FREE SPEECH an article by Godfrey Bloom

[Phil Perry]

Following on from the CPS ( Crown Prosecution Office UK ) Pronouncement regarding 'Hate Crimes' on social media. . .( A complete and utter joke ) announcing the beginning of the end of Free Speech in the UK, which has been denuded, reduced by stealth and constantly attacked ever since the arrival of Tony Bliar,. . ie the beginning of the 13 years of terror - 1997 - 2010. . . .

 

Godfrey Bloom has said this. . . .

 

Free Speech, by Godfrey Bloom

 

 

It is a national disgrace that the principles of English Law are no longer taught in our schools. They are the template for much of the free world and our national heritage is dependent upon them. Men and women have died for them over the centuries; they are not our government’s to give away. Each generation of them have but their stewardship. Let us review them in context for a moment. First came the principle of natural justice, embodied in a local legal protocol, the conception of the Anglo Saxons. This was the embryo of common law, a concept so popular it was adopted even by the Normans. The advantage to the State being it is not just fair, but seen to be fair. Such adjudication was based on precedent, it gave the law & interpretation of it to not just one small group of men but drew on the wisdom of generations that had gone before. An awesome depth of knowledge, experience and wisdom. English law therefore is infinitely superior to Corpus Juris (or Napoleonic Code).

 

The law was the shield for the citizen, the law has become a stick with which the State now beats its people. The advent of the enabling act is as bad as war for the destruction of the system. The enabling act hands unlimited power to the bureaucrat. There is no judgement by peers, court of appeal or judicial precedent. The faceless quangocrat is now our lord & master. The best you can hope for is a judicial review, all that decides is if the bureaucrat followed the rules he wrote.

 

Local government no longer holds the reins of power, planning decisions go to a little man in Bristol to make a final decision. The Englishman’s home is no longer his castle. The man on that Clapham omnibus now deems most judgements to be unfair. Senior judges are political appointees, often members of secret societies (Common Purpose) pursuing political ideals. The Crown Prosecution Service is politically hijacked; the Home Office is not fit for purpose.

 

Now we have the ultimate humiliation, mockery is to become a political offence. This means satire is dead. Satire is out of fashion now but in the 50s & 60s it was an important anti-establishment tool. No wonder the State hates the concept of humour as a political weapon lampooning their own greed & corruption. Paradoxically it is a return to blasphemy law. The irrepressible Dave Allen of yesteryear would be banned along with Sir David Frost & Peter Cook.

 

We have no less than a ban on British humour, all under a ‘conservative’ government. Youngsters should weep. Me? I’ve seen the best of it now but I weep for young people.

 

English Law Part One, part two and later today part three will be available on Godfrey Bloom's website

 

Godfrey Bloom - website: Blogs | Godfrey Bloom

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Humorous,. . . but prescient.

 

[ATTACH]48918._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Not much to disagree with.. there is an ever increasing authoritarian approach to laws in the UK that plays to those who pulls the strings in government, right and left; capitalism or socialism, political correctness or subterfuge. And the courts are now treated as an inconvenience - to be used only when the likely outcome is to the benefit of those pulling the strings of state. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was famously used against the Icelandic banks to freeze funds when they were bankrupt to protect UK local council's deposits - so, a totally unlawful (in terms of natural justice) act was used against a legitimate, though failing set of institutions when things weren't going the guvmint's way. There is also the notion of the laws of England and Wales, which is all are equally subject to the law except the monarch (i.e the sitting Monarch - presently, Lizzy). Tell that to HMRC that seem to strike deals with large corporations regardless of their domicile and often in contradiction to their laws and statutory instruments.

 

Contrary to the current load of legal academics' beliefs - there is no constitution in the UK - parliament is supreme and they can make a law an whatever they want (leaving the EU, as an example, of flagrantly ignoring EU law while in the EU has always been the preserve of parliament). The courts can exercise the power of judicial review, which it cannot in itself instigate and the first test is that the person/s applying for a judicial review have to have locus standi (effectively are sufficiently effected by the issue at hand - which are often people of limited resources and rely on pro bono representation). But all the judge can do is, as said above, send the decision back to the home secretary of the department that made the decision to apply the processes and legal requirements to come to a decision (funny - it can be the same decision).

