Safe Speed Forums

and the English Bill of Rights Act of 1669 says, "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"

and it is still valid as said Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as ammended) makes no mention of the Former Act, to override it, it must mention the Latter Act, ie it is still fully Valid in Law

It's the Bill of Rights 1689 and it's not an Act in the normal sense - which is why it cannot be repealed wholesale.

The best analogy is that it is a contract between the Crown and the people

Bill of Rights (1688 c.2)
It says it is "An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.".

_________________
Andrew.

Let us take this to another conclusion that is to give the officer the benefit of the doubt as he appeared to act in good faith bearing in mind that the police (as I have said before) have to deal with ALL the dregs of society and have probably heard all the various excuses time and time again on a daily basis and they had to act on what info they had to hand (so to speak) now put yourself in the position of the officer concerned what would you do ????????????
Let him go or do what the officer did, and I do hope the chap is fully reimbursed as it does appear that why has he said "he did not sign for the car to be crushed" yet the pound say he did, is it not very strange that his wife went to all the trouble of "Trying to get the car back" by producing docs etc. to the relevant people only to find a week later the car is crushed is there a funny "whiff" about this i.e. as I have said previously it is very easy to say "it was im guv" not me it is called "passing the buck !!!!!!
The first thing that should have happerned was that due to a dispute the car should have been a) either given back forthwith or b) stored until the matter was resolved in the proper manner and not just crushed wiily nilly!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

It is not an Act as we would understand it today.

A basic tenet of English law is that anything which is not specifically forbidden, is allowed. Acts of Parliament are therefore worded to provide either prescription or control. We do not have much in the way of statute that permits (as opposed to controls).

The Bill of Rights is permissive and is a contract with the Crown. It, with the Magna Carta. is the nearest thing that we have to a written constitution. It cannot be repealed wholesale - and since the Metric Martyrs judgement, it cannot be repealed impliedly by later statute either.

Pat, just for clarity, you're confusing the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Rights.

It was the Declaration of Rights that could be deemed the 'contract', this session of Parliament was not in being when the DoR was signed therefore the DoR was ratified by the BoR.

You are right in that the BoR can only be expressly repealed, however any attempt at interfering with the DoR by Parliament, would not only be deemed treason, it will also dissolve this session of Parliament. The same for the Queen, if she attempted to sign off legislation that would essentially interfere with the DoR, then the line of succession reverts back to the Stewarts.

It makes an interesting question regarding the legality of the Government's new religious bill for said bill does not expressly repeal the Bill of Rights and it cannot ever repeal the DoR without first consulting the people. By statute, the Government's new bill will be in conflict with its own statute for the constitution of this country actually descriminates against Catholics.

A great post, Wayne.
The DoR and BoR should be brought to everyone's attention in as public a manner as possible. I wonder how we can do this. Do you have this in full and could you point us to it?
One must wonder why we have a Monarch if she is not prepared to defend us against dubious politicians. I used to tell my American friends that it was not what the Queen actually does, it's what her position prevents others from doing as part of the ancient 'checks and balances' which makes up for not having a written constitution. Now I'm not so sure if we need her and her family at all.
All these lawyers in gov't and not one of them have any respect for it.

Cheers Cooperman,

What we need is a decent paper or journalist who understands and accepts that this country DOES, have a constitution in the first place. Christopher Booker in his Telegraph column has attempted to push this but unfortunatelty it goes over the heads of many. I rememer Peter Hitchin holding the Bill of Rights in his hands, shaking as he understood well, the importance that document

It is assumed that 300 hundred year old laws cannot possibly have any relevance in todays 'modern' Britain and the Government has been able to ignore these laws because people in reality have no idea of their importance nor even their existance. If people read the privy Councillors oath, they would be in no doubt that many of the "Right Honourable" persons who have sworn said oath, are no more than traitors and liars who are not true of their word, why else, as a Sovereign nation, do our Politicians accept the rule of law from a foreign entity?

it is interesting to note, that for 300 years these laws have served us well, unlike Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights has not been repealed in any shape nor form, therefore not being suitable for a 'modern' Britain, translates to, not being suitable for today's totalitarian politicians'. Many in the legal profession are unfortunately also unclear as to the legitimacy of our Constitution, brushing it away as if it were a

As to how we bring it to the public's attention, I'm afraid it will be difficult due to its complexity and i have tried on many occasions to find ways of explaining it clearly. Conveniently for Government, anybody who attempts to make use of the BoR, is seen as a crank, trying to obscure responsibility by utilising an ancient law. It is most unfortunate that people cannot begin to understand just how important those laws are; they are the fabric upon which our very democracy resides, the difference between serfdom and freedom and we let the law lords and the Politicians interfere with them at our peril. As is becoming more apparent, the State is becoming more and more intrusive of our everyday lives, the more the Government of today gets away with ignoring our Constitution, the more our liberties and identity will dissolve into obscurity.

[quote="Cooperman
A great post, Wayne.

All these lawyers in gov't and not one of them have any respect for it.[/quote]

Likewise a great post.

Trouble is that all these lawyers in gov't are making a mockery of the law and bringing it into disrepute.
It would seem that these psuedo lawyers only answer to a bad /badly worded law is another equally badly worded law.

Or perhaps that is why they've chosen politics, and left the law to their wives.(Who seem a lott( deliberate typo) more capable of handling it)

Having read through the subject of the original post; nothing actually surprises me!

Siezing and crushing cars 'illegally'????? Redress for this????

Don't forget, they shot a man in the head EIGHT TIMES on an underground train in London in 2005 - and no-one has been held responsible!

Let's just be grateful that the bloke wasn't a Brazilian electrician!

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

They also got away with pumping countless bullets in to Stephen Waldorf back in 1983 despite several witnesses stating that even when he was hanging (motionless) out of the car, they still fired at him at point blank range.

The reason for Mr Waldorf being filled full of lead.................a female passenger in his car was believed to be the girlfriend of an escaped prisoner (she wasn't of course).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 530649.stm

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?