Safe Speed Forums

I was reading Chris Bookers column in the Telegraph today and I decided to delve further into 1689 Bill of rights Act enshrines the Declaration of rights which is a solemn contract between sovereign and People, as such Parliament cannot undo it. No subsequent acts can override the legislation either again, as it is considered a constituional statute.

Here are some interesting facts.

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

all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

The above is interesting as this would indicate that to impound ones vehicle for having no tax for example is actually illegal. Again, it can't be overruled because it is a constitutional statute. In other words you have to be convicted by a court of law of an offence prior to your vehicle being seized, or at least that's what I mean it to be.

It also indicates that if you receive a parking fine from a local authority because that local authority isn't a court of law and nor is the national parking audjudication service, you may use the bills of rights as a defence. In fact automated penalties are being contested on a large scale, even the inland revenue has dropped fines against those whom have contested automatic fines for late returns etc.

I wonder if this act could be used against the scamer partnerships in that are conditional offers legal. Although yes, if the conditional offer is rejected then enevitably the case goes to court but does the very suggestion of a conditional offer not infringe the bill of rights. Interesting stuff though.



Anyhow, here's a link to Chris Bookers page:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xhome.html


Here's a very good link listing the liberties that we in this country have lost recenty.

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/civil-lib ... ttacks.htm

I love this,


The nine principles by Sir Robert Peel[1]

1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.


2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.


4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.


5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.


6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.


7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence

8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.


9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. These principles listed above may have been Sir Robert Peel’s principles. However, the Metropolitan Police’s founding principles and, de facto the founding principles of all other modern (post 1829) UK police forces, was summarised by Sir Richard Mayne (the first commissioner) in 1829.

Not quite, I think. AIUI if two laws say different things the more recent one takes precedent unless the earlier one is a constutional statute, in which case the earlier one is law. However, a constituitional statute can always be repealed by a specific Act of Parliament. Of course, these days it seems as if governments prefer simply to ignore such inconveniences rather than go to the trouble of repealing them.

Still, interesting stuff isn't it? And where did you dig up that stuff by Sir Robert Peel?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

You're right Gatsobait,

although the 1991 act supposedly was brought in force to side-step the 1689 Bill of rights, a judge ruled that it couldn't do so unless it was made 'expressly clear' by parliament that that was what it intended. The declaration of right which is enshrined by the Bill of rights, can't be overruled by even parliament. I agree, it is interesting stuff, especially with regards to the taking up arms bit, that's part of our constitution and I remember a barrister indicating that the ban on handguns etc was a breach of the 1689 bill of rights as a result.

Regarding the Peel element, I obtained that from the 'civil' liberties link in the first thread. I'm not a tree-hugging libertarian however it's quite frightening at the amount of liberties we as a nation have lost. Again, an interesting read.

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/briefings ... ciples.htm

Good. I suspect many who claim to be tree hugging libertarians are neither deep down.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

My understanding of the article in the Telegraph was that the 1689 act could not be overturned by a subsequent act unless it was expressly stated that it was the intention of the act to repeal the 1689 one.

Did you see the bit in the back of the paper when the stats man talked about regression to the mean and speed cameras?

That's been my understanding, which is what I was saying earlier. Parliament has to draw up specific legislation to repeal it rather than simply relying on later legislation taking precedence ("implied repeal" I think it's called, something like that).


Someone said they'd be sending Paul a scan.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Yes you're both right, however according to Chris Booker's article, the declaration of rights, that is enshrined within the Bill of rights cannot be repealed by even parliament.

I wonder if this Government will have the balls to get repeal the Bill of Rights? Better still, I wonder if the British people will have the balls to prevent the Government if they tried, I doubt it somehow.

