The Herberts V Andy Tyrrell

[Jonny W.K]

Just to bring up a point. This is not in a literal sense a 'free country'. Sure we appear and call ourselves Democratic, but we do still live in a Monarchy, ergo we are Subjects not Citizens and we have no Constitution. The Devil, aka Tony Blair [img]wink.gif[/img] , is our Priminister. Priminister's advise the Monarchy. Monarchy makes the decisions. Ok, I am willing to agree that it doesn't actually work like that anymore and alot of the Monarchy's duties are redundant. But they still have final say on any Law passed in the UK, after its acceptance by the House of Lords, and that is still a pretty big thing. I don't even know why I'm writing this shit, I just like getting a word in edge-ways )
And as a final point we DO NOT have the right to free speech. Openly diss the Queen or de-face her visage in a significantly malicious way and you can be banged away for it. Also, you can still be hung for Treason To The Crown.

Having written this shit, It has been brought to my attention that it is, in-fact, unrelated to the topic at hand. Well, screw you all! I'm practicing my Constitutionally Protected Right as a Citizen to Free Speech.....Erm...Shit ) Mer!

[DJ-Ants]

Its your first ammendment right to say all that...if we are all yanks....Theyve got it right.....

[Jonny W.K]

I can't believe you just said that. The USA symbolises everything that is wrong in this world. Being American is only one step above being gay. And being gay, friends, should indeed be a crime. Mer [img]wink.gif[/img]

[DJ-Ants]

I put it to wind people up...now Ive blown it...deff.

My predictions.....

5 years totally legal dope...taxed of course
10 years decriminalisation of other drugs
15 years Monarchy is abolished.....


time will tell...

[Jonny W.K]

Only time will tell indeed. But the worlds gonna end at midnight tonite so it doesn't matter etc etc...

[DJ-Ants]

Best have a pot noodle and a wank then...

[Sim]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">we have no Constitution</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not entirely true. Yes we don't have a written constitution but we still have a constitution. In England and Wales we just have an uncodified constitution. One of the reasons for this is that all the countries who have a written constitution (eg France and the USA)got theirs after a major event such as the French Revolution and the American War of Independence. The absence of such an event in British history between now and 1066 explains more than anything why we have an unwritten constitution.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> But they [the monarchy] still have final say on any Law passed in the UK, after its acceptance by the House of Lords, and that is still a pretty big thing.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the monarchy were to block a law it would contravene Article 1 of the Bill of Rights 1689 under which the 'pretended' power of the monarch to 'dispense or suspend' laws is derided. Even if the monarch saw fit to act in this way, the idea that a refusal of the Royal Assent would long frustrate our hypothetical determined despot [eg Blair] is probably overly optimistic. If the Queen were to block a law passed by a democratically elected Parliament then surely that would signal the end of the monarchy as an unelected monarch blocking a law would go against the notion of democracy? Also why should we trust the Queen or her successors to be of a mind to 'protect' the general public in this way?

[BigDes_GY]

i also have to get my ten penneth worth in [img]tongue.gif[/img] . the french actually got their consititution after the second world war at a time of internal crisis and recalcitrant governments - the wanted de gaulle to return to prominence and he agreed to on the establishment of a constitution.also the PM makes all key decisions now and the monarchy act as an 'over-rated rubber stamp' on behalf of the government.

...i reckon this topic isn't going to end unless somone puts their foot down evry point that is made is challenged by the opposition either as a wind up technique or genuinely.

...in fact fuck it. immingham to fwok mate.

[DJ-Ants]

We ARE allowed to speak freely in this country....we just have to keep our voices down.

Its only in the USA that common courtesy has to be legislated-bill hicks.

[Sim]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don_Revie posted January 25, 2003 06:30
[Different Topic]

we do have a constitution by the way but rather than being written it is bound through precedent.that leads me to another point in that i disagree with the proposal of a written constitution as this would render it too rigid as reinforced by the fact that the american constitution has only been amended 17 times in its entire history.it would also cause further problems in that - who would construct it and how it would be amended etc etc etc.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely a written constitution should be rigid so that it can fulfil its duty in protecting a person?s rights. If a government could change the constitution at the drop of a hat then that would completely undermine its purpose. Currently all that is needed to change our constitution is a single majority in both Houses. Compare this to the Irish constitution which requires the Irish people to vote on whether or not to make amendments to their constitution. That is far more democratic because the Irish people are able to vote whether or not to change their rights. The absence of a written constitution has previously allowed quite considerable changes to be made informally, without amendment of existing legal rules, such as the gradual transfer of power from the House of Commons to the Cabinet which has occurred without any formal legislative change. Having a written constitution also allows people to have a clear understanding of their rights, The US constitution of 1787 can be read and understood by a sixth former in half an hour. Even if there were no other reason parliaments and assemblies within the UK should have rules that everyone can understand. The present situation is a formula for continuous conflict. Even most of the political parties have recognised this ? aside from the Conservative Party. The 1997 manifestos contained the following:

Labour
Whilst identifying many of the reasons why a written constitution is necessary, the Labour Party manifesto made no mention of a written constitution at all but stated, "Our system of government is centralised, inefficient and bureaucratic. Our citizens cannot assert their basic rights in our own courts. The Conservatives are afflicted by sleaze and prosper from secret funds from foreign supporters. There is unquestionably a national crisis of confidence in our political system, to which Labour will respond in a measured and sensible way."

Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrat manifesto also made no mention of a written constitution. However, the
Liberal Democrat Party does have policy in favour; "We believe that the new constitutional settlement, when it is complete, should be entrenched in a written constitution, which derives its validity from the consent of the people and which defines and limits the powers which politicians can exercise."

Thomas Paine (I think) said that "A government without a constitution is power without right...[and the English Parilament is too fond of] constituting itself with what power it pleases".