NationStates Jolt Archive

You probably wouldn't have thought it with the fairly recent arguments for scrapping Human Rights laws and "replacing" them with a Bill of Rights, but we actually do have a Bill of Rights in England. This is the link: http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm but in short, it states:


That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.


As far as I'm aware, though like the Parliament Act it is rarely used, it is still valid (correct me if I'm wrong). Does that mean I could get away with speeding tickets if I had a car (not that I would be stupid enough to speed anyway)?

No shit.

Not to mention the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) which is binding.

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

oh bugger this thing was broken a long time ago

http://www.llgc.org.uk/sesiwn_fawr/splash.jpg

Not to mention the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) which is binding.
That's the Human Rights Act which everybody bitches about. Because it doesn't mention political correctness, but it in fact means we have to Hide Our Christian Identity. It doesn't mention migration, but it in fact means Johnny Foreigner can come and rape middle class English folk, as they all do. And it also means criminals get short sentences, we can't fight terrorists and turns the EU into a dictatorship by the European unelected eurocrats.

You can see what I'm getting at: tabloid cannon fodder. Which isn't true.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Interesting. Only Protestants may have arms. But now in the UK they can't even carry a knife for their own defense let alone a gun. Very interesting.

... but it in fact means we have to Hide Our Christian Identity. where does it say that?

Not to mention the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) which is binding.

I think that is awful that the member states of the EU have subordinated their sovereignty to the EU. But then again I don’t live in the EU or a member state.

Interesting. Only Protestants may have arms. But now in the UK they can't even carry a knife for their own defense let alone a gun. Very interesting.

have you seen English protestants?!

I think that is awful that the member states of the EU have subordinated their sovereignty to the EU. But then again I don’t live in the EU or a member state.

the E.U was officially formed in 1993, where talking the council of Europe which was formed in 1949

its complicated hell look at the map (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transatlantic/img/eur10_cofe.gif)

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Interesting. Only Protestants may have arms. But now in the UK they can't even carry a knife for their own defense let alone a gun. Very interesting.

but there is smoething more deadly at the heart of Anglican churches and that is Mothers Union

http://www.blackdown-hills.net/parishchests/yarcombe/new/mu2.jpg

where does it say that?
It doesn't. That's my point.

I think that is awful that the member states of the EU have subordinated their sovereignty to the EU. But then again I don’t live in the EU or a member state.
The Human Rights Act/Convention is nothing to do with the EU. I should put it on my list above.

where talking the council of Europe which was formed in 1949
its complicated hell look at the map (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transatlantic/img/eur10_cofe.gif)

Oh, I stand corrected.

Oh, I stand corrected.
You were only really wrong on a technicality. Most of the people who oppose the Human Rights Act oppose anything to do with Europe, Council or Union, assuming they know the difference.

England already has a Bill of Rights?

Jeez, this is ground breaking research! I guess everyone must have just missed it for the last 300 years!

Next you're going to tell us that Scotland also has a similar document, with an eerily similar name.

England already has a Bill of Rights?

Jeez, this is ground breaking research! I guess everyone must have just missed it for the last 300 years!

We still have parts of Magna Carta in force as well. Brown is just (unsurprisingly) making impressive sounding noises.

If you go and read the 1689 English Bill of Rights (Supplemented by the Settlement act of 1701 for Scotland) you will find that it extends rights to - Members of Parliament, and only to Members of Parliament.

Hardly an extensive set of rights. So to answer the OPs question concerning speeding. Yes, it does mean that you could get away with speeding tickets, but only if you are an MP.

The conclusion that the terms cited in the OP apply only to MPs is not easy to see.
First you have to recognise that these terms are bounded by two paragraphs.

Prior to the list of terms, the Bill of Rights states:
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid; do in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

then you get the list that the OP paraphrases, then this is concluded with
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings, or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of this highness the prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

The critical word is highlighted in bold. The demand is for the rights to be their, the MPs rights, and only for them. It is not extended, not even implicitly, to the common man.

That's the Human Rights Act which everybody bitches about.

In which case they are all idiots, because the convention is one of the basic foundations of modern Europe and has protected human rights on several occasions, from Dudgeon v. United Kingdom to Bączkowski and Others v. Poland to Funke v. France and many, many more. Besides, as long as the UK is part of the CoE and the EU (which does require adherence to the convention as part of membership), the ECHR will apply.

I think that is awful that the member states of the EU have subordinated their sovereignty to the EU. But then again I don’t live in the EU or a member state.

Nor do you seem to know very much about the matters at hand...

Last I checked, some parts of England still have a law in effect that lets you legally shoot welsh and/or scots with a longbow...

Last I checked, some parts of England still have a law in effect that lets you legally shoot welsh and/or scots with a longbow...

I think that's Chester. It had to be on a Sunday after a certain time within the walls of the old city. It's an Urban myth I'm afraid.

I think that's Chester. It had to be on a Sunday after a certain time within the walls of the old city. It's an Urban myth I'm afraid.

It was Shrewsbury for I think.

In which case they are all idiots, because the convention is one of the basic foundations of modern Europe and has protected human rights on several occasions, from Dudgeon v. United Kingdom to Bączkowski and Others v. Poland to Funke v. France and many, many more. Besides, as long as the UK is part of the CoE and the EU (which does require adherence to the convention as part of membership), the ECHR will apply.
The opposition to it in the UK seems more based on ignorance and vitriolic opposition to anything with the word 'Europe' in it. I think it's a shame that politicians in both Labour and Conservative parties have decided to jump on the 'British Bill of Rights' bandwagon as an intellectually dishonest political campaign point to curry with the press, rather than defend a useful piece of legislation.

I think that is awful that the member states of the EU have subordinated their sovereignty to the EU. But then again I don’t live in the EU or a member state.
...

Seeing as you don't know what you're talking about, take a hike, eh?

Last I checked, some parts of England still have a law in effect that lets you legally shoot welsh and/or scots with a longbow...
York, if they're inside the city walls on a Sunday.

Sadly rendered null and indeed void by that bastard called "murder", though. Sad times.