Whilst waiting for my daily zapp at the not-so-local oncology centre, I picked up a copy of This England to while away the time and was surprised and delighted to see an excellent article on the demetrication of road signs and a very good photo of tony. I also noticed that some Germans had taken the trouble to write in with their support. Perhaps we could have a Friends of BWMA established in Germany!

On the subject of "This England" - a very worthy magazine - the editor is supporting a campaign to obtain a judicial review on the legality of the various treaties signed up to by successive governments. It is considered that giving away British sovereignty to Brussels under the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, as well as the Single European Act, is contrary to our Constitution and, therefore, illegal. Substantial funds are needed to process the legal submission and all donations are welcome at CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE,c/o PO BOX 52, CHELTENHAM, GL50 1YQ.

Allan Tallett

Wait a minute, I thought the UK doesn't even have a written constitution as such? Why doesn't Tony Blair, in his quest for modernisation, establish a working party to draw up such a document?

How can it be that successive governments do something that opposes the public's will ? Does one have to subscribe to conspiracy theories to believe that ?

Ralf

Vicki your idea of a little countermetric
initiative in Germany seems very good
where and if anyone is receptive to it

I have seen posting on internet by french-born
people opposed to metric

what did these German's say in their letters?

"Wait a minute, I thought the U.K. doesn't have a written Constitution..."
-------------------------------------------------------

This is a common myth put about mainly by those who are frenetically working to impose a European Constitution on us and the peoples of Europe and so undermine the Constitutions of the U.K. and other European nations.

On the contrary, Britain probably has more in writing about its Constitution than any other country; it's just that it has evolved over the centuries and isn't drawn up in one single document like the American Constitution.

Examples of aspects of Britain's Constitution that are set down in writing:

* Magna Carta 1215 - recently acknowledged by former Home Secretary Jack Straw still to be part of Britain's Constitution

* Acts of Parliament - going back to, for example, a Treason Act in the 1300s which Jeff Rooker MP recently said could be used against British Citizens who had become Al Qa'eda terrorists

* The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Act of Settlement 1701 - establising Britain by law as a Protestant nation, and forbidding the monarch to be or marry a Roman Catholic; laid down that no power was to be given to any foreign power

* Acts of Parliament laying down the rights of British citizens; rights to, e.g. jury trial, 'habeas corpus', the presumption of innocence etc.

* The Coronoation Oath (*1), which sets out the 'contract' between the Head of State and his/her people.

* Case law in the British courts (i.e. 'precedent'), interpreting aspects of our Constitution - and which have a history of centuries.

And so much more...

-------------------------------------------------------

*1 This includes the following:

Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according to their respective laws and customs?"

Sovereign: "All this I promise to do"

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution insofar that the procedure and the requreid majorities to change Britain from a monarchy to a republic are the same as the procedure and majorities that are required to change something small like the national speed limit. Most countries have a constitution which is difficult to change and laws that are a lot easier to change.

An example of the lack of a constitution was in 1943 when an election was due. Parliament passed a law postponing the election for a year. This was repeated in 1944. The US however had an election in Nov 1944 as was required by their constitution.

There is NO procedure or majority that could lawfully change the UK from being a monarchy to a republic (short of a literally unanimous agreement by every British subject and the monarch). If the House of Commons voted for such a thing, the Queen would have the right and duty to veto it (to refuse her consent) and dissolve that treasonous Parliament. Even if she abdicated instead, the right to the crown would automatically pass to the next in line, and so on.

"There is NO procedure or majority that could lawfully change the UK from being a monarchy to a republic"

Of course there is, as Parliament can legislate on any matter it chooses. The citizens of the United Kingdom would have no direct control over such a decision, and it is quite clear that if our democratically elected Parliament wanted to replace the monarchy then The Queen would stand aside and respect that choice as she does every other decision it makes.

True that Parliament swears/affirms to The Queen, but only by Act of Parliament, which could also be changed in the meantime if necessary.

The sovereign Parliament is not the House of Commons alone, but includes the current monarch, who has the right and duty of veto against all unlawful legislation. If a monarch gave consent to an abolition of the monarchy, that would be to abdicate his position. But just as no Parliament can bind its successors, so no monarch can bind his; the next in line would still have the right to the throne, because under the British constitution the succession is automatic, not in the monarch's gift. Parliament has and can have no legal authority to change the basis from which its authority is drawn, except by the agreement of every individual to whom it bears responsibility. The Queen and Crown has obligations to every one of her subjects, which she cannot lawfully abandon.

This is not to dispute that the monarchy could be abolished unlawfully, nor that traitors in the House of Commons might not wish to do so. This has already happened once. But every Englishman would have the right and duty to resist such treason by any means possible.

Paul,

The monarch is here at the invitation of Parliamant (See the Act of Settlement 1701), so Parliament has the authority to remove the monarch.

The Act of Settlement can be read at:
://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/settlement.htm

QUESTION 1: Complete this sentence:

"Parliament has the authority under the 1701 Act of Settlement to replace the monarch...

ANSWER:

Only if they then replace him/her with another one".

"The sovereign Parliament is not the House of Commons alone, but includes the current monarch, who has the right and duty of veto against all unlawful legislation."

Of course, but the present position since 1707 is that the monarch agrees to all legislation. If a Government put through a Bill to abolish the monarchy then of course The Queen could veto it, but she wouldn't because of our constitutional position, which she personally recognises more than anyone else.

There is no mandate on her to make decisions based on the views of anyone other than herself.

Also, as we have no written constitution, there is no requirement for us to have a monarchy, and Parliament has the power to choose any system of government, not just which monarch we have.

Firstly, ignorant foreigners and others please note yet again: Parliament IS the Monarch PLUS the Lords PLUS the Commons. Without a Monarch there is no lawful Parliament.

Secondly, the so-called Act of Settlement was itself arguably unlawful, insofar as it purported to claim authority over the Crown.

Thirdly, it is not the case that the monarch is expected to consent to ALL legislation, only most of it, in particular, such as is not itself unconstitutional; the monarch IS expected to reject any and all unconstitutional legislation (by "expected" I mean "constitutionally obliged").

Fourthly, the monarch is morally and legally bound by the terms of his or her coronation oath, and to respect the immemorial Rights of Englishmen (I am not certain whether there is a similar legal obligation to respect the Rights of Welshmen, Scotsmen or Irishmen, or whether they have any such particular Rights - note the capital letter - as distinct from natural rights or personal rights or ordinary property rights).

Fifthly, it is incorrect to say that the UK has no written constitution; it is merely that, unlike other countries, it has not tried to restrict its constitutional provisions to a single document (I say "tried" because even the US Constitution is not a single document, not even if you parcel all the Amendments in together; both international treaties and case law also contribute to that constitution).

Dear Paul,

By your reasoning no matter how over-whelming the wishes of the British people, they could never move to a republic without your say-so. I mean according to what you say have the veto, because you are a British subject who has to agree with everyone else before it can happen. Not even the Queen herself can agree to it, again according to what you say.

I call upon you to reflect upon your arguments.

It remains a crime in the United Kingdom to campaign for a republic.

Those who yearn for a republic can always go and live in one

Thanks for your response Tony.

I await that from Paul himself to the specific point I raised.

In response to you personally Tony, I have to caution you with this observation:

Your words are those of a Tyrant. You brand it a criminal offense for anyone to contemplate an alternative constitution. I suggest you put the idea to Neil Heron who prides himself as champion of human rights!

"The so-called Act of Settlement was itself arguably unlawful, insofar as it purported to claim authority over the Crown.

Thirdly, it is not the case that the monarch is expected to consent to ALL legislation, only most of it, in particular, such as is not itself unconstitutional; the monarch IS expected to reject any and all unconstitutional legislation."

How can legislation be unconstitutional if all three parts of Parliament agree to it? The Act of Settlement was certainly agreed by all concerned. If everyone agrees to abolish the monarchy, then as the authority of Parliament is total and absolute it would be so settled. The same point arises with changes to the House of Lords and the Parliament Acts.

"Fifthly, it is incorrect to say that the UK has no written constitution; it is merely that, unlike other countries, it has not tried to restrict its constitutional provisions to a single document"

What we mean by this is that, unlike other countries, the UK has only one way to make and change law, Act of Parliament. This means that the abolition of the monarchy would rank alongside plant varieties legislation. There is no constraint on Parliament in what it can do or in having to invoke special procedures (eg referenda, two thirds majorities) when wanting to make constitutional changes.

"It remains a crime in the United Kingdom to campaign for a republic."

"Your words are those of a Tyrant. You brand it a criminal offense for anyone to contemplate an alternative constitution. I suggest you put the idea to Neil Heron who prides himself as champion of human rights!"

I'm sure we won't see the UKIP launching that particular campaign at the ECHR!

>>> "...the UK has only one way to make and change law, Act of Parliament. This means that the abolition of the monarchy would rank alongside plant varieties legislation. There is no constraint on Parliament in what it can do or in having to invoke special procedures (eg referenda, two thirds majorities) when wanting to make constitutional changes..."

Or so we believed. The judgement of Lord Justice Laws changes the above.

I was going to make a reference to Judge Laws but thought better of it.

His judgement is only important when considering implied repeal. The fact remains that Acts of Parliament are equal in terms of explicit amendment.

Pip: Fortunately the UK has never been a democracy, in which the majority is has the right to violate the rights of minorities, but a constitutional monarchy under the rule of law. That means that it is unlawful to abbrogate the right of even a single person, irrespective of how much support such acts may have, even to the extent of the support of everyone, including the monarch and the rest of Parliament, apart from the person himself. That is what the rule of law means - and what those living in less happier lands have never understand. The authority even of the sovereign is subject to that rule of law.

"To NO ONE will we sell, to NO ONE will we refuse or delay, right or justice."

Parliament has authority only to do what is lawful. It does not have the right or authority to abbrogate the right of a single person. It may have the power to do so, but that is something completely different. Unconstitutional legislation is thus unlawful even if passed by the whole Parliament unanimously - because it arrogates authority that Parliament never owned.

Only by unanimous agreement of absolutely every single person whose right is to be expunged, or with what each and every person considers full compensation for its loss to him, can such an Act be made lawful. Parliament is sovereign only in the sense that there is no higher authority, not in the sense that it is entitled to pass any decrees it wishes; it is the servant of civil society under the rule of law, not its master.

It is quite false to say that the only way to make and change law in the UK is by Act of Parliament. It has never been true, and isn't true today. A great deal of our law is judge-made law, for example (or, rather, in theory, judge-discovered law, following the principles of natural justice).

Sorry for spelling mistakes. I hit post instead of preview.

Paul,
may I conclude that in your opinion it's absolutely impossible to turn the UK into a republic ?

It would not be the "UK" then would it? :-)

pip:

"Your words are those of a tyrant. You brand it as a criminal offence to contemplate alternative constitutions".

REPLY:

I will calmly pass over your words of defamation.

For the record, I was quoting the law of the United Kingdom on advocating a republic*, and I did not say it was a crime to 'contemplate' a republic.

-------------------------------------------------------
* Kevin McNamara, Labour MP, brought in a Private Members' Bill last December to make it legal to campaign for a republic. It received little support and achieved the unlikely feat of uniting Roman Catholic MP Anne Widdecombe** and Rev. Ian Paisley, who led the opposition to it

** Anne Widdecombe once said: "Every time I pass the statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament, I feel like spitting at it. She said this *after* she converted from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church

{(I say "tried" because even the US Constitution is not a single document, not even if you parcel all the Amendments in together; both international treaties and case law also contribute to that constitution).}

That's not entirely true. Treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, but they are not part of the Constitution. In fact tehy are only the supreme law IF they comply with the constitution, otherwise they are null and void.

What a lot of confusion I am suffering after reading these posts.

"Parliament has authority only to do what is lawful. It does not have the right or authority to abbrogate the right of a single person. It may have the power to do so, but that is something completely different. Unconstitutional legislation is thus unlawful even if passed by the whole Parliament unanimously - because it arrogates authority that Parliament never owned."

To me this seems to be a matter of opinion. It seems clear to me that over the centuries Parliament has assumed for itself the rights and authority that go with its power, for example the vires to Acts states "and by the authority of the same". Once again, I must return to the point that the "constitution" is founded upon a collection of documents which are mainly Acts. In this sense, Parliament by its absolute authority determines the constitution, part of which is that authority itself. Otherwise we would be stuck in a situation whereby we can't change our system of Government. Are you arguing that the creation of Parliament in the first place was unlawful?

"It is quite false to say that the only way to make and change law in the UK is by Act of Parliament. It has never been true, and isn't true today. A great deal of our law is judge-made law."

Perhaps I expressed this badly. What I meant was that in the present day, the only way of efficiently changing law is by Act. The abolition of the monarchy would not be founded upon case law.

"That is what the rule of law means - and what those living in less happier lands have never understand. The authority even of the sovereign is subject to that rule of law."

Perhaps we should make clear that if not for the constitutional reform of creating Parliament and making all three elements of it subject to the control of the three together, we would never have pioneered the rule of law. Simon de Montfort, Oliver Cromwell and others were crucial in that process.

"In 973, in the first English Coronation Servive, Edgar made a three-fold promise:

First, that the Church of God and the whole Christian people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment;

Second, that I will forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men;

Third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all judgments"

- E.C. Ratcliff, 'The Coronoation Service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (1953), p. 24.


