages and public houses to survive. And all for no gain or advantage that anyone has been able to realistically or honestly prove.

Continue reading The Dictatorship...

Friday, October 01, 2004

Animal Aid onto the next target

People keep asking me what will be next after hunting with hounds.  I’ve been saying for sometime that pheasant shooting will undoubtably be the next target.
Now that the antis feel they have their ban in the bag, they have already begun to swing their attention to pheasant rearing and shooting as noted by The Englishman and as seen in the CA Grassroots Newsletter today.

If there really are any fools who feel that the tide will stop with hunting with hounds (are you listening John Swift?) then
this must surely change their minds.