UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY.
Our need to replace intrusive legislation with a willingness to observe community rights and each individual in that community must be brought back as the present road is leading to a world not of FREE human beings but to a world of controlled cash machines no better than Robots.
Over the past nine years in ENGLAND and in our neighbouring sister nation -states we are closer than ever to being no better than machines by those who have been given CONTROL over OUR LIVES.
As we have intimated on a number of occasions it is the LAW brotherhood in our House of Commons, which has increased their already lucrative earnings of their profession by the never ending stream of legislation, for which the Law profession does ultimately profit.
Does it not say in the Bible?
‘What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his soul.’
But we could equally say:
‘What does it profit a man to find a CONtinuous cash-penalty trap and multiplication of intrusions invading his life from his many legal CONTROLLERS in Westminster and Brussels and his FREEDOM curtailed in the bargain?
OF COURSE many will say that without a financial penalty there would be anarchy but is there not already that almost anarchy in our communities now when we have a proliferation of new laws.
WHAT HAS HAPPENNED is the CONTROLLERS in Westminster and BRUSSELS have now for many years undermined the very fabric of our Society - particularly the Family and its Values. So it is no wonder that Tony Blair knew before he entered No 10 that he had to create the conditions in order to demand changes in the Law which deprived the People of their diminishing earnings in favour of the LAW lobby who stood to gain greatly in the numerous Inquires which have led nowhere at enormous cost and with the increase legislation from Westminster and particularly from Brussels with more and more cash penalties attached.
The members of the public are now no more than moving cash –machines for CENTRAL and LOCAL Government.
There is an unending desire for interference from CENTRAL and LOCAL government in to ALL aspects of OUR LIVES to the point where the people are being de-humanised to that of a machine which they plan will better fit in with their mania for ID Cards which will contain the private matters of each individual as set in stone.
What Tony Blair and his many cronies are after is greater CONTROL of what FEEEDOM of CHOICE and ACTION we enjoy which the countless numbers of Blair adherents hate and are doing their best to DESTROY.
We are not saying that there cannot be penalties only that when the whole doctrine of RESPONSIBILITY
is deliberately side- tracked then the vacuum is invariably filled with a penalty.
In order to place the above observations in context we now refer to:
LAW IN THE MAKING
CARLTON KEMP ALLEN.
(M.C., K.CD.C.L. F.B.A., JP)
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
LAW AND ITS SOURCES
….Professor Pound’s legal philosophy is essentially one of practical compromise. He believes, with Ihering, that ‘interests’ are the chief subject – matter of law, and that the task of law in society is the satisfaction of human wants and desires’.
These are ever changing as ‘all things flow’, and in the pursuit of its high purpose of ‘social control’; law is faced with two perpetual problems: FIRST, the maintenance of a balance between stability and change; and second, the ascertainment of those ‘social desiderata’ which it is both possible and desirable for the law to satisfy.
Thus arises the problem of the valuation of ‘valuation of interests’ –the selection of the most socially valuable objectives of state-regulation [A necessary but should be a limited measure in a FREE SOCIETY]
For this difficult task, what criterion is available?
Here again Professor Pound declines to commit himself to any rigid canon. His general answer seems to be –and it cannot altogether escape criticism that it is rather an acknowledgement than the acceptance of a challenge –that the most important thing is that the jurist should first of all be aware of the real nature of his RESPONSIBILITY, and then, in furtherance of social aims, should do the best he can, in the most sensible way he can, on the best information he can get. If it is objected that this is, after all, what the jurist has always strives to do, the answer presumably is that he had always been sufficiently conscience of the true direction, which his effort would take.
‘I do not believe the jurist has to do more than recognize the problem and perceive that it is presented to him as one of securing all social interest as far as he may, of maintaining a balance or harmony among them that is compatible with the securing of all of them’.
This, it is true, leaves the jurist with an indefinite commission, but it requires of him something more obtainable than the gigantic task which Ehrlich imposes upon him. ‘For the purposes of understanding the law of today’ writes Professor Pound.
‘I am content with a picture of satisfying as much of the whole body of human wants –the claims and demands involved in the existence of civilised society –by giving effect to as much as may with the least sacrifice, so far as such wants may be satisfied or such claims given effect by an ordering of human conduct through politically organised society.
For the present purposes I am content to see in legal history the record of a continually wider recognizing and satisfying of human wants or claims or desires through social control; a mere embracing and more effective securing of social interests; a continually more complete and effective elimination of waste and precluding of friction in human enjoyment in the goods of existence – in short, a continually more effective social engineering.’
This is a picture of Sociological Jurisprudence, which might perhaps, be better described as Experimental Jurisprudence. The immediate practical means which Professor Pound advocates for the technique of his engineering are:
‘Study of the actual social effects of legal institutions and legal doctrines, study of the means of making legal rules effective, sociological study in preparation for law making, study of juridical method, a sociological legal history, and the importance of REASONABLE and JUST solutions of INDIVIDUAL CASES’ (the ‘individualization’ of legal decisions).
For the particular sphere of American law, Professor Pound has suggested a more detailed programme.