Earlier in this same book, Ratcliff wrote: "Inevitably, the Biblical practice of anointing brought with it the Biblical conception of the 'Ideal King', who stood in special relation to God as His Servant, and whose duty it was to defend true religion, to support its ministers, and to maintain justice and righteousness among his people" (p.6)

The original Latin version of Edgar's Oath can be found at L.G. Wickham Legg, 'English Coronation Records' (190l), xxxi.


For 1,029 years since then, that 'contract' between Monarch and people has been maintained - and during that time Britian prospered, developed Parliamentary democracy, led the abolition of the world-wide slave trade, created unmatchable civil rights for the individual like jury trial and 'habeas corpus' that have been exported to many parts of the world, and still has a special collection of nations, the Commonwealth, many of whom retain the Queen as their Head of State.

And with Britain remaining a Monarchy, it has become the most popular destination on the planet for immigrants.

With a Monarchy having presided over a record like that, who would wish to abolish it?

-------------------------------------------------------

It might also be noted that in every town and village in the United Kingdom are war memorials, remembering those who gave their lives in the last two World Wars 'for King and Country'. It's sad to see the efforts of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, or gave so much in other ways, for 'King and Country' (and for freedom on the continent of Europe) being undermined by those who nowadays seem to despise both 'King' and 'Country'

All very nice, but I don't think any of these things are locked in for all time. I suppose you'll be suggesting that these things prevent the disestablishment of the Church of England? Plus presumably the independence of overseas territories, although it seems you might have lost that one.

I'm a supporter of the monarchy by the way.

By the way, I thought the first English king was Athelstan in 925?

Conrad: Read what I wrote (if your English and logic skills are up to it, which I strongly doubt). Words you will need to grasp include "lawful", as distinct from "possible", "unanimous", as distinct from "majority", and "right", as distinct from "power".

MikeW: A constitution is simply the way an organisation is constituted; anything that is the "supreme law of the land" is part of its constitution, even if it's not part of a particular document labelled "The Constitution". (I quite agree with you, though, that any treaty not consistent with the main body of the constitution, or its formal amendments, is properly void and thus not part of the constitution.)

Ross: No, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of right. Parliament has indeed over the centuries arrogated to itself all manner of powers (or more usually one part has seized powers rightfully belonging to another part); but where they violate the prior Rights of Englishmen they are unlawful. Law is no respecter of persons, not even of the most powerful of persons or majorities. Neither might nor popular opinion can ever lawfully remove a prior right against the will of its holder - if it were otherwise there could be no rights at all. They may have the capacity to override the law, but that can never make such actions lawful, however much the apologists for absolute government (which includes democracy as well as absolute monarchy, oriental despotism, dictatorships, communism and fascism) may like to pretend otherwise.

Every Briton has a right to be the subject of His or Her Britannic Majesty. To deprive even a single person of that immemorial right against his will would be unlawful. If that's an inconvenience to would-be radicals - tough! Convenience is no excuse for the abandonment of the rule of law.

The constitution of the UK is primarily founded upon documents that are not "Acts of Parliament", or not in the usual sense. Documents such as Magna Carta. The writs of Common Law. Even the Institutes of Justinian. And in point of fact, in the present day most law IS changed by means other than by Act of Parliament, through secondary legislation created by the Government (NOT Parliament), through regulations promulgated by the EU, and through judicial decisions.

That evil monster Cromwell, far from assisting the development of the rule of law, helped sow the seeds of its downfall by introducing the virulent fiction that it was lawful for Parliament (or the Commons alone) to abbrogate the Rights of Englishmen for its own ends. He it was who first imposed the continental despotism of submission to the general will, a disease that has today become endemic, threatening to obliterate all the gains we have ever made.

Yes, the disestablishment of the Church of England would indeed be a major wrong, violating the rights of many people (see my essay on the subject at http://www.paulbirch.net/EstablishedChurch.html ).

Time does not erase Rights, nor expedience Justice. Nor do past sins excuse present ones.

{A constitution is simply the way an organisation is constituted; anything that is the "supreme law of the land" is part of its constitution, even if it's not part of a particular document labelled "The Constitution".

I'm aware of that. What I was trying to say was that treaties are secondary to the main Constitution. Sorry I wasn't clear on that point.

{I quite agree with you, though, that any treaty not consistent with the main body of the constitution, or its formal amendments, is properly void and thus not part of the constitution.}

Interestingly, despite the common lies told by liberals (Meaning the Democrats), the Constitution itself clearly states that treaties are secondary law.

Too bad the courts don't have the guts to throw out illegal treaties.

I have to admitt that I find the exchange of views on this discussion thread quite fascinating. I'd like to thank Paul Birch and Tony Bennett for their contributions (no disrepect to anyone else). I had no idea that the legal constitution in Britain was so framed.

Realistically though I doubt that, in the event that there was overwhelming support for Britain to become a republic, that such legal niceties would ultimately get in the way. Where there is a will there is a way so to speak. Such laws are after all man-made not God given, and if humankind decides they are no longer appropriate they will be abandoned, and no small minority will have the power to stop it.

In any case if the predictions of Arthur C. Clarke come to pass, namely the complete collapse of the Nation State, then the whole thing becomes academic.

Since I started this debate (although unwittingly), may I finish it off by noting that under the presnet system, no UK government is likely to campaign for a republic. The reason is simple - a republic would require a constitution which would limit the president's power. Under the presnet system, the Prime Minister can "advise" the monarch to do almost anything. Thus, the introduciton of a republic would actually diminish the Prime Minister's powers.

How exactly do these 'Rights' come about? Presumably the rights of all those left over from the Roman period to worship both the ancient gods and the Constantinian model (which later became Roman Catholicism) were over-ridden and annulled by the English with their raping and pillaging ways on arrival in c.400, imposing a new monarchy and pagan church system that had not existed before, which was then replaced by Augustine. Was not the creation of the Church of England by executive act the complete destruction of the 'Rights' of those following what was then the faith of the status quo?

To me, the notion that we can arbitrarily claim one point in history to have a status endearing its legality for time immemorial is a very backward concept. This sort of attitude is stuck in the pre-Darwinian period when everything was ordained as having existed from the beginning of time and having the Right to exist to the end of time without any hope of amendment or evolution. Under this idea, the very formation of Parliament or any of the advances under the Bill of Rights etc are unlawful.

I can imagine Michael Shrimpton leading another small band of supporters to the High Court to attempt this one, but I don't hold out much hope of it succeeding.

I know that secondary legislation has a worryingly ever-increasing role. Once again, I can't see the monarchy being abolished through this route, or by the EU although no doubt The Sun would put about such stories.

Prior to Cromwell, the monarch had absolute power and afterwards we had begun to steer the course to the accountability which we hold today. He may not have had the best of intentions, but he did begin a process that was the first of its kind in the world.

It is irrelevant how those, or any other rights, originally came about. It suffices that they did, and that they are rights that persons in fact possess today. To abbrogate those rights NOW would be unlawful. That other rights may have been violated in the past - perhaps even in the creation of current rights - does not and cannot make present violations either right or lawful.

Changes that do not violate existing rights are not unlawful; and existing rights can lawfully be transferred, voluntarily surrendered, exchanged, bought out, or, upon payment of full compensation, annulled. They may also sometimes cease to exist, perhaps upon the death of their holders, like an annuity. They may also be wrongfully expunged.

Historical injustices can seldom be put right, because both wronged and wrongdoers are dead and gone; attempts to right such old wrongs merely create new injustices, by penalising persons who have themselves committed no offence, in favour of others who have not been victimised.

It is clear that you do not know what the term time immemorial means. I suggest you go away and learn.

Your claim that the monarch had absolute power prior to Cromwell is false, although it is true that on occasion the Stuarts showed less respect for the law than they ought to have done.

Prior to Cromwell, the monarch did not have absolute absolute power, as a result of Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford etc. But the changes around the middle of the seventeenth century were crucial in developing the constitution, as were the later ones of 1688 and 1701.

It seems to me that these 'Rights' are based upon the destruction of other rights (as will usually be the case in evolutionary progress), are not recorded in any meaningful way other than by clouded hearsay and do not affect the power of our system of government to operate. That doesn't sound like much of a constitutional basis to me.

It is desirable that we are able to progress in the best way possible with the practicalities of our legal system. It is strange that 'Rights' should claim to bind all generations from now until the end of time with the threat of declaring actions 'unlawful' when they themselves may have been responsible for unlawful acts. If previous 'Rights' have not been tranferred, voluntarily surrendered or annulled then surely they too are still in force where the descendants of those who originally held them are still alive. They may have a 'Right', for example, to be governed by an empire, but this is all outdated nonsense.

The facts are simple. We have a constitutional system which has evolved over centuries. I think the notion of 'Rights' introduced at an arbitrary time and claiming binding authority for all time is all a bit silly. The system has to evolve to account for changing circumstances and the only way that new 'Rights' can exist is by removing old ones. That must be an essential element in an evolutionary system. Rights which claim existence for all time must have existed since the beginning of time to be realistic, and that is part of Creationist thinking. But we don't want to get started on that...

RE: 1. "rights annulled by the English with their raping and pillaging"


I refer first to this recent account of the history of the English language (which relates strongly to the history of the English people, of course). It can be found at:

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/geoffs/FAQ_BirthOf Eng.html

"When and where did English begin? A brief but accurate answer to this would be 'very roughly 1,500 years ago, give or take a century or so, on the eastern side of the island of Great Britain - in what we now call the east and south-east of England' (but nobody called it 'England' then).

"Perhaps this is too vague for you - would you like a date? As a respectable academic, I ought to say this is as precise as we can be. But if you press me - all right, then: in a symbolic sense, at any rate, perhaps we might say that English began in A.D. 449, at a place called Ebbsfleet on Pegswell Bay, near Ramsgate in Kent. I cannot give you a specific birthday, but it will have been in the summer rather than the winter half of the year.

"...two Saxon brothers, Hengist and Horsa, landed in Kent in 449. The lcoal British King Vortigern foolishly thought he could use them and their men as allies in his tussles with British rivals, and presented them with the Isle of Thanet to live on. But once the cuckoos were admitted to the nest, they grew - more and more Saxons were invited over, despite Vortigern's protests...symbolically, the disembarkation [of Hengist and Horsa] was the point when the speech habits that were destined to turn into English became separated from those that turned into modern Dutch and German".

NOTE: The Saxons, then, came *at the invitation of* the British King Vortigern. The reason he invited them was because of the raping and pillaging of our friends on the other side of Hadrians Wall - the Picts. The Saxons proved worthy defenders of the Brits against the Picts. But soon afterwars, a wave of immigration gegan - first Saxons, and later the Angles and the Jutes, who entered Great Britain at various points on England's eastern and southern coasts.

It must be admitted that there was a great deal of mutual suspicion between the 'Brits' and the Anglo-Saxons. But there is very little evidence of actual 'raping and pillaging'. Most historians agree that the 'Brits' simply retreated to what is now Wales, though there were one or two set piece battles such as the battle of Mount Badon at which 'King' Arthur was the Brits' Commander-in-Chief.

As the 'Brits' retreated, the Anglo-Saxons started to pour into England - an illustration of what can happen once you start inviting people of a very different culture into your own country).

The most serious single clash between the 'Brits' and the Anglo-Saxons, a grossly under-reported event in our history, illustrates the clash of the Christianised Brits versus the pagan Anglo-Saxons.

In 612 A.D., at Bangor-is-y-Coed (Bangor-on-Dee these days), Anglo-Saxon forces (under the command of the Northumbrian King if memory serves), slaughtered 1,200 monks at the theological college there, as they were kneeling at prayer. This event was inspired by Augustine, who had landed in Kent in 597 A.D., on the orders of Pope Gregory. This was not to bring Christianity to these islands (the fable we seem to accept these days), but to impose the Roman Catholic Church system, including their Bishops and dioceses, on the Christians of these islands.

That there was an active Christian church before Augustine can be demonstrated by a great deal of history, generally not known to us these days, not least of the activities of Patrick, a 'Brit' born of Christian parents in West Wales, who went on to evangelise Ireland.

By the time of Alfred the Great (eighth century), England was becoming a settled group of Anglo-Saxon/Jutish tribes and the 'rapers and pillagers' of the times were in fact the Danes and the Vikings.

-------------------------------------------------------

RE: 2. "prior to Cromwell, the monarch had absolute power"


Er, what about Magna Carta, 1215 A.D., which King John was forced to accept?

-------------------------------------------------------

RE: 3. "was not the establishment of the Church of England by executive action the destruction of the 'rights' of those following whatever the faith of the status quo?"


In short, no, but it became true in certain respects as time went on.

It is not true of course of the period since the 'Glorious Revolution' and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9.

In brief, the history of the Church of England and its tolerance/intolerance of dissent is as follows.

The Church of England was a branch of the Roman Catholic Church until 1536 when Henry VIII, for all the wrong reasons, wrested it from Papal authority.

As far as I know, there was until the fourteenth century no signifiant persecution of those who were non-believers, although outright pagan practices were I think outlawed.

During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, active persecution of non-believers (and particularly of those who believed something different and who actively opposed the increasingly corrupt Roman Catholic Church) started, and again if memory serves there was a Heresy Act in 1401 which defined 'heresy' and prescribed severe punishments for it.