It can't be casually or accidentally repealed by a later, non-specific, piece of legislation being passed since "implied repeal" doesn't apply to it. However, it's a principle that no Parliament can be bound by one of its predecessors which is why (AIUI) Parliament certainly can repeal the Bill Of Rights or any other constitutional statute as soon as it passes a specific Act to do so. Given Tony's majority and his track record on using the Parliament Act to force the Lords to comply, he could probably have the Bill Of Rights repealed by Easter if he wanted to . But it's easier to simply ignore the Bill Of Rights altogether, and since so many people have never even heard of it it's fairly safe for him too. And it's probably going to get easier still since schools don't seem to teach much of our history further back than last Friday week.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Just occurred to me.. A Bill doesn't become an Act (ie become law) until it's signed by the Monarch.

What if HM the Q refused to sign a Bill repealing the Bill of Rights?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Good point. I think without Royal Assent it couldn't become law and I suppose they'd have to take it away and do it again or something. Still, that hasn't happened for nearly 300 years. It's just a glorified rubber stamping exercise now.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I don't think people are appreciating what this actually means. Essentially, it means that you cannot be fined or have property taken away from you as it would be illegal to do so without first having been convicted within a court of law. In the Governements eagerness to automate fine collecting they 'overlooked' what is a constitutional statute. It cannot be repealed unless the Government essentially say it was wrong for the bill of rights to be drawn in the first place. The constitutional backlashing that this Government could take if they attempted to repeal it in any way would be massive. The only option for them is to set precident in the courts.


The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included:
freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)
freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament
freedom to petition the king
freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for self-defence, as allowed by law
freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial
.

taken from http://www.gunowners.org/op9706.htm

Faced with embarrassment, the government might rely on the doctrine that no parliament may be bound by its predecessors, and seek if necessary to repeal the provisions of the Bill of Rights. But in so doing they must attack the principle of the Bill: for the Bill of Rights claimed not to promulgate anything new, but rather to reaffirm the "true antient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom" that should be upheld "in all times to come". Against this the government must set the view of parliamentary sovereignty expressed most eloquently by Dicey a century ago, that would allow them to "make or unmake any law whatever". (10) Dicey denied that "constitutional" laws were special; (11) though interestingly his illustration of this looked at the Acts of Union rather than the Bill of Rights, (12) and since he wrote, we have seen parliament once again accept the notion of higher law. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy has, indeed, had a chequered history. Sixty years before the Bill of Rights, the doctrine was affirmed (not without political motivation) by Sir Edward Coke, who declared that the power of parliament "cannot be confined" and recorded the failures of the attempts of earlier parliaments to bind their successors. (13) This did not deter parliament in 1689 from enacting the Bill of Rights, any more than the doctrine enunciated by Dicey prevented parliament binding its successors under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. (14) Perhaps, in the unlikely event that the European Union survives for the next three hundred years and its rulings do not in the meantime conflict with UK law, a future constitutional lawyer will once again assert the absolute supremacy of parliament, because it has not been tested. The situation might then be analogous with the Bill of Rights now: for though the Bill has been revised in matters of procedure, the thirteen essential principles of the Declaration of Rights that were supposed to be upheld "for all time to come" still stand.

The question whether parliament can now override the Bill of Rights, is at once the question whether it is proper for it to do so. The Bill of Rights set out the claims of parliament as part of the constitutional framework of legitimate rule, in ignoring which it declared that Restoration governments had acted unlawfully. The twin pillars of that framework were the old principle of government by common counsel, in which our notion of parliamentary sovereignty is founded; and the ancient yardstick of custom, in which our notion of precedent, and therewith of the rule of law, is rooted. These enduring constitutional precepts were not merely the whim of 1689.

Sorry, had to get this in:

Divisional Court ruling in the case of the "Metric Martyrs" (sections 62 and 63) said:

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

Thus, the Divisional Court ruled, the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing pounds and ounces), because the former was a "constitutional act" and the latter "ordinary". This is the point on which Sunderland greengrocer Steven Thoburn and his co-defendants were convicted as criminals for selling in pounds and ounces.