…. We have only to glance at rapidly developing branches of the law, ‘The remedy comes before the right’- which, if literally accepted, is a logical absurdity; what it really means is that primitive law is chiefly concerned with devising means to recognize and protect rights which men have found for themselves.
This is also why it is so often said that ‘law lags behind social needs’, the truth being that law frequently does not lend its assistance, and indeed cannot do so, until the social needs have become manifest and articulate.
The truth is, as Ehrlich insisted, that men –in –society are constantly finding and regulating their own ‘wants and desires’ and the assistance of the law is often supplementary and declaratory.
It is possible, without great strain of language, to consider this work of reinforcement, adjustment and reconciliation as a kind of experimentation, for it certainly needs ingenuity and a shrewd appreciation of social circumstances; but we should be careful to distinguish between that part of modern law which is deliberately exploratory or inventive, and that part which is confirmatory.
Nor should we forget that while, as I have said much of modern law is dynamic, much is, and must be, static, in the sense that it aims at regulation of behaviour and the maintenance of order.
As Professor Pound himself has said, whole theories of law, in the past, have been content with the dominating purpose of keeping the PEACE; and any student of
ENGLISH COMMON LAW
-knows how much of it grew up round the central notion of
THE KING’S PEACE.
That is not the whole of law today
[1927-1st Edition] but it is still a large and essential part of it. If we are to regard the LAW as an ENGINE, let us think of it as a DYNAMO.
Sometimes the dynamo drives a crane, a drill, a riveter, or even a mechanical shovel; but frequently it also activates a gyroscope.
It is necessary, again, if we are to think of ‘wants and desires’ as the essential subject-matter of law, that we should give that term the widest interpretation –so wide, indeed, that it becomes difficult to draw a dividing line between the scope of sociological jurisprudence and that of any other kind of jurisprudence, even the most idealistic.
The sociological point of view suffers from the same besetting sin as the utilitarian: it is apt to thrust on society what, in accordance with theoretical principles, society ought to want and desire, just as [Jeremy] Bentham offered, as actual goodness and happiness, what ought to make men good and happy –and what, doubtless, would make men good and happy if they were not sometimes strangely obstinate on the point.
Since, to sociological investigation, the ponderables are obviously much more tractable material than the equally important imponderables, there is a danger –though I do not suggest that all sociological jurists have been unaware of it –that too much attention may be concentrated on the purely physical
aspects of social and individual life.
We have seen in the modern world communities where all the most carefully boons of social ‘planning’ were in large measure sterilized by the denial of the elementary boon of
Material advantages may be conferred by the contrivance of law, but one of the ‘wants and desires’ to which men are attached is to be FREE from legal contrivance as is reasonably possible.
The good life is not capable of being reduced to a blueprint.
Ihering’s famous definition of law was:
‘The form of the guarantee of the conditions of the life of society, assured by the State’s power of constraint’?
But what are the ‘conditions of the life of a society?
Ihering answers that they are:
‘the subjective conditions which govern it. They are not merely the conditions upon which physical existence depends, but also all the goods, all the enjoyments, which, in view of the life of the INDIVIDUAL, alone give savour to his LIFE.
[Many members of the House of Commons in April-2006 need to heed the following ]
Honour is not a condition of physical existence, and yet, for a man of honour, what is life worth if honour be lost? To preserve it, he will readily risk his life.
LIBERTY and NATIONALITY are not conditions of physical existence; but there was never a liberty – loving people, which would not prefer death to HELOTAGE. [Slaves to their home government and its dictators in Brussels]
The man who destroys himself out of disgust for life may yet unite in his own person all the objective conditions, which are necessary for existence. In a word, the goods and enjoyment which man feels to be essential to his life are not of a merely material nature, but have also an intangible, idealistic value; they comprise everything for which humanity may strive:
The questions of the conditions of NATIONAL and INDIVIDUAL
In the present crisis of the social order, there has grown up another type of jurisprudence which can only be described as the negation of all jurisprudence. It is essentially the product of political forces and creeds; in brief, it amounts to the thesis that the administration of JUSTICE is to be regarded as an
INSTRUMENT of GOVERNMENT.
It is not new in the WORLD; it has appeared many times, and, since it violates one of the deepest instincts in MAN, it has always [Mr Blair] brought disaster in its train and has died of its own vices. …
* * *
A WORD ON HONOUR
To respect public buildings and places sacred to
The Sacredness Of Ancient Buildings
We would go so far as to place the centuries old frontage of No 10 Downing Street under such a heading.
Under such a heading in historian Frederic Harrison’s publication
MEANING OF HISTORY
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
‘It is monstrous that any man, any body of men, even any single generation, should claim the right in the name of property, or their office, or their present convenience, to destroy in a moment the continuous work of their forefathers, and to rob their own descendants of their COMMON BIRTHRIGHT.
Who gave this rare and inimitable value to the ancient building?
Not they, nor even the first founders of it. Generation after generation stamped their mark on it, recorded their thoughts in it, poured into it their precious
It is an aggregate product of their race, a social possession of ALL.