After that, people began to be burnt at the stake for differing with the teachings of the Church of England. There can of course be no justification for imposing punishment, especially the death penalty, against those who happen to believe something different, so long as they are loyal to their country.

Persecution of those who challenged the teachings of the Church of England diminished in Henry VIII's reign, and ended during the glorious but short-lived reign of the 'Boy King' Edward (1547-53), only to be savagely reintroduced by Roman Catholic Bloody Queen Mary.

Elizabeth I's reign largely ended such persecution, but in 1662 the Act of Uniformity imposed a regime of 'political correctness', where if you didn't agree with the official line of the Church of England, your 'living' as a Parish priest was forfeited. Rather than preach a message inconsistent, as they believed, with the Bible, thousands of Parish priests resigned or were forced out of their 'livings', spending the remainder of their days in abject poverty. It became known as 'The Great Ejection'.


It was during the years following that John Bunyan was imprisoned merely for preaching the gospel and holding 'services' without a state licence.

The 1688/9 settlement brought in an era of religious toleration and freedom, except that there were restrictions on the activities of the Roman Catholic Church and prohibitions on their taking most political and administrative jobs. These measures were certainly justified by the activities of Roman Catholic priests at that time.

It might be noted, finally, that the establishment of Protestant monarchies in different European countries e.g. The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, was always associated with the establishment and guarantee of religious freedom and tolerance, freedom of conscience and speech.

_______________________________________________________

Why don't you read what I wrote instead of spouting more of your Darwinist nonsense? To violate a legal right is unlawful BY DEFINITION!

I never claimed that changes around the time of Cromwell were not significant in the development of the present constitution. Your statements (concerning Cromwell and the monarchs before his time) were false. Mine are true.

You want a clear statement of some of the Rights of Englishmen? Read Magna Carta. Read the Bill of Rights 1688, especially the preamble to the main text. These were not rights destructive of prior rights but re-enactments of long-standing principles. Despite the perpetual efforts of those who would subordinate personal rights to the power of the state (which is to say, abolish them), the law still restrains the tyrannies of absolute government (though less and less as the EU's oppressive grip tightens more and more).

It is quite false to state that new rights can only come into existence by removing old ones; but even if that were so, a "right" that could simply be abbrogated whenever the politicians found it inconvenient would be no right at all. A right is something to which one holds title against everyone else in the world.

I never claimed that any particular right has to remain valid for all time - I explicitly described how rights may lawfully evolve and even how they can be unlawfully ended. Descendents do not own the rights of their forefathers unless those rights have in fact been passed down to them (as however the Rights of Englishmen have been).

Nevertheless, the moral and legal principles of respect for the rights of individuals do not change; they are not based upon the will of men or fashionable opinion, but on natural law and natural justice, which it is the proper role of the law to discover and enforce.

What exactly are "natural law" and "natural justice"?

This. it seems, is a point worthy of debate.

Yes, that would be quite interesting.
If there is a thing like "natural law", doesn't it need to apply to animals as well ?
Or is there some obvious, inherent superiority of humans WITHOUT having to pull in the bible ?
So, unless you base laws on religion, there can't be "natural laws", which makes it come down to the obvious: Laws and Rights are made by Men for Men.
And that means that any idealistic notion about the immortality of Rights is, well, idealistic, but not realistic.

Ralf

^Typical Statist.

I thought natural law was meant to refer to principles that anyone could commonly expect, such as a right by a fair hearing by an independent person.

Ralf: "...is there any obvious inherent superiority of humans without having to pull in the Bible?"

At the latest count, geneticists accept there are at least 170 clear differences betweeen humans and the 'nearest' other animal species. Two of the most obvious are:

(a) the human being's capacity for speech, thought and abstract concepts, and

(b) the uniquely bipedal gait - no other creature is constructed so as to be able to walk upright on two legs all of the time, unless you count birds.

The word 'constructed' is used advisedly.

I'm happy to supply a list of the other 168 or so differences.

It is often stated that chimpanzees are our 'nearest relative' because 97% - 98% or so of the chimpanzee's genome has been discovered to be the same as that of the human genome.

All this means is that the genes which code for, e.g. eyes, nose, ears, arms, fingers, legs, toes, reproductive organs etc. etc. are very similar to those which code for those same features found in human beings.

One interpretation - which I personally accept - is that the Creator used various blueprints for His creation of all the wonderful, different, highly specialised creatures of land, air and sea - and that He used around 97% of His blueprint for humans in *designing* the chimpanzee.

Incidentally, there is absolutely no proof of evolution and indeed much proof that we haven't evolved. It is a theory wholly unsupported by any facts

Natural law describes how people should behave in order to be secure in their persons and effectively pursue their own goals and satisfactions. It is the empirical basis of civil society - if we do not respect property and the rights of individuals society will not survive or progress.

Natural law is not the same as moral law, but it's close. Natural law says, IF you want these goods for yourself and others, do this. Moral law says that it is right to desire what is good for yourself and others - and therefore that it is right to follow the rules of natural law. Natural law is the engineering basis for a just world, just as physical law is the engineering basis for the sound construction of bridges and buildings.

Natural justice is the rendering to every man his due, that is, the respecting of every man's rights, whatever they currently happen to be, and the correction of, or full compensation for, any breaches of those rights.

The concepts of natural law and natural justice apply principally to moral agents, that is, to self-aware entities capable of making choices, so their applicability to the animal kingdom is at best limited. One cannot expect a dog to understand justice - or only in a small degree - or abide by its demands. Which is why dogs don't build civilisations.

Tony:

"Incidentally, there is absolutely no proof of evolution and indeed much proof that we haven't evolved. It is a theory wholly unsupported by any facts"

You mean that seriously, don't you ?
What about neanderthals and the other gazillions of fossils found around the world ?
Or the obvious traces of evolution in the human body (eg the appendix which servers no function anymore, or the weird way the eye is construced).

Since you say "there is absolutely no proof", you actually just deprived yourself of one of your self-proclaimed superiorities of humans: rational thought.

I can go into any second-class museum and look at physical evidence that evolution exists, what physical evidence is that supports your creationist viewpoint other than "It's so beautiful and complex, it must have been created!" ?

Paul:
What you describe as "natural law" I rather view as an optimization problem:
"You have 100 people in a limited area. What are the rules to live by so that everyone has the same amount of freedom, and each freedom is maximized ?"
You can call it "natural", yes, because it arises from the basic premises (100 people in limited area), however there's nothing special about it or given by someone (the creator).
In either case, both the optimization criteria and the means of that optimization are made by men, which makes the eventual solution not "given by a creator" or "inherent to nature", but just man-made.

Ralf

Natural law is no more man-made than the laws of physics. Particular formulations, descriptions, theories and hypotheses may have been invented by particular human beings; but the underlying law is something no man can alter.

I do not recall saying anything about natural law being "given by a creator" or even "inherent to nature". However, I do believe that the world is in fact the way it is - and that natural and physical laws are the way they are - because God created it that way. Presumably, had He wished, He could have made it differently - in some respects at least - though much of natural law is simple logic that could not have been otherwise.

Natural law has nothing to do with equalising freedoms; if that is your end the rule is very simple: kill everyone. The pretence that people can be made equal (without killing them all) is one of the main ways in which statists ignore natural law. But not even a population of hermaphroditic clones could ever maintain equality - of freedoms or of anything else.

>The pretence that people can be made equal (without
>killing them all) is one of the main ways in which
>statists ignore natural law.

Some animals are more equal than others ?

It is obvious that it is *never* possible to treat everyone equally, if only for the reason that the target (the population) constantly changes.
However, the judgment of how much some freedoms weigh against others is completely up to humans.

You seem to disagree about that, Paul. Please explain, how exactly does "natural law" mainfest itself and what makes it more just than any possible human concoction ?

Ralf

No animals are equal. That is one of the facts of natural law. I do not care to debate the subject with you in any detail since I am convinced that your statist mind is incapable of comprehending natural law, or its subset, economics, and I don't want to waste my time. You evidently want to believe that governments can do anything they put enough of other people's money into. You're wrong. They can no more repeal natural law than they can repeal the law of gravity. Respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals - as valued by those individuals themselves - is essential for prosperity and adherence to the moral law for general happiness.

I fear this debate has moved on, but I would still like ot respond to a few points.

Firstly I would like to set out my personal belief that Creationism has been so constantly discredited that it now holds very little likelihood of being true.

On the English: fair enough that they were originally invited to attend by the British, but that did not mean that they had the authority to set up their own system of religion and government. They certainly had no unanimous approval to replace the rights of their predecessors by doing so. They were quite keen on 'raping and pillaging', although obviously not as adept at it as the Danes/Vikings and the Scots/Picts. They were certainly on the wrong side of the 'civilisation' line in that respect.

On the Church: was there unanimous approval for the creation of a new state Church replacing Rome? I think not. There is no need for the followers of other faiths to be persecuted, their supposed 'Rights' were breached when their state church was taken away from them without their consent.

On Rights in general: I am not 'spouting Darwinist nonsense'. I am simply questioning whether the 'breaching' Rights is unlawful or not. If some of the Rights of Englishmen are stated in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, then you seem to be suggesting that these things are not amendable, which would mean, amongst other things, Parliaments binding their successors.

By the way, has any of this ever been tested in a *recent* court case?

I think that the whole 'Rights' idea is a way in which people can pretend that things which are changing are actually staying the same. If you want a monarchy, fine you can just pretend that you have one whereas the whole legal system has other ideas. Presumably the replacement of a monarchy would then remain an illegal act for all time as long as someone wanted it to be restored. That would mean that the creation of the present monarchy is now an illegal act under the 'Rights of Britons'.

>I am convinced that your statist mind is incapable of
>comprehending ... and I don't want to waste my time

... is the usual quote of someone who has no arguments left.

>Respect for the rule of law and the rights of
>individuals - as valued by those individuals
>themselves - is essential for prosperity and
>adherence to the moral law for general happiness.

This is just meaningless rambling, put into important sounding words.

Ralf

You are a liar. I gave you clear arguments and proofs. You ignored them. Just as you have always ignored such arguments on this forum.

It is a fact of natural law that respect for the rule of law and the rights of individuals, as valued by those individuals themselves, is essential for prosperity and adherence to the moral law for general happiness. This is not "meaningless rambling". Your pretence that it is is proof either of your stupidity and ignorance, or of your deliberate dishonesty (from past experience with you on this forum I incline to the latter view, though I have little doubt that you are both stupid and ignorant as well). There is ample historical proof of the claims of natural law. Try reading Ludwig von Mises "Socialism" and "Human Action" (he was another foreigner so maybe you'll be able to take him seriously). Or Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". Better yet, read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Or Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose". Or Hilaire Belloc. Or Humboldt, or Arendt, or Rommen, or Leoni, or Zane, or Hoff, or Barnett, or any of a host of other writers from Aristotle to the present day.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing to change your opinion - I wouldn't want you on my "side" - and your belief or disbelief makes absolutely no difference to the truth. I write here only for the sake of others you might otherwise deceive.

I hope you're not going to prove as stupidly pig-headed as Ralf. A legal right is a legal entitlement. Its breach is a breach of the law. It is unlawful. It cannot be otherwise, by simple logic and the simple meaning of words. This remains true of logical necessity, irrespective of whether any court or parliament is honest enough to admit it.

I have stated repeatedly and explicitly that rights can evolve in lawful ways. So stop pretending that I am saying that rights can never change. Parliaments cannot bind their successors, true, but the LAW does. Parliament is NOT an absolute sovereign, above the law, but a constitutional sovereign, SUBJECT to the law. If Parliament acts contrary to law it acts unlawfully.

No one is claiming that Parliaments (or the English, or the Normans, or the King) have always acted lawfully in the past - they very obviously have not - nor that current rights came into existence by wholly legitimate means. But, except where the CURRENT holders of those rights have themselves acted wrongfully or unlawfully it is likewise wrong or unlawful to deprive them of their property without due compensation.

> though I have little doubt that you are both stupid
>and ignorant as well

You're so full of it. Go back to your homepage and write your essays.

Ralf

Hi Paul

I intend to discuss your various arguments in detail later, as time permits.

In the mean time, you may wish to reflect on this:

http://www.skepdic.com/ch5samp.html

I know about 'a legal right' etc, and I hope you're not taking a patronising tone in explaining it. What I am contesting is whether or not these legal rights and entitlements actually exist outside the control of Parliament or whether you have just imagined them. I am questioning their status, not the meaning of words.

I cannot possibly see how this is anything other than a matter of opinion, indeed all legal interpretation involves some element of opinion. It may be your opinion that the law constrains Parliament, but it is mine that Paliament is sovereign and can as a result pass any legislation lawfully. Time for a quote I think, Oxford University no less:

"It is generally accepted that the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty means that there are no legal limits upon the legislative competence of Parliament. This, in turn, is usually understood to entail a positive and a negative aspect of the doctrine: Positively, the doctrine implies that Parliament can legislate on any matter whatsoever and in any way whatsoever irrespective of how morally obnoxious, politically inexpedient, inefficacious, or socially divisive that legislation might appear to some. Negatively, the doctrine implies that there is no other legal authority competent to legislate for Britain in competition with Parliament and no legal authority with power to impose legal limits upon Parliament or to subject its legislation to scrutiny with a view to disqualifying it as unconstitutional or invalid. And this generally accepted view is wholly in accord with Dicey's statement that Parliament has "under the English constitution the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament" [pp 39-40]."