 

Compare this with the current shameful attempt of Dutton to make those asylum seekers transferred to Australia on medical grounds destitute in order to force them back to Manus Island or even back to where they were seeking asylum from (they have yet had their cases heard). Currently facing a constitutional challenge based on a written constitution that is not perfect but lays bare the limits of the powers of the government, he was asked why he simply doesn't pass a law to seek his perverted (my opinion) ends. His answer was something about the pesky constitution forbids him to. Under the laws of England and Wales, there's nothing to stop him, except the conscience of his party's members.

 

Without a written and enforceable constitution - there is no constitution, no matter what conventions there are - conventions are easily broken

 

 

[Marty_d]

The author sounds like a bit of a joke though. Too far to the right for UKIP??

 

Godfrey Bloom - Wikipedia

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I didn't listen to it all.. However, I echo the sentiments that successive UK governments these days are ready to wield power bestowed to them in abusive ways to meet alterior ends

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The author sounds like a bit of a joke though. Too far to the right for UKIP??

Godfrey Bloom - Wikipedia

A 'Colourful Political figure' isn't he ? ( why d'you think I posted it ? )

 

Been following his gaffes for years mate. Hilarious. One good point is that he took the negative media heat off Nigel Farage !

 

 

[Bruce]

English common law leaves a lot to be desired. There have been some bad miscarriages of justice here in Australia which probably would not have occurred in Europe.

 

The faulty conviction of Lindy Chamberlain was one, and the acquittal of Ivan Milat on a previous rape charge was another. In the case of Milat, he went on to do several murders after this.

 

But I too hate how we are handing too much power to the bureaucracy... CASA is a good example of what harm this can do.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

No system is perfect by any stretch of the imagination - the problem with the Civil (European) legal system is the law is very generic and ultimately left up to the judge to apply his/her bias to the case.. There have been many cases in the European Court of Justice where the decision was based on the most tenuous application of legislation when looking at court transcripts (I did EU law), so by the time the press got their grubby mits on it, the reported outcomes were lambasted as an affront to solid and consistent application of the law (and that is putting it nicely).

 

When we talk about the law of England and Wales, common law started before the Chales IV led his revolution that lead to the supremacy of parliament and this is because parliament is the highest court in England and Wales (and I guess Scotland, of which I am by no means knowledgeable of). The Doctrine of Precedent (common law) developed, but resulted in a strict adherence to principles laid down before despite the application sometimes unfair. For example, there was a precedent that when a mortgagee did not pay in full the debt owed t the mortgagor by the maturity date, ownership of the property mortgaged transferred wholly to the mortgagor (these were probably decided in times where there may have only one payment made, or where there may have been good reason to discourage the late final payment, or to unjustly enrich the mortgagors - who knows?).

 

Of course, the mortgagors, knowing the common law decided to abscond on maturity date and then would petition successfully to have the property transferred as the precedent was set and became immovable (there is other background reasons as to why, but I could take all of my lunch break). Net impact was gross unfairness of course.. .So in the end, there were petitions to the king for justice, which actually went to the Chancellor in those days ans the kings secretary. The Chancellor devised the maxims of equity (not to be confused with equity or trust law) to ameliorate the harshness of the common law; Equitable Doctrines and Maxims - LawNow Magazine

 

Although rare, in England and Wales, there are still laws which are based purely on common law, but these tend to be ancient laws still in force today,. Most modern "common law" has its base in statutory interpretation applied to the facts of the case. For example, the Theft Act requires not only that an object is taken without consent, but it must be done dishonestly and permanently. The Ghosh Test (R v Ghosh - Wikipedia) is the common law establishment of what is meant by dishonest in the case of theft. It allows the courts to move faster than parliament to adapt the law to cases as society evolves, new laws can be "invented" by the courts, however, it is genreally done within the confines of parliamentary law. In addition to justice, English law allows of adaptation, but seeks consistency - to a higher degree than the civil (European) system of law. In theory, that is the case, but with so many snouts at the trough, practice unfortunately is not quite as pure.

 

The chamberlain case, the guildford 4 (or 6) and birmingham 6 (or 4) were all heavy miscarriages of justice, brought on by abuse of the system, due to massive societal pressure fuelled by the press.. they were not necessary failings of the law - but of its implementation.