Herein lies the conflict. During the 1990s, the majority of local councils in England and Wales "decriminalised" the levying of parking fines. This means that, instead of referring disputes over penalties to legal bodies such as magistates courts, now, disputes are heard by administrative bodies:

For London, the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
For England and Wales, outside London, the National Parking Adjudication Service
But if the Divisional Court's ruling is true, Local Authorities covered by the above two schemes, are now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a "constitutional Act". The Road Traffic Acts 1991 and 1994 others like it are, by contrast, "ordinary" Acts. Unless the road traffic acts expressly refer to the fundamental rights laid down by the Bill of Rights Act (which they do not), they must fall by the wayside since, according to the Divisional Court, the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed. It is a constitutional Act that protects our "constitutional rights".

So, if constitutional Acts like the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act cannot be impliedly repealed, why are local authorities still collecting penalties from the public without conviction? Presumably, local authorities do so because they do not agree with the Divisional Court; they believe that the Bill of Rights Act was repealed impliedly by the Road Traffic Act. But, if this is so, what is the legal basis for prosecuting traders using pounds and ounces?

Going slightly off topic, but I do think that life would be a hell of a lot easier if we had a proper written constitution (i.e. written in one document). And I don't mean the European 60,000 word monster into which the French and Dutch kindly stuck a big knife . I find it ironic that we march into Afghanistan and Iraq to support the US and those countries end up with consitutions (well, nearly in the latter case). Almost makes me wish the Americans would invade here next . Canada, Ireland, Russia, Sweden, Japan, Australia, India, France, Germany, Brazil, Holland, Denmark, Norway... loads of others, USA most obviously, all have constitutions. Yoohoo, any chance of us getting one? Iran, China, Cuba and Albania have constitutions too. Doesn't seem to make a lot of difference what a nation's politics are or whether it's still a monarchy or not. Size obviously doesn't count either. Nauru, an island half the size of Loch Ness, feels that a constitution is worth having even when your population is smaller than that of the Orkneys. They obviously know that the rights of citizens aren't a numbers game.

The people of all these countries, which together make up a substantial proportion of the planet's population, can get a copy of a single document that spells out their rights and the limits of their governments' powers (okay, in some they might not have that many rights by our standards and the governments might not have many limits either, but at least everyone knows where they stand). Compare us and the Americans - here it's a struggle to notice when the government is acting unconstitutionally because it's spread across too many documents for the non-lawyer to deal with, so 9 times out of 10 or better they're going to get away with it without any public attention unless a judge makes waves and it's a slow enough news day for the papers to print something about it. Whereas the Americans have a constitution of a few thousand words that could be printed in a 20 page pamphlet that libraries can keep by the dozen, or that even could be kept in a drawer at home. When US politicians try these things you can be certain it doesn't go unnoticed.

So why not us? Electoral apathy? Political laziness? Government intransigence? Or the convenience of the electorate not normally having the knowledge to see when the government starts playing sneaky bastards with our rights?

Rant over.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

The irony is that the American constitution was founded upon our Bill of Rights and technically the Bill of rights, Magna Carta etc, amongst others are our constitution.

We have however, been sleepwalking, by allowing Governments to tinker with our very constitution. I spoke with Neil herron, who can take alot of credit for this coming out into the open and he rightly indicated that the people (on sites like this for example) are the new opposition. In other words the Government have been able to ride roughshod over our constitution for years, however it is people like paul, Neil and members of sites like these who quite simply are trying not to let the Government get away with it. That's what an opposition should be doing.

Although the constitution that we do have is far from perfect, it is quite simple in that it provides for the basic rights of citizens. This will become ever more apparent when the Government are challenged more and more using a 1689 Bill of rights defence.

It may be simple but it is also fairly inaccessible to ordinary people, and it's that inaccessibility that I have a problem with. That and the fact that inaccessibility seems to suit the type of government we have at the moment, and that the sort of planks we've had running the country in the last 15 years probably would be incapable of of drawing up a single document constitution that didn't run to a couple of hundred pages anyway.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But from a Government's point of view, a constitution in a simplisitc form wouldn't allow them to run roughshod over the people. In other words it would force them to take into consideration the people prior to making law. With the bad law we've been getting recently, I'm happy to stick with what we've got at the moment. At any rate, it's given them plenty of headaches to be dealing with.