Parliament is simply an evolution of an absolute monarchy. From the original doctrine that "the King's word is law" to, after much procrastination, "Parliament's word is law". Other countries which have written constitutions, and that is a different system to ours, have a legal constraint on their legislative branches which stop them doing certain things, for example ratifying treaties without a referendum as in Ireland. We have no such explicit bars in this country. Yet these Rights are supposed to provide such a bar. It seems to me that they only exist in the minds of individuals, and their breach would likewise not have any real or effective personality.

The reason I continue to mention historical examples is because of the posterity which Rights seem to claim for themselves. Take the original example of the monarchy. If we were to abolish it now then, if there were no unanimity, which we know from this board there is not, then that would be an 'illegal' act. The subsequent establishment of a republic would then also be an illegal act. Presumably, as long as someone wanted the restoration of the monarchy it would remain illegal. It would be rather strange if it was illegal only for a couple of years and then stopped being so, it would have to continue to be notionally illegal for as long as someone considered themselves to have been wronged. All we therefore need is one crackpot who favours the re-establishment of the Roman Empire and then the whole constitutional system, and the English Rights themselves, would become 'illegal'. This is not a sensible way in which to operate 'law'. It seems to me to have a character more suited to what might be called 'pleasant thoughts'.

It is further interesting to note that there is no effective way of enforcing Rights. This is because the courts have no authority to question the proceedings of Parliament. I notice you do not answer my enquiry about a recent court precedent. So, these Rights have no effective way of controlling Parliament and cannot be enforced through the courts to stop legislation which breaches them. They are at best 'guiding principles' which those making decisions might want to take note of. But these principles could also be described as 'moral rights', 'commonsense' or 'fairness'. They are no more and no less than what some people might think are good ideas, and to invoke terms such as 'unlawful' or 'illegal' when discussing their breach is to cross the boundary into legal and constitutional territory of which Parliament is the supreme guardian.

Consider a further example. It is possible that, in the coming year, the Lords and Commons will agree a Bill to allow juries information of past offences and restrict the protection afforded to defendants from double jeopardy. It would be my opinion that as the sovereign controller of law, Parliament could do such a thing without question. I can only assume, as these things are not defined clearly, that such a move would breach Rights, and individuals would have to agree to give up their protection from double jeopardy in order to be lawfully deprived of it.

So, would The Queen stop such a measure going ahead? According to your grandiose and glorious comments of before, She would not only have the power, but the duty to do such a thing. I fear that in the reality of the constitutional system, Rights would not be considered and would have no bearing on the decision that She would make. An Act making those changes could not be challenged in any court of the United Kingdom. Yet you would claim that it would be a breach of the law. It seems to me that you would like such a thing to be true, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Your claim that you were only questioning the status of particular alleged rights is false. You questioned whether breaching rights is unlawful, mentioning specifically the rights in Magna Carta (which is not an Act of Parliament) and the Bill of Rights 1688 (which is). I am not imagining those rights - they are written down in black and white. Nor do I imagine the Queen's coronation oath.

I'm not debating with "Oxford University" (there's no such person). However, the fact (if it were a fact, though the courts have often thrown out badly-formulated legislation) that there is no one with greater authority than Parliament does not entail that everything Parliament does is lawful. If at one time Parliament says I have the right to bear arms (Bill of Rights 1688) then seeks to penalise me for so doing, without even repealing the earlier legislation (remember, the courts have REJECTED the principle of implied repeal for acts of constitutional significance), then it acts unlawfully.

You repeat the lie (I say lie because you have already admitted its falsehood) that the English monarchy was an absolute monarchy. You repeat the lie (I say lie because you have already admitted its falsehood) that the UK does not have a written constitution.

Statists will do whatever they have the power to do. That fact does not make their actions either moral or lawful. Never can. Never will.

Paul, why do you persist in this name-calling? Did you follow the link that I posted earlier? There is little point debating with you if you persist in this name-calling and with this patronising approach.

Is your aim to persuade or to defeat?

I hope that it is the former, as I relish the prospect of discussing your ideas.

Reply to Ralf Point 1: "What about Neanderthals?"

ANSWER: A short answer is to be found in the current issue of 'Creation', Vol. 25, No. 1 (Dec 2002 to Feb 2003), ISBN 0819-1530, p.18 (website: www.AnswersinGenesis.org):

"Neaderthal man. This is a group that once lived in Europe and the Mediterranean lands. The researchers who first reconstructed these fossils gave them a bent-over (i.e. ape-like) appearance.

"However, the early reconstructions suffered from a heavy dose of evolutionary bias, along with the fact that some specimens suffered from bony diseases such as rickets, which is caused by Vitamin D deficiency from childhood and can result in bowing of the skeleton. One cause of this is lack of exposure to sunlight...

"Modern reconstructions of Neanderthals are consistent with the creationist contention that they are fully human. Their minor skeletal variations from the modern average are no different in principle from the minor physical differences between people groups today, which have been shown to be consistent with the genetic unity of humanity.

"Despite attempts made on the basis of mitochondrial DNA fragments in one set of Neanderthal bones to assign them to a separate species, even some evolutionist authorities claim that they should be regarded as 'Homo sapiens'. A forthcoming article will deal with Neanderthals in more detail.

"So how did these and other extinct human fossils originate? Answer: creationists say that the early human fossils are of various groups of people who lived post-Flood".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A longer analysis (using metric measurements of brain capacity): "Neanderthals are still Human! - Impact No. 323, May 2000", can be viewed at the Institute for Creation Research site at:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-323.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I would add two brief points:

(1) There is no evidence from the only tolerably-valid method of radiometric dating, viz. radiocarbon dating, that the 'Neanderthal' skeletons that have been found are any more than a few thousand years old, and

(2) Computer generated representations from 'Neanderthal' skulls of what Neanderthal heads and faces would look like have shown that they would be indistinguishable from Western men and woman walking down any high street today

Here are just a few thoughts on Neanderthal Man



http://www.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/neandertals.html

"Newer Dating

A jaw bone, about 3½ inches long, one of the Vindija Neanderthal bones that was dated. (Croatian Academy of Sciences)

Trinkaus and his collaborators examined Neanderthal bones originally dug up from a Croatian cave a century ago. Radiocarbon dating on pill-size samples from two skulls put their age at 28,000 years old. The Neanderthal specimens "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal991025.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal000328.html

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2021/Neanderthal/Neanderthal.html

You should learn the difference between ad hominem argument, which I have never used, and insults based upon evidence. When people tell lies repeatedly, I call them liars.

I have no interest in debating with statists on either natural or moral law. It's a waste of effort. I described what natural law and natural justice are because somebody asked me. If you want to believe they don't exist I'm not interested in discussing it further.

If you wish to discuss specific features of natural law, such as the significance of trial by jury or the presumption of innocence, or the necessity for private property, I am willing to do so, but except as relates directly to the existing and threatened Rights of Englishmen this thread is not the place for such a discussion. Feel free to start a new one on the Great Debate board.

A few points

"Natural law" has not been explained in the sense that any other "law" of nature would normally be explained. What there seems to be is a process of seeking proof by affirmation and / or generalising from the specific. This is not the way that science, in the pursuit of knowledge, would generally act. To paraphrase Karl Popper: hypotheses cannot be proved as true, in the sense that we would know (as opposed to believe) them to be true, rather they only survive attempts to disprove them. Thus if "natural law" is to be presented as a real law, it should be presented in a way that can be tested and we should try to disprove it, rather than prove it (unless, of course, one uses “prove” in its traditional sense of test). This is usually described as being falsifiable – ie it is presented in such a way that it can be shown to be false if it fails the test(s). If it survives those tests then we can accept that we can rely on it to a larger extent than before, although we should continue to test it.

What we have here (in the references to "natural law") is a belief which is being presented as a fact and bolstered by selected "proof"s. In fact the "proofs" are quite selective and can be countered by other examples.

Evidence of this theory (that this is a belief system) can be seen in Paul's regular name-calling, both on this board and in his essays. This is a common response from believers about unbelievers, no matter what the belief.

He ignores complications such as where rights conflict and the action that should then be taken. He generalises form selected instances. He states opinions as facts and, when that does not work, he calls people names. "Statist" is an example where the word seems only to serve the purpose of abuse. He is also patronising where people disagree with him, uses emotive terms and is insulting about their ideas and points of view e.g.:
.
"spouting more of your Darwinist nonsense"
"It is clear that you do not know what the term time immemorial means. I suggest you go away and learn"
"...if your ....skills are up to it, which I strongly doubt"

He assigns intent to people where he should only be able to comment upon what they say e.g.:

"If you want to believe they don't exist..."

So, what weight should be given to the arguments that he has presented? That is a question, indeed.

On the subject of Neanderthals:

It was once thought that 'Neanderthals' were not capable of fully human speech because they may not have had any, or not a 'fully developed', voice box and vocal chords. This was demolished by the discovery of one of the most complete 'Neanderthal' skeletons ever found, at Kebara in the Levant, which included the first fossil hyoid bone of a Neanderthal ever disovered.

This bone is located in the throat, is directly related to the structure of the human vocal tract and is indistinguishable from that of modern humans - B. Arensburg: 'A middle Palaeolothic human hyoid bone', 'Nature, Vol. 338, pp. 758-60.

On the claim of a Neanderthal specimen '28,000 years old', there are powerful scientific reasons for disregardig any accurate claim of radiocarbon dates older than around 4,500 years, due to the miniscule amounts of radioactive material surviving in the fossilised remains of bones, woody material, plants etc. that are subject to radiocarbon dating and that have been preserved for at leat 4,500 years.

The whole issue of claimed accurate radiometric dating is one of the weakest cards in the evolutionists' whole pack. Suffice it to say that the whole method relies on at least 14 unprovable assumptions e.g.

* that the specimen was 'pure' (i.e. free of radioactive decay) to begin with

* that no radioactivity has been added from another source during the period of decay

* that the rate of decay has always been constant

etc. etc.

For just one notorious set of example of inaccurate radiometric dating, look at the rocks that were known to be just 200 years old - from a lava flow on a mountainside in Hawaii - were variously dated by prestigious radiometric laboratories at 20 to 25 million years ago! Other similar examples are legion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to Ralf Point 2: "What about the gazillions of fossils?

ANSWER: Well, there are certainly billions upon billions of fossils, so, O.K., 'gazillions'.

The first point is to ask how a fossil is formed. Today, every day, thousands of creatures and plants die - but their remains are not fossilised. Why not? In one word, they rot - unless consumed first.

The only reason you get one fossil, let alone 'gazillions', is due to *sudden burial* - so rapid that oxygen cannot get to the creature or plant i.e. it is covered with enough material so that no oxygen reaches it.

In those conditions, 'petrification', or 'mineralisation' takes place, thus wonderfully preserving the fossils for us to see and admire today.
The 'bone', tissue or fibrous material is gradually replaced by minerals leached in from the sediment around them.

There is only one rational, or should I say scientific, explanation for such a vast array of fossils, some of them of enormous animals, often buried in 'mass graveyards' of hundreds of them together. That is a cataclysmic flood event - and Noah's Flood as recorded in the Bible fits the fossil evidence perfectly.

----------

The second point to observe is that despite the existence of gazillions of fossils, nowhere amongst all the amazing finds is there even one credible example of *one species changing into another*. It was Darwin, in that strange book: 'The Origin of Species', 1859 (incidentally, one of the most racist books ever written), who admitted: "The absence of 'missing links' in the geological record is one of the most serious objections to my theory".

He and other evolutionists ever since have kept on hoping and hoping that at least some missing links would be found, but they never have been.

----------

A third point is the fascinating discoveries of the fossil record throwing up literally hundreds of examples of 'living fossils' (by which I mean fossil remains that are exact replicas of creatures and plants that we find alive today, totally unchanged by any process of evoluton.

I have a number of examples at home, and will mention just one. I have a rock from the chalk mountains of the Czech Republic (unusually rich in fossil plants and fish - gazillions of them in the Czech Republic alone). It has a fossil leaf in it. It is said to be from the 'Cretaceous Era' and therefore around 100 to 140 million years old. Yet the print of the leaf matches *precisely* the leaves of the laurel tree at the bottom of my garden. Indeed, it *is* the leaf of a laurel tree buried - well, whenever it was buried.

Indeed, there are so many of these examples of 'living fossils' that one Jonathan Scheven, back in the late 1980s, set up a 'Musuem of Living Fossils' in north-west Germany, near the border with The Netherlands. It's still there today and expanding all the time. There are also a few examples in the Creation Museum on The Hard, near the Old Dockyard, Portsmouth (where all the metric signs in quarter-kilometres were erected a few years ago).

Similarly, fossilised specimes of a fish called a Coelacanth were originally hailed as a 'missing link' between fish and reptiles. It was claimed that two of their fins were incipient legs. They were dated at 80 million years ago. As usual, no examples of ancestors to the Coelacanth nor its descendants could be found anywhere in the fossil record.

So there was great embarrassment to evolutionists when, a few years ago, examples of them being caught by Indian Ocean fishermen of today were produced!