Whence came the religio loci, which cast a halo over it?
From no single author, from no set of builders:
-from a long succession of ancestral generations to whom
- it has grown a Sacred and National symbol.
That precious value which time, society, the nation, have given it, is now at the mercy of any man, or any board.
Daily Mail on April 1st 2006–but it was a April Fool’s Day joke –stated that the door at No 10 was to be replaced with a red coloured door which would have been believed by almost everyone knowing the lengths that Tony Blair would go to maintain his authority, as one would consider Tony Blair and his cronies capable of almost anything we will pre-empt his future behaviour and state that as far as we and millions of the people in our island home Tony Blair will always be remembered as:
‘A man who never was’
worthy of the Highest Office of State, which we hope he will shortly vacate with a face to match the door in question-April Fool’s joke or not’.
In anticipation of any such desecrations in the future we remind King Tony of matters a member of his profession
stated over 1800 years ago.
There was a noble doctrine in the old Roman Law, which may be stated in the words of Gaius
[ Institutes of Gaius-2rd century –lawyer/jurist-AD178) [ of which Tony Blair needs reminding]:
‘Things like city walls, city gates, are sacro sanct; and, in a sense, under divine sanction [And as Tony Blair is in close contact with God he will be already aware]
But whatever is under divine sanction cannot be the subject of property [Mr Blair]’
That is to say, historic buildings which form part of national records are consecrated to the past and dedicated to the future and are taken out of the arbitrary disposal of the present.
[And if he is thinking of it that includes the door at No 10 Downing Street or other hallowed ground.]
This principle goes deeper than making them public property. They are not property at all – not to be used, consumed, and adapted [Mr Blair] at the passing will of the day.
They are not chattels of the public. They are not public property; they are consecrated to the nation.
[We would state further that the passing from generation to generation of the’
Rights and Liberties of Englishmen’
is of itself a tradition and custom which is as sacred as the buildings and places as mentioned above and cannot be usurped by any member of Parliament –particularly the Prime Minister of the day]
Should there be any further sacrilege against tradition and custom in the future it will as with his notorious past or future actions be his only LEGACY–the desecration of the true spiritual home of the Nation.]
The Man’s a Bounder!
* * *
[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]
Let the people speak!
[Latest Addition - June07]
Daniel Hannan - Forming an
OPPOSITION to the EU
GORDON BROWN WANTS
TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
THE QUESTION THAT THE
VOTER MUST ANSWER
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE
CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T
VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR
MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
[All underlined words have a
Elections in the British One
If you vote Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP or the
BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship. All five party
leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote doesn't make a
difference - all these five parties have the same policies: the EU's
The 17 most senior politicians in the
Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties, including Ken Clarke, Francis
Maude, Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David
and Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Peter Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140
strong band of ultra senior Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build
the EU dictatorship.
Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever be
allowed to hold public office.
UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is
riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the BNP
controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick Freemasonry
family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong Common Purpose
Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers of the EU in
Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to clean up - get rid of
the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU leadership.)
details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF
INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE ABOVE
THE EDP HAS BEEN
CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP OF THE
UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF
BULLETINS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE
CRITICISED THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY
FAILED TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE
DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH WOULD
HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT THEY HAD NO
WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE
AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANISATION. THIS FIGHTING
SPIRIT HAS BEEN LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS
OURSELVES BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT
WHEN A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE
WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS SENT
TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL
TO NO AVAIL. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE
BEEN BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR ON
THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER CLOSE
SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO AN ISRAELI
SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR WEBSITE . IRONICALLY
IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS
AGO TO COME UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO
THE ILLUMINATI. THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF THE
BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WE
FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN.
THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE SUSPECTED FOR MANY
YEARS THAT MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION
MIGHT BE UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI. IT
IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY PARTY
OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS POLICY AS
IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL
ITS POLICES AS THEY BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE
VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.
Our intention is
not to benefit from this disaster as since the 1999
European Election we have NOT! accepted a DONATION!
from ANYONE! and we closed membership also because
we did not wish to split the vote for UKIP but have
stated in the past that we would contest another
election if it was ever necessary to enter into the
affray again and with the reputation of UKIP under
scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN! As we
mentioned some time ago we have been almost two
decades on the campaign trail to free our once FREE
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE of ENGLAND from the SATANIC
EU and those who have for centuries have planned for
an EVIL ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and
EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the WORLD'S
POPULATION and therefore if we are right about those
mentioned above they are not only TRAITORS to their
COUNTRY but also a THREAT to WORLD PEACE. However,
of late, matters have NOT! been going well for the
ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.
WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR
PATRIOT or TRAITOR to HIS
THIS YOU MUST SEE IT
NO NEED TO PANIC!
'Others shall sing
Others shall right
Finish what I begin,
All all I fail of
Hail to the coming
Hail to the brave
Forward I reach and
All that they sing
The airs of heaven
blow o'er me;
A glory shines
Of what mankind
brave and free,
I feel the earth
I join the great
And take, by faith,
My freehold of
ADDED - MAY-2012