A further embarrassment was that the Coelacanth was found on examination to have a flotation chamber (like a submarine) which would burst if it rose above about 600 feet below sea level. In other words, it was *designed* to take its assigned place in the ecosystem of the oceans at depths of around 600 to 2,000 feet - and would have died of a burst 'lung' (or flotation chamber) if it had tried to get anywhere near land.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just some of the lessons from the gazillions of fossils found in the sedimentary rocks of the world

I was questioning the status of particular alleged rights. That is whether or not they have legal status. Magna Carta is not an Act of Parliament, but would be treated as such if needing to be amended (which would be a lawful act). Of course you do not imagine the recorded rights, I do however believe that you may have imagined both those rights which are not recorded and the perpetual nature of all rights.

I never said Oxford University was a person.

This is a matter of opinion. I believe that everything Parliament does (taken as a whole) must be lawful as it determines the law. You are claiming your opinion on the matter to be a fact.

If Parliament sought to penalise you for bearing arms then it would presumably do so by passing an Act. In which case it would impliedly repeal the earlier Act provided the nature of the earlier Act is not 'constitutional' in the Judge Laws definition. That would be for the courts to decide. The result would be a single version of Parliamentary intention, and it would not act unlawfully.

We did have an absolute monarchy in the first instance, I think that is a matter of fact.

What I mean on the constitution is that Parliament is never bound in explicit law on any matter. I fear I may be repeating this point.

I notice you fail to answer my other points.

I don't appreciate being called names such as 'statist'. I think you assume a lot by making such comments. I could say something like:

"Creationists are such deluded people who are in complete denial of the facts and try all desperate lengths to try to carve out some recognisable argument favouring their religious dogma."

However I don't believe that these sorts of comments are helpful, and I prefer to roundly defeat such ideas through sound argument.

The point is that evolution is a theory, which is testable and falsifiable. Most people who support it would agree that it is a theory - just that - and it seems to describe what has happened. The key point is that it IS testable and falsifiable. Whilst it may not be proved, it survives testing.

The way that knowledge advances is that hypotheses are put up and then tested. If they fail then that prompts a search for new explanations which are then subject to the same testing.

It seems that the creationist approach is different. They seem (and I am clear that the word I am using here is "seem" - I am willing to be corrected - this is a testable hypothesis) to take a different approach and look for proof. The problem with that is that one needs to look at every possible instance of proof to know that one is correct - if it is possible to put forward an alternative, then it has not been proved, just supported. The approaches taken seem to be proof by affirmation and generalising from the specific.

It also seems that the creationist approach does not lend itself to testing.

Now, as an open-minded person I admit of the possibility of the creationists being right and the Darwinian approach being wrong, however, I think that we may be talking about a belief system (i.e. a religion or similar) versus a quest for knowledge. I suspect that the creationists will not be convinced, no matter what, whereas I would hope that those who use the Darwinian approach value knowledge and rigorous testing to be more important.

I think it is true that there will always be some Creationists who never relent on the truth of their idea (idea, not theory).

We should simply observe that 500 years ago it was considered fact and now it has just about ebbed away. In the next 100 years it will have been formally abandoned by the Churches (although they will retain Genesis as a fudge) and descend into cultist belief.

The problem is that evolution is such an inspired theory that it cannot be proven except by observation, and none of us will ever live to see that.

You purport to be against ad hominem attacks, but make just such attacks against me.

A statist is one who supports big government and believes that the state has the right to override the rights of individuals. As far as I am concerned, I am in a war against them (a war they started) and if you align yourself with them you are my enemy (look at the title of this forum). I make no apologies for attacking my enemies with any means at my disposal.

I challenge you to point to a single use of ad hominem or even name-calling in my essays. I further challenge you to point to a single use of ad hominem in my posts on this board (as distinct from insults, which I here use whenever I consider them appropriate and can demonstrate their accuracy).

Natural law has been subjected to empirical test many times. I do not need a lecture from you on Popperian falsifiability - a philosophy which, at least in the simplistic version you have outlined, does not accurately describe the scientific method. I challenge you directly: do you or do you not accept that natural law exists?

A well-defined set of rights cannot conflict. However, legal rights, which are often ill formulated, can, and it is then often literally impossible not to act unlawfully. For example, the Highway code demands that you test your horn before driving on the public highway, but forbids you to sound your horn while stationary. Yet breaking the law or violating prior rights is still against the law. I never claimed that acting unlawfully is always avoidable - still less that it is never morally permissible.

You said, "I am simply questioning whether the (sic)breaching rights is unlawful or not", with particular reference to the rights specified in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1688 (of which the latter has unquestionably the status of legislation).

That is not "questioning the status of particular alleged rights". It is questioning, nonsensically, whether breaching legal rights - rights recognised and particularised in law no less - is or is not unlawful. Only by emptying the terms "rights" and "law" of all meaning can anyone rationally deny that breaching legal rights is against the law.

This must be the fourth or fifth time I have had to point out that I DO NOT say that all rights are perpetual. I have NEVER claimed that. I have, on the contrary, spelled out just HOW rights CAN evolve both lawfully and unlawfully. Why do you persist in so blatantly reversing the clear meaning of my words?

"That would be for the courts to decide" places the courts above Parliament in judging what is and is not lawful (it does not follow from this that their judgement is always sound). The courts have in fact ruled that the Bill of Rights 1688 is constitutional, therefore not subject to implied repeal. Therefore those Acts which purport to outlaw the right to bear arms are themselves unlawful.

We have never had an absolute monarchy. As Tony Bennett has already pointed out: "In 973, in the first English Coronation Service, Edgar made a three-fold promise...". You accepted this once, saying "Prior to Cromwell, the monarch did not have absolute absolute (sic) power, as a result of Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford etc.". And prior to Magna Carta, the King lacked even effective authority over his own barons.

Claiming that there is no written constitution is a completely different claim from the claim that Parliament "is never bound in explicit law on any matter". But the British Parliament is in reality no less bound by constitutional law (indeed, it is more firmly bound) than legislatures abroad are by their constitutions (which they can and do change).

If you believe the state has the right to override the rights of individuals you are a statist, whether you appreciate it or not. Evolutionary theory (which I have not discussed at all, so your "creationist" stuff is beside the point) nowadays has very little to do with Darwin's ideas; what is now usually meant by "darwinism", or sometimes "social darwinism", is the rejection of moral or natural law in favour of a belief in the right, power and efficacy of the state or the general will; it was your use of arguments of that sort to which I was objecting.

I don't recall any points I haven't answered. Most I've answered many times over (largely because you keep ignoring the answers, or reverting to something you've already admitted is false).

“You purport to be against ad hominem attacks, but make just such attacks against me”

Not true – you will note that I have commented on what you have said not on you as a person. I have not called you names, simply commented on your style and content of argument.

This is a matter of record and, whilst I am happy to be challenged on my accuracy, your attempt to portray what I have written as an attack on you as a person s wrong. Let’s deal with the arguments, not the personalities.


A statist may be as you say; I still contend that it is used as a term of abuse, not a statement of fact. In fact, to use it as a statement of fact implies that you are privy to their emotions, thoughts and feelings, rather than simply being able to observe what they do and say. To assign motives to actions is a dangerous undertaking.

“I am in a war against them (a war they started) and if you align yourself with them you are my enemy”

I am more concerned with discussion of facts, rather than demonising people or making them enemies because the disagree with me.

“I challenge you to point to a single use of ad hominem or even name-calling in my essays. I further challenge you to point to a single use of ad hominem in my posts on this board (as distinct from insults, which I here use whenever I consider them appropriate and can demonstrate their accuracy).”

A definition of ad hominem is:

“trying to cast doubt on a claim or position which has been argued for by another by criticising the person making the argument rather than the argument itself”

Oneexample is the title of your last post.

As for the essays – a brief look at WHY WE NEED AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF ENGLAND provides much to reflect upon. Certainly the use of the phrase “politically correct” seems to be as an insult (i.e. a name that is intended to be insulting).


“Natural law has been subjected to empirical test many times.”

What ones? Are they trying to prove or test the hypothesis?

“I do not need a lecture from you on Popperian falsifiability”

Really?

“A philosophy which, at least in the simplistic version you have outlined, does not accurately describe the scientific method”

Sorry, many people disagree with you on that one.

“I challenge you directly: do you or do you not accept that natural law exists?”

A simple answer – I don’t know.

A more complicated answer - I do not know what the law is, how I test it, whether it is a law or a simply a set of conclusions drawn from observation and so on. You have not stated what it is, how it works or how it can be tested. All you have done is said what may be derived from it. I am, of course, open to the possibility that it may exist, but I think that, as you have presented it so far, it is a belief system, not a natural law. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

My contention that you are a hypocrite is an observation, not an argument, therefore not an ad hominem.

After libelling me you said, "So, what weight should be given to the arguments that he has presented?". This is an ad hominem attack, loosely disguised by being presented in the form of a rhetorical question.

Statist is both a factual description and a term of abuse. I make no secret of the fact that I hate those who are in fact statists. This is not ad hominem either.

The title of my last post was "Ross:" which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called an ad hominem attack.

My use of the phrase "politically correct" in the article in question was neither an ad hominem nor name-calling. I quote: "We no longer have religious freedom, only the licence to be politically correct."

I suspect that you are a certain annoyingly trollish entity or malfunctioning computer programme that used to post on this forum under a cognomen I no longer recall. If you are not the same one, you seem to be another out of the same litter. I am not interested in debating with you and intend to ignore any future posts you make.

“My contention that you are a hypocrite is an observation, not an argument, therefore not an ad hominem”

Rubbish – nice try, but not backed by observation, only opinion.

”After libelling me…”

What? That really is startling.

“you said, "So, what weight should be given to the arguments that he has presented?".

Not at all, this is an entirely valid question which, given the lack of back-up for the arguments and what seems to be a readiness to use insult as a tactic, seems to be justified.

As ever, I am prepared to be corrected on fact and interpretation.

“This is an ad hominem attack, loosely disguised by being presented in the form of a rhetorical question.”

No, it’s a rhetorical question

”Statist is………….. a term of abuse”

So, we agree on that.

“I make no secret of the fact that I hate those who are in fact statists. This is not ad hominem”

I quite agree – your hatred is not, your style of argument can be.

”The title of my last post was "Ross:" which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called an ad hominem attack”

I was referring to the one directed as me as. I suspect, you probably know. Please feel free to correct me there. It seems that whilst I was writing my post, you got in first. The joys of Network 54!

“My use of the phrase "politically correct" in the article in question was neither an ad hominem nor name-calling"

Politically correct is used her, it seems in the same way you use “statist” – as a shorthand for things you don’t like – i.e. a name. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies and let me know what you mean by “politically correct”

”I suspect that you are a certain annoyingly trollish …………………. I am not interested in debating with you and intend to ignore any future posts you make.”

What a pity. When challenged, you refuse to defend or discuss your controversial views. It was quite interesting trying to discuss your assertions.

I suspect that “trollish” here is another bit of name-calling designed to avoid discussion. Whilst your views are, perhaps, “trollish” to others, it seems a shame that you won’t discuss or defend them.

I note that you did not answer the challenge that I posed for you, although I answered yours.

Touché

As a rounding comment to the Creationism discussion:
There is a very good book called "Why people believe weird things" by Michael Shermer and Stephen Jay Gould (the latter one led the trial in Lousiana against "equal time for Creationism/Evolution in classrooms").

It has two full chapters dedicated to Creationism, addressing the most common arguments of Creationits, and how it can't be called "science" in any way (a fact that 99% of all scientists agree on).

Tony, it also addresses your arguments (btw, it would help if you re-read how radiocarbon dating works, one of the basic assumptions is that you are *not* free of radioactivity but in a "radioactive equilibrium" with your environment)

Ralf

Ralf (30 Nov): "Is there some obvious, inherent, superiority of humans without having to pull in the Bible?"

ANSWER: It is generally accepted (by evolutionists) that chimpanzees are the 'nearest relative' to humans, though because no link can be produced between the two in the fossil record, evolutionists retreat to an unprovable claim that 'they must have had a common ancestor' (as yet not found, of course, despite gazillions of fossils).

It would be more accurate - and neutral in the evolution v. creation debate - to say that research has shown around 95% similarity between the genes of chimpanzees and the human genome. This is not surprising when you consider that chimpanzees have two legs, two arms, fingers, a face not unlike the human face, and so on.

I mentioned that two obvious differences between humans and chimpanzess, apes etc. were the human capacity for speech, language and thought and our uniquely bipedal, upright gait.

Here is a fuller list of just *some* of the differences between the two genomes (chimp and human). I list those features which we humans have and which chimpanzees do not have:

1. Arms and trunk balanced over centre of gravity, which is located in the pelvis (centre of gravity much higher up in chimps)

2. S-shaped spine (C-shaped in chimps)

3. Arms shorter than legs

4. Shoulders at side of body, facing outwards

5. Arms and hands designed for handling objects but not for supporting body weight

6. Straight, not curved, fingers

7. Large straight thumb which fully (not partially) opposes all other fingers

8. Long legs

9. Knees and feet facing forward rather than turned out

10. Arched, not flat, feet

11. Short, straight toes

12. Big toe bound to other toes instead of separate

13. A foot designed for weight-bearing, not grasping

14. Average brain size 1,400 c.c. (chimps around 400 c.c.) and large brain case to match

15. Vertical profile of brain case (not sloping)

16. Large, highly complex 'speech centre' (none in chimps)

17. Large regions of the brain devoted to learning and memorising (cf. very small component of chimp's brain)

18. Skull vertical on spine, not at angle

19. Communication with speech, various gestures, writing and the arts

20. Precision control of breathing

21. Precision control of larynx

22. Precision motor control of face and mouth for speech etc.

23. Precision motor control of arms and hands for e.g. typing, writing, manufacture

24. Small jaws

25. U-shaped jaw not rectangular, V-shaped jaws

26. Canine teeth same height as other teeth

27. Narrow and projecting nose

28. Downward, not forward, facing nostrils

29. Sparse, short, body hair

30. Long dense hair on head

31. Extensive facial hair only in males

32. Males often go bald as tey get older

32. 46, not 48 chromosomes

33. No sialic acid on the surface of cells in humans (unlike any chimpanzeee, ape or mammal) - the reason why all 'live' transplants of organs from animals fail)

34. Chimpanzees far less susceptible to common human infectious diseases e.g. cholera, malaria

35. Chimpanzees rarely develop cancer

36. Humans do not have a bone in the penis i.e. chimps don't need Viagra

37. Female breasts (female chimps only develop breasts when actually lactating)

38. Sex all year round (seasonal in chimps).

It's vital to ponder that for each of the above differences (and there are many others), the genetic coding instructions need to be entirley different. There is no known mechanism by which, for example, a chimp could change his/her genetic code to acquire all the above 38 characteristics - nor indeed to acquire *any* additional or 'different' genes

I am simply questioning whether the breaching of alleged rights is unlawful or not. Let me make this clear. I am questioning whether breaching rights *not* defined in statute is lawful or not. Obviously those in the two provisions you mention are not alleged, as they are clear. I thought this was quite obvious and I fear you are avoiding the issue. You try to portray me as confused and seek to take a patronising tone by explaining the finer points of English grammar.

I am questioning whether the non-defined Rights are legal rights at all and whether they can develop without unanimity, which you have indeed denied.

You may find it hard to accept, but the courts do determine the meaning of the law, another constitutional point which I thought might be in your 'Rights list'. This is subject to the direction of Parliament, which is of course sovereign. You fail to read properly my points about implied repeal.

I think it's clear that the monarchy was significantly more powerful in times past than it is now, before Magna Carta, de Montfort or any Parliaments. My reference to "absolute absolute" was not a mistake.

This is what I mean by a written constitution. Of course we have constitutional provisions of law which are recorded in written form, what I mean is that they are of no more significant status than any other provisions, subject of course to Judge Laws. Parliament has supreme power whereas, for example, the US Congress does not.

We override the rights of individuals all the time in criminal law and other areas. It is only the extreme school of conservative thought under Eric Forth which believes that Parliament should certainly exist but it shouldn't do anything dangerous like pass laws which 'interfere' in peoples lives. The intention here is to regulate for the common good. If that is 'statism' then I don't mind but I think you're using it as a term of abuse.

I did not raise the subject of Creationism, in fact I tried to avoid it and simply responded to what other people were saying.

You did avoid the following points:

The quote
Posterity of Rights *where this happens*
The fact that Rights cannot be enforced
The example of the Criminal Justice Bill

"14. Average brain size 1,400 c.c. (chimps around 400 c.c.) and large brain case to match"

Sorry, I don't understand.

Reply to Ralf Point 3: "Obvious traces of evolution in the human body (e.g. the appendix, which serves no purpose any more)"

ANSWER: The appendix serves a great many purposes and its precise role in the human body is being actively studied today and new uses for it regularly discovered.

Because medical science in the last century was unable to discover the appendix's purposes and value, it was hailed by evolutionists as a historical 'vestige' of humans as they were long before the 'onward march of evolution' discarded it as having no useful purpose.

Incredibly in the notorious Tennessee Scopes Trial (1925) in the great evolution v. creation Court case in the United States, Wiedershiem claimed that there were as many as 180 'vestigial structures' in the human body.

Today, a use for almost every one of those 180 'vestiges' has now been discovered, yet the pro-evolution 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' was still able to state, in a highly misleading entry as late as 1997:

"The appendix does not serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time".

----------

A paper by Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, in 'Creation', Vol. 20., No. 1 (Dec 1997 - Feb 1998), pp. 41-3, noted, however:

1. The appendix is now recognised as a highly specialised organ with a rich blood supply

2. The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are *highly specialised* [author's emphasis] structures which are a part of the immune system

3. The appendix has a strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel, or colon

4. Like the very important thymus gland in our chest, it is thought likely that the appendix plays its major role in early childhood

5. The appendix manufactures several types of antibodies [which the author proceeds to list]

6. The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. system (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tussue).

They also observe that "appendicitis is only common in countries where a highly refined modern diet is eaten i.e. where people do not eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals".

This paper can be viewed at:

http://AnswersinGenesis.org/docs/357.asp

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A still more detailed examination of the role of the appendix is found in a lengthy article: "The Human Vermiform Appendix - A General Surgeon's Reflections", by J. Warwick Glover, in 'Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal', Vol. 3 (1988), pp. 31-38.

Briefly, this paper discusses what was known as far back as 1988 about the role of the appendix, and discussed its various uses under five sub-headings:

1. Embryological functions
2. Physiological functions
3. Bacteriological functions
4. Biochemical functions
5. Immunological functions.

It cites 29 separate medical books or journals as sources and I believe its conclusions have not been challenged. Indeed more uses for the appendix have since been discovered.

This paper may be viewed at:

http://www.AnswersinGenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical note: Leonardo da Vinci drew the appendix in 1492 and it was first called the Vermiform Appendix by Vido Vidius in 1530. The first recorded appendicectomy was performed by one Claudius Amyand in 1735

Reply to Ralf Point 4: "The weird way the eye is 'constructed'"

ANSWER: It's very significant that you yourself use the term 'constructed' of the eye. And so it is - a most wonderful and complex construction - so complex that it is impossible to see how it could possbly have functioned at all according to evolutionary theory. All all the component parts would need to be in place at the same time so that it could function at all (the so-called modern - and secular - 'theory of irreducible complexity').

Indeed Darwin himself had no explanation to offer and conceded in his 'The Origin of Species' that "My theory does not account for the complexity of an organ such as the human eye".

But the human eye is not even the most complex of eyes found in the natural world.

One of the most complex eyes ever known to have existed was that belonging to the fossil trilobite. Said in evolutionary terms to have lived from around 400 million to 600 million years ago, and found right at the bottom of the series of sedimentary strata which cover the earth [Cambrian, Ordovician etc.], the trilobite had a so-called 'compound eye', with hundreds of interlocking hexagonal lenses. It was additionally able to see in the dark - necessary of course on the deep ocean floor, several miles down, where the trilobites lived.

As usual, there is absolutley no predecessor to the trilobite anywhere in the geological record, nor any successor.

And yet the trilobite, with its amazingly complex eye, is still stated in all the standard evolutionary text-books to be a 'simple life form'.

Evolutionary theory must account for the apparently sudden development of a highly complex eye near the beginning of life on earth. It has always been completely unable to do so.

The more straightforward explanation is that the trilobite, its complex eye and its various other intricate design features, was a special creation, designed to live on the ocean bottom. The trilobites were amongst the first creatures to be entombed as Noah's Great Flood got under way. That's why you find them exclusively in the lowest sedimentary strata

Stop lying. I repeat:

YOU said, "I am simply questioning whether the (sic) breaching rights is unlawful or not", with particular reference to the rights SPECIFIED in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1688 (of which the latter has unquestionably the status of legislation).

That is NOT "questioning the status of particular ALLEGED rights". It is questioning, nonsensically, whether breaching legal rights - rights recognised and particularised in law no less - is or is not unlawful. Only by emptying the terms "rights" and "law" of all meaning can anyone rationally deny that breaching legal rights is against the law.

I have said nothing whatsoever about "non-defined rights" and have no idea what you mean by them. I have NOWHERE denied that rights can develop without uniformity. I have specifically pointed out ways in which rights CAN be originated and transferred without unanimity, both lawfully and unlawfully.

The courts JUDGE the meaning of the law. This is not the same as saying that they DETERMINE or make that meaning. Parliament is NOT an absolute sovereign; one proof of that is that the courts sometimes throw out its legislation. I do not believe that I have failed to read your point about implied repeal properly; your point was simply wrong, as I showed.

Do you seriously expect people to believe that your mistake in typing absolute twice was deliberate? (If it were it would have been meaningless). It's pointless debating with you. What I wonder is whether your absurd misrepresentations of history are wilful or due to appalling ignorance coupled with stubbornness. Probably both. Just look at historical maps. Look at things like the County Palatine of Chester, where the King's writ did not run, and which was not fully united with the Crown till as late as 1600. Look at the accomodations the Normans had to make with the Saxon nobility to restore the legitimacy of their holdings by intermarriage, etc., and to guarantee the continuance of the Saxon hundredth courts and customs. These are not the marks of absolute rule.

I did not avoid those additional points. I had already answered them. They were strawmen based upon your persistent upending of what I wrote - on your pretence that I said that rights are unchanging, which I never did, and on ignoring my crucial and oft-repeated distinction between capacity and right, power and law.

Please ignore the first two words of the previous message, which are the result of my frustration, and which I've since thought better of, and accept my apologies.

..and you spelled "lieing" wrong!

Tony,

several questions immediately pop up with your "theory":
1) Why would something designed to live in the sea die in a flood ?
2) How does a flood selectively bury something first, then the next etc., and why is there no fluctuation whatsoever (ie trilobites appearing a bit further up, other organisms further down), after all a flood is a massive body of water sweeping over an area and has a lot of turbulence, right ? Even the normal sea has that already...

I would also like to point out that with your creationism you not only accuse this very special branch of science of being faulty, but pretty much every major branch:
1) particle physics (basics of radiocarbon dating)
2) astronomy (age of earth and solar system)
3) biology (too numerous)
4) archeology (fossils etc.)
and the list goes on...

Looking around and seeing what these sciences produced (technology, medicine...), that's quite a bold statement, isn't it ?

Concerning the "weird construction of the eye", you know that the retina is built the wrong way around, don't you ? That the nerve cells pass in front of the photo receptors, partially impeding the light coming in ?
Attributing that to a divine creator makes one hope for "Human 2.0", where all those sloppy designs are ironed out.
Here's a web page about it : http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

Ralf

I am beginning to become confused as to whether I am reading the current message or the previous one, as there seems to be a lot of repetition.

By non-defined rights I mean those which have no statutory status. For example, the original point about there always having to be a monarchy unless there is unanimous approval to absolish it is written NOWHERE in law, and before you claim that you didn't say it I think you know you did.

Whatever term you wish to use, in our current system the courts do interpret the meaning of the law. I can't see how that is different from either 'judge' or 'determine' though no doubt you will seek to give me another English lesson.

In the modern system, the courts do not throw out primary legislation. On implied repeal the version which prevails is applied, and Parliament is not constrained.

"Do you seriously expect people to believe that your mistake in typing absolute twice was deliberate?"

Yes it was deliberate, and it was not a mistake.

"It's pointless debating with you."

I have to say that I'm inclined to agree, and we seem to be going round in circles with you clearly being determined to prove that your opinion is fact.

As I understand it, until the Bill of Rights many monarchs had tended towards absolution.

I don't think this is very productive, so I suggest we stop.

Paul, your gentle apology about accusing Ross of telling lies is well taken but it pales into insignificance compared to this:

"It's pointless debating with you. What I wonder is whether your absurd misrepresentations of history are wilful or due to appalling ignorance coupled with stubbornness. Probably both."

You obviously have very strong feelings about certain aspects of human society but I must caution you about the way you deal with the expressed views of some of your fellow human beings.

The remarks quoted above are insulting to say the least, and only server to convey the impression that you are arrogant and self righteous.

I repeated myself because you continued to deny that you had said what I directly quoted you saying. If anyone doesn't believe me they can check back through the posts and see for themselves.

Magna Carta is not a statute. A thousand years of coronation oaths are not statutes. Common law is not statutory, though certain of its provisions have since been collected into statutes. Ditto Equity law. But all of these define various rights perfectly well.

Our monarchs have made covenants with all their subjects (and if the declarations of a sovereign are law, which is what you have been relying upon to claim that what Parliament says is law, they are written law too). Thus every one of those subjects has a legal right to be ruled under those terms. To deny any ONE of them what has been promised is thus unlawful and a breach of the obligations undertaken by successive monarchs.

Moreover, the rules of succession, whereby the heir to the throne is ENTITLED to succeed upon the death OR ABDICATION of the previous monarch, are themselves written in law.

In the Bill of Rights 1688 we have, among many other guarantees, the provision that England shall at no time be subject to foreign princes or powers, but shall be governed always under her own King.

Chapter 63 of Magna Carta reads: Wherefore We will and firmly charge that the English Church shall be free and that ALL men in Our KINGDOM shall have and hold ALL the aforesaid liberties, RIGHTS, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely, quietly, FULLY and WHOLLY, to them AND their heirs, OF US AND OUR HEIRS, in ALL things and places FOREVER, as is aforesaid.

So, yes, all Britons have a right, written over and again in law, confirmed at every coronation, to remain, as I stated, the subjects of His (or Her) Britannic Majesty.

To interpret the meaning of the law is not to make that meaning, which exists prior to and independently of what the court happens to think, or purports to think. The meaning of the word Law in the Bill of Rights, for instance, is what those who drew up that document intended; and it is abundantly clear from historical evidence, as well as the internal evidence of the text, that by it they mostly meant the principles of natural justice, which they insisted could not lawfully be abbrogated by anyone, not even the King or Parliament. The Bill of Rights explicitly and powerfully states that the actions of recent sovereign regimes in England (both Parliamentary and Monarchical) HAD BEEN UNLAWFUL.

The Bill of Rights 1688, which is constitutional law to this day, enacts that sovereign acts can be unlawful. The concept isn't some fantasy of my own invention - it's there in plain if somewhat stilted English in the very Act upon which our modern Parliamentary system is based.

Contrary to your claim, the courts DO throw out primary legislation. I think the most recent example involved sections of last year's Public Order Act, but I'm not sure.

Parliament HAS been constrained because Acts that were incompatible with prior constitutional acts have been declared void, and therefore actions based on them are unlawful. Parliament has been told that it can only change constitutional provisions by explicit repeal, not by passing bills that contradict them. This is a constraint.

Certainly, various monarchs prior to 1688 had absolutist tendencies, as I pointed out in my post here of November 30th 4:16pm. But to arrogate power, even successfully, is not to have a right to it, and the Bill of Rights specifically states that those actions were contrary to law.

Ralf:

It's a good question.

I'll start by noting that the majority of fossils are in fact sea creatures - there are as you know billions of fish in the geological record.

If you accept my point (and it is universally conceded now I think) that a fossil only becomes a fossil if there is rapid burial, you will at least concede that if there was not one 'Great Flood', there must have been many many other 'sudden events' to cause so many fish to be buried at once.

The cliffs at Lyme Regis, where in the nineteenth century Mary Anning first 'sold sea shells on the sea shore', for example, has millions of sea creature fossils, and you can even collect them off the beach a mile west of the town.

The other point to remember is that according to the account of the Great Flood, not only did it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, but also the 'fountains of the great deep', or 'springs of the great deep' were also opened up. Creationist geologists have for years taken this to mean that great quantities of liquids were released from below the surface of the earth during the Flood.

And we still see this phenomenon today in the earth on a lesser scale. We have geysers like those in Iceland and Yellowstone National Park. We have salt water outlets in various places, and mineral water outlets at hundreds of spa towns across te globe. Even in Wiltshire, there is a little-known wood (near Wootton Bassett) where mud is forced up through a series of channnels under pressure from 1,000 feet below - I've been there myself and collected fossil ammonites and belemnites - they just come up to the surface and you can collect them as they come up (a bit dangerous though). They're in very good condition when they come up - all shiny.

In some places on the earth oil (which as it happens consists of millions of dead fish all squashed together) also comes naturally to the surface. Around the Dead Sea is one such place.

What may have happened, as the Great Flood began, is that huge outpourings of water with various chemicals and minerals in solution occurred - and it was these outpourings that killed and buried the trilobites, fish etc. At the very same time, the flood waters would be eroding masses of material from the land and washing it into the oceans, where it would have covered up many sea creatue, especially if the eroded material was travelling very fast, as would be likely.

It has been postulated that the various liquids under the earth's surface were arranged in sequence according to their density, and then released in stages during the Flood.

It provides an elegant explanation for chalk, to give just one example. The vast areas of chalk, on this view, were massive outpourings of water with calcium carbonate (chalk) in solution - which then dried out. The presence of so many flints in the chalk is explained as globules of silica (as a fact, flints are 100% silica) which were present in the calcium carbonate solution as it was poured out from below the earth's surface. As the calcium carbonate solution dried out, so did the silica globules, to leave the hard flints you see today in chalk country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your second point - that a creationist view challenges nearly all disciplines in science - is absolutely true and it's a perceptive point you make. I would certainly concede that on the face of it, it does seem impertinent and arrogant to question all the great minds of science like Darwin etc.

I would reply briefly by referring you to a brilliant chapter in Ian Taylor's 'In the Minds of Men' (an American book), where he accumulates solid evidence of just how many facts, which support the creationist view, have been ruthlessly suppressed by academic societies and individual academics at the very highest levels. He also adduces of examples of scientists who have ventured forth with papers that suggested that there is an an alternative view to evolution - or have queried the some of the evidence for evolution - but sadly their careers were invariably ended as a result.

I believed in evolution myself for a long time, though I could never really fathom how it could have worked - it somehow never seemed to add up as a theory. In this context, the Hans Christian Anderson story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' is relevant. I don't know the story well - it's a long time since I read it, but wasn't it a child who eventually told all the adults who were in denial: "The Emperor's got no Clothes on"?

Hmm, that'll take some time to address:

1) Your explanation that the amount of fossilized fish can't have been produced by sudden burial:

I'm not 100% sure about this, but fossilization under water does not necessarily need to follow the same rules as the one above water.
Fossilization *above* water has to happen through sudden burial because it needs to be shut off from oxygen immediately so that it doesn't rot.
That requirement is already fulfilled *under* water, so I would expect a dead fish just sinks to the bottom of the sea and gets covered by sediment after a while, and then slowly gets fossilized.

You may notice that my theory doesn't need unaccounted for "great quantities of liquids from below the surface", it doesn't need "huge outpourings of various chemicals and minerals in solution" that render the sea uninhabitable for all fish (but after 40 days miraculously returns to normal).

2) You may not have realized, but you *yet again* use a conspiracy theory to explain something you don't like.
First, that officials and politicians are in conspiracy to convert the UK to metric,
now that "academic societies and individual academics at the very highest levels" suppress creationist theories.

3) The biggest problem however is that whatever you bring forth as "scientific evidence" for creationism, it is inherently flawed:
It requires a divine intervention.
This contradicts all laws of science, so basing your theory on this renders all subsequent explanations scientifically meaningless, because your premise already contradicts science.

Ralf

I tend to follow the line that there are too many unanswered questions to claim what is correct.

It's called keeping an open mind.

Good question though - if evolution is the "only" truth then where are all the people that are between evolutionary milestones? eg there are monkeys that all look the same - there are humans that all look the same - but nothing "caught inbetween"

I hope you can see where I'm coming from on this but all living things belong in groups of similar looking "things" but there's no "in-betweeners"

Where did they go?

If Magna Carta is not a statute, why then is it listed as the first entry in the 'Statutes at Large' and in the 'Chronological Table of the Statutes'? Fair enough that it is not an Act of Parliament but a form of treaty signed by the King, but it is subject to amendment legally by the present Parliament, as is the Bill of Rights 1688.

I am well aware of the non-statutory nature of so much law and legal principle. All I am saying is that Parliament now legally has absolute control over all such matters, for example the power to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy, although you would probably claim that this too would be an illegal act.

What exactly is a covenant? I thought it was an agreement between various people. The problem is that the people of the country never consented to a new monarchy, or to the choice of the monarchical line. This is the whole point of a monarchy, it is arbitrary and not chosen authority, although it is a system that I would support in the present context. The monarchy was imposed from above and then voluntarily agreed to be subject to controls capable of amendment at will. Thus the governmental system can be changed from above at will.

The succession rules are contained in the Act of Settlement 1701, indeed written in law but subject always to amendment, which has happened before and was not declared illegal.

"In the Bill of Rights 1688 we have, among many other guarantees, the provision that England shall at no time be subject to foreign princes or powers, but shall be governed always under her own King."

Do we? I can't find it.

The notion of binding provisions lasting forever is a nonsense which has been tested in court and shown to be so. Various enactments have said this and been amended and when this was questioned in court (as far as it can be) there was found to be no problem with the repeals under the non-binding principle. The Bill of Rights also claims the authority to enact things 'for all time', but this is ultra vires and unconstitutional as it does the only thing that Parliament cannot do. In an abolition of the monarchy, all relevant provisions, including Magna Carta, would require to be amended to untie the monarchy from the British constitution. The Bill to do this will either be a sentence long or consist of several volumes. Apparently Tony Benn has spent about 30-40 years writing such a Bill, and under the soverignty of Parliament this would be effected.

I regret having to repeat this point, but a new quote now arrives from Hood Phillips:

"The British Constitution, being unwritten, does not contain fundamental rights in the strict sense, for the legislative supremacy of Parliament is such that it could limit or abolish rights which may be regarded as fundamental in other countries."

The courts cannot throw out primary legislation. Consider Article 9 of the self same enactment. Surely you will also wish to agree with Neil Herron, I forget who he is exactly:

"For the first time in British legal history, a court of law has failed to apply an Act of Parliament."

Parliament has not been constrained, it has the power to amend constitutional Acts. The only constraint is on implied repeal. If it wanted to, it could set its own legal precedent by passing an Act on the subject of implied repeal itself.

Who is to say whether arrogation of power is illegal under Rights? I repeat my previous assertion that whereas some people may think that an action violates what they would consider to be morally or 'naturally' correct has no basis in the legal domain, which is for the established authorities to control and maintain. Those framing the Bill of Rights had a certain opinion about the matters which preceded them, but they were free in passing the Bill to take note of any principles they wished. Now that Act forms substantive law and it is subject to further Acts which may continue to do so.

Given that the Bill of Rights protects jury trials and some claim that The Queen is mandated by it to veto inconsistent legislation, will She do so with the Criminal Justice Bill?

I accept that in certain respects Magna Carta can be considered as equivalent to a statute. So what? My point has always been that there are many forms of law that define current rights. They are NOT all defined in Acts of Parliament (whether or not they could have been doesn't alter that fact).

And I am saying - and have proved by reference to existing constitutional law as well as recent events - that Parliament DOES NOT NOW, and never did, have the legal right to do just anything it wants. The fact that it has very wide-ranging authority does not mean that it has unlimited authority.

In point of fact, at any coronation the people (or their representatives at least) ARE asked to consent to the new monarch, and do so consent. However, even a unliateral promise made by a sovereign to his subjects can properly be called a covenant (in the same sense as God's covenants with his people). But the label isn't important; what is important is that it's a legal commitment. If you break a legal commitment you are not acting according to law. This is true irrespective of whether or not you were obliged to make such a commitment in the first place; the fact that you have made it means that you have bound yourself to abide by it.

Thus, even if King John had started out an absolute monarch (which he didn't), that would have ceased, for him and his heirs, the moment he signed Magna Carta. He signed away, not the right to rule, but the right to rule in certain ways. Once signed away, those rights cannot LAWFULLY be restored to the sovereign except by the consent of everyone to whom they have passed. And since Magna Carta still stands as constitutional law, having been abolished neither lawfully nor unlawfully, the lawful authority of the sovereign (even though that now be Parliament) is still subject to its provisions.

You seem to believe that law is nothing more than what those in POWER decree from moment to moment, as perhaps in the absolutist continental regimes it may be. That is not what it means - or has ever meant - in the Anglo-Saxon world.

One of the bits you couldn't find in the Bill of Rights 1688 reads: "And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God." (It is possible to interpret that as referring only to religion, but the rest of the oath, and other parts of the Bill, too long to quote in full, make it clear that it is intended that foreign princes, etc., should have no jurisdiction here EVEN in religious matters, ie., not even the Pope).

Another bit (and I remind you that this is still the law today): "That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come."

It is logically absurd to pretend that an absolute ruler cannot make a law binding upon him for all time. If he were prohibited from doing so he could not be an absolute ruler. AFTER passing such a law, though, his rule is no longer absolute; if it were otherwise there could be no laws, only decrees alterable at whim. An absolute ruler can choose to abolish his own authority - if he wishes, absolutely; a limited ruler (one who rules under law) can do so only to a limited degree.

The British Constitution (or most of it) is not unwritten, so the quote from this bloke, whoever he may be, is in error. And I repeat, what Parliament may have the POWER to do is not at all the same as what they have the RIGHT to do. Can is not the same as may.

The courts can and do throw out primary legislation, usually on the basis of its having been badly written, but now also on the basis that it violates the constitution. Herron is correct that the courts did not apply certain Acts of Parliament. He is mistaken in his belief that this was the first time (though the basis of the rejection did set a precedent).

You contradict yourself: "Parliament has not been constrained ... The only constraint is ...".

You ask, "Who is to say whether arrogation of power is illegal under Rights?" Answer: anyone who understands English. To arrogate power is to assume a hegemony over and beyond your legal authority. You persist in your unwillingness or inability to grasp the difference between might and right; between law and dictat; between what is lawful and what is moral; or between what is likely to happen and what is either lawful or moral.

SteveH,

good point you raised there, had me thinking about it on my way to work.

I'm not *that* versed in evolution, I can only build on from what I learned in high school about it. Having said that, I can't assure you that my following theory is also the one that most of the scientists agree on. The following is basically based on common sense.

One thing that definitely prohibits a big amount of "in-betweens" is that chimpanzees and humans for example are no longer compatible enough to produce offspring together. That means that the gene pool of the chimpanzees is unaffected by other species' gene pools.

However, that leaves two questions:
1) How did the initial separation occur from the chimpanzees' and humans' common predecessor ?
2) Is there a mechanism that could explain the "coherence" of a species, which holds back an uncontrolled diversification of it ?

For 1), this is quite commonly known: Different habitats. Chimpanzees evolved from the common predecessor who lived in the tropical jungle (long arms, being able to grab with feet etc.), humans from the ones in the open field (bipedal gait to be able to cover long distances etc.)

For 2) That one comes down to one of the most basic assumptions of evolution: Mutation is expensive if it doesn't help you in your environment. That means that "stray" mutations will get removed (by means of less offspring), only the ones that help you in your environment and therefore leave more energy for procreation will persist.

Keeping an open mind is definitely a good thing, SteveH. However, at some point you need to make decisions *where* to look to learn more, which means you have to decide what scenario is the most likely. Otherwise you waste time on exploring unlikely avenues.
If someone came around with a really good argument against the fundamentals of evolution, I would be very willing to hear it, it eventually can only broaden your understanding of the world. Argueing with a divine intervention however (imho) is not a "good argument", because it switches off everything you know about this world and creates an "anything goes" situation. If not even logic needs to apply anymore, hoe can it be an argument ?


Ralf

"In point of fact, at any coronation the people (or their representatives at least) ARE asked to consent to the new monarch, and do so consent."

Really? How do they do this then? Is a vote taken? Who appoints the so called representatives?

Re: Ralphs last posting on evolution.

Well said Ralph, I couldn't have put it better.

The Scientific method requires that the inquirer keep an open mind, sure. The trouble is that nowadays people have gone to the other extreme. We seem to have lost a sense of direction.

In times past it is quite true that established views were too rigid and somewhat blinkered in their approach. The pace of advancement was realitively slow and was to some extent responsible for its own failure. The twentieth century has seen an unprecedented pace of change creating an atmosphere of anything goes.

In the early twenty first century this is what we now face. Where do we draw the line between legitimate lines of enqury that have some hope of advancing our knowledege, and fanciful ideas that seem plausible but offer no realistic criteria for verification by objective experiment.

When it comes to this evolution question we will definitely all get the answer anyway - the minute after we die! Perhaps that's how it's meant to be.
Personally I cannot believe that once your heart stops beating all that energy and lifeforce just "dissappears" into nothing - infact scientists believe that that is impossible unless of course all that energy is converted into the earth in different formats - how many people have died upto now? How much energy is retained in the earth - heck we'll be sitting on a new sun!

No, I keep my mind open - the only thing my mind is certain (and closed) on is that this question will never get answered for us, but we will answer it ourselves once our individual lives are over.

So I sit in the middle, I agree that there is natural selection and that, even though the mumified remains of humans 1000's of years ago look identical to us, we evolve - I still believe in another energy - a spiritual one - something that at some level is compatible to what we have chosen to call "God". Loosely Christian I cannot accept that Adam was the first man but realise that "Adam" is hebrew for "Man" and that the story is more likely to be the spiritual creation of "Man" as an entity. I believe that Christ was important and that the 10 commandments really form part of human society. I'm not agnostic as perhaps that is the position of "non believers" that keep the thought of God "on hold" incase those pearly gates do exist and are not open to them!
I keep my mind open because there is no answer but when I read "revelations" I sometimes go cold when you see what is going on around you, especially these days.

Here endeth the lesson and I have just realised what I have posted on a board entitled "Metric Transport Signs" !!!

"I accept that in certain respects Magna Carta can be considered as equivalent to a statute. So what?"

So you have changed your mind.

How on Earth do the people consent to the choice of monarch? Sounds like a republican system to me. If you are referring to the fact that the monarch is subject to Parliament as a whole then I rest my case.

As I don't accept God's covenants then the comparison doesn't work for me. This 'covenant' is a unilateral legal commitment made by the controller of law. The agreement can be redefined at will with the agreement of all parties, ie. one party.

John signed his rights away to his barons and began the very long process of forming Parliament. That was who he had the agreement with. Parliament now has full jurisdiction over Magna Carta as it was the various parts of Parliament between which it was concluded in the first place.

Law is what those in power decree, provided that that power was obtained lawfully.

The part of the Bill of Rights to which you refer is the Oath of Supremacy by which people affirm that they do not want foreign powers governing England. This is not a substantive provision but an aspiration. In any event it is not relevant to our discussion.

In 1688/9, Parliament decided that those things which were morally or, as you put it 'naturally' right or good, with which those who wrote the Bible agreed, deserved to be recognised as such and turned into law. They therefore established them in statute. They may have existed before, but only as things which people thought were a good idea, and certainly not something which had legal force.

O. Hood Phillips wrote a book, "Constitutional and Administrative Law" (1962) London, Sweet & Maxwell.

What Parliament has the power to is the same as what it has the right to do because its power is absolute, and it therefore determines what its own rights are. Your opinion on what is 'right' and 'wrong' is subjective and based on moral and 'natural' values. That does not put you in the elite and god-like position of deciding whether Parliament acts within its powers, nor does it give you the ability to decide what is 'lawful' when the law is the domain of Parliament itself.

What are the instances of the courts invalidating primary legislation since 1689? Any such declarations would be contrary to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, and therefore (truly) unlawful.

I see you seek to further criticise my use of English. The truth is that Parliament is not constrained, it is simply mandated to say what it actually means given what has been said in the past.

I am not going to challenge your point about an absolute ruler, but I think it is overly simplistic. In 1688/9, the Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament as a triumvirate and an absolute ruler. The main point of that Bill was to require that regal authority cannot be exercised without the consent of Parliament. That was a provision which bound the monarch for all time until the whole of Parliament agrees to its repeal, which it has not so far done. In the meantime, Parliament as a whole takes on the absolute nature of rule exercised by the monarch.

You may think that it is logically absurd to claim that an absolute ruler cannot bind itself for all time, but this is what the legal system provides for. This probably doesn't match up to your level of precision, but Parliament has absolute power with the singular exception that it may not bind its successors. This can be viewed as a single constraint from the present day backwards, meaning that there is nothing Parliament cannot do and there is no previous provision which can stand in its way.

In the modern system, this has been refined slightly and it took until 2001 to establish what might be considered to be an obvious fact. There are the two competing doctrines of (a) absolution and (b) binding. These mean that an Act will stand and have full effect without question until repealed by another Act. The 'grey area' in between these two is what happens when something is implicitly and not explicitly amended. The answer that Judge Laws has is that it would be a constraint on the absolutism of Parliament not to be able to require its successors to explicitly amend an Act which it passes. They would not be bound as they would easily be able to repeal the earlier Act, and so (b) is not breached. 'Bound' in this context would mean unable to act, whereas they would only be 'loosely tied', retricted enough to have to take notice of the earlier position as it was of such importance. Doctrine (a) must include the power to set up a new constitutional system.

The way that Parliament invokes its power to require explicit amendment is by using a certain form of words such that it would not be possible to over-legislate them without thier explicit removal. Examples of the constitutional provisions which Judge Laws identified are the EC Act 1972, which states:

"Any enactment passed or to be passed, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section."

Also the Human Rights Act 1998:

"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. This section applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted."

These provisions are not binding on future Parliaments, but require that if they are to breach their principles then they should say so on the face of the legislation. This is all tending to the end of the lazy and hap-hazard practice of legislating without bothering to repeal the previous legislation.

I am afraid that the last paragraph of the Bill of Rights is slightly beyond me, but it could amount to the same thing:

"From and after this present Session of Parlyament noe Dispensation by Non obstante of or to any Statue or any part thereof shall be allowed but that the same shall be held void and of noe effect."

If so then your point about firearms is indeed correct, and all current firearms controls would be invalid as they have contravened a previous provision without repealing it. But the end result of that is that a conflict between Article 7 of the Bill of Rights and, say, the Firearms Act 1968 is resolved with the success of the former under the Laws doctrine if the last paragraph is restictive. Two statutes have come into conflict, one being resolved as effective and the other as having no effect in its instances of conflict. Parliament has acted illegally at no stage, those acting illegally would be the police and the courts who have convicted people without a basis in law and contrary to the will of Parliament.

As juries seem to be an interesting point in the question of Rights, surely one of the supposed pre-existing rights was to be tried by a jury which reaches its verdict unanimously. If so then the Criminal Justice Act 1967, introducing majority verdicts, must have been an illegal Act by Parliament. I didn't see The Queen standing in the way of that one.

No I haven't changed my mind. Magna Carta is not strictly a statute, but is similar to one.

There is a bit in the coronation service where the congregation is asked to consent.

You can reject God's covenants and go to hell for all I care. It is still correct to use the word covenant this way in the English language.

King John did not sign away his rights to the barons. They thought he was doing so, but he wasn't (which is why they revolted anyway). It was their arbitrary powers he took away, while binding himself to the LAW.

Parliament does not have "jurisdiction" over Magna Carta because it was a grant of right to the people. Even King John himself had no "jurisdiction" over most of Magna Carta, once he had signed it.

Law is not what those in power decree, but only what they decree lawfully. This is the fundamental difference between Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism and Continental statism.

The oath in the Bill of Rights is what the monarch and his heirs assented to. It is directly relevant.

Contrary to your statement, I did not put it like that.

Your claim is false. Most of what is in the Bill of Rights was law from long before. It was reinforcing prior rights not creating wholly new ones.

Parliament's right and power are not the same. Its authority is not absolute and never has been. Nor is its power. I have proved that time and time again, but as a statist you refuse to accept the truth. There does not have to be any superior authority for Parliament not to have absolute authority. It is entirely irrelevant how many people have claimed otherwise for their own political ends. You seem to imagine that by repeating these lies over and over you can somehow make them true.

Only the other day the High Court overruled a judgement from the European Court (over Arsenal merchandising) despite the fact that the European Court has its authority directly from an Act of Parliament and a Treaty ratified by Parliament.

I criticise your English because it is so very poor and your thinking so very illogical. To mandate IS to constrain.

The Bill of Rights did not make Parliament an absolute ruler. It explicitly rejected that notion in favour of the rule of law.

You still refuse to face the distinction between right and power - and until you do there is no point in continuing this or any other discussion.

So do we know the result of the judicial review?

The 'Judicial Review' of the European Treaties failed in the High Court.

I *think* the ground was that the Queen was free to sign any Treaty - and that as she had given the Royal Assent to the European Communities Act 1972, there were therefore no grounds to interfere with all the ramifications of that piece of legislation. But I haven't seen the full judgment.

The backers of the judicial review are now appealing to the House of Lords.

I think the failure may illustrate the point that to defend our ancient common law rights it may now be better to consider other means than handing five-figure sums to lawyers. In so saying, I don't mean to be unkind to all those who have made a valiant effort to defend our constitution by their recent action

Thanks for that.

I now have an extract from Mr Justice Kay's decision in the attempted judicial review of the Constitution. Apparently he said:

"This Court does not have the power to review the Treaty-making powers of the Crown".

I dare say that opinion will be further discussed in the House of Lords

I hardly expected my little comments concerning this england would spark off such erudite and detailed arguments. 98 at the last count. However, including my own humble efforts, this now makes a round 100 postings. Anyhow, all I want to say is to wish you all, whatever your views on metrication, a safe and happy new year and may your typing fingers be as strong next year as they have this year. As Tiny Tim said "God bless you all". (I think it was tiny tim. If it wasn't I expect my mistake to be rectified).

Sorry to bring this up again, but something has had me confused about this.

Was this a claim for judicial review? In which case how was it allowed as I understand there is a three month limit on such claims.

The claim relating to the illegality of the current Constitutional arrangements was certainly one of judicial review.

There is indeed a normal three-month time limit for bringing judicial review proceedings.

There is legal provision for the three-month time limit to be extended in exceptional circumstances.

I don't know in detail about the proceeedings, but you might get further details by contacting Roy Faiers, Editor of 'This England' magazine (and member of ARM) or Geoff Southall, leader of the Democratic Party Ltd.

OK thanks, I can't find it reported anywhere.

"Consider a further example. It is possible that, in the coming year, the Lords and Commons will agree a Bill to allow juries information of past offences and restrict the protection afforded to defendants from double jeopardy. It would be my opinion that as the sovereign controller of law, Parliament could do such a thing without question. I can only assume, as these things are not defined clearly, that such a move would breach Rights, and individuals would have to agree to give up their protection from double jeopardy in order to be lawfully deprived of it.

So, would The Queen stop such a measure going ahead? According to your grandiose and glorious comments of before, She would not only have the power, but the duty to do such a thing. I fear that in the reality of the constitutional system, Rights would not be considered and would have no bearing on the decision that She would make. An Act making those changes could not be challenged in any court of the United Kingdom. Yet you would claim that it would be a breach of the law. It seems to me that you would like such a thing to be true, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise."

"The sovereign Parliament is not the House of Commons alone, but includes the current monarch, who has the right and duty of veto against all unlawful legislation."

Yesterday, Parliament (all three elements) passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

This Act:

restricts jury trial where there has been tampering;
codifies common law rules on bad character evidence, including extending the admissibility of previous convictions as evidence;
alters the double jeopardy rule to allow retrials in certain cases;

and does many more things.

Paul Hayter, Clerk of the Parliaments, stated the words 'La Reyne le veult' at approximately 2105 yesterday, indicating that Her Majesty had given Her Royal Assent to these provisions.

Unless I am very much mistaken, all three examples above represent incursions into the 'Rights of Englishmen' without their consent. Under Paul Birch's theory, this Act is 'unlawful'.

Yet The Queen has failed to veto the Bill, despite having the 'right and duty' to do so. I therefore conclude that Parliament is, indeed, sovereign.