quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

RealOne, first nominee of 2010 for the "As Absurd as Rule" award. In fact, they might be the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

People do not consent to their a-tturn-on-me making a back room deal with the judge or adverserial party either but its done all the time.  WHY?  Because you gave consent and giving consent is no different than giving power of attorney!!
 

There's an expenses scandal going on in England - basically members of Parliament have been inflating their expenses in order to get more out of the tax payer. Under your definition we gave consent to this. In actual fact - members of Parliament are being forced to repay the money and those guilty of the worst excesses are facing criminal proceedings (all due to public pressure).

Well the version of control that I am most referring to is the abrogation of "Sovereign Rights" through contract.

So - where you adopt the terms control/governed/consent to mean a blank cheque simply by virtue of the principles of government - then yes you are somewhere near mark. This does't match reality however - the evidence tells us they do not have a blank cheque - when they overstep the mark they are reined in.


While that may work in the pay check it does not in taxation....   They took us all to war to acquire more collateral... Nothing anyone could do short of a revolution to stop it.  I refer to the blank check as anything they can do that results in an extraction of money or rights from the people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Now rome has never been taken by england by conquest and I have no knowledge that those contracts have ever been broken as in agreed to by both parties.  So that is quite conceivable imo.
 

Tony Blair is steeped in the liberal interventionist tradition which is underpinned by christian values i.e. the idea that we have a duty to help other people around the world which of course is underpinned by the notion that England and Christianity knows best.

Yes Christianity is where the roots are along with heavy anglo saxon and scot law....

However their generosity has a lien attached to it...which is where it detours from Christianity which condemns usury as put forth with the temple incident. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

So he may have been in conformance with rule of law which is structured to protect the monarchy from the rules. so to speak.

The British monarchy have next to zero political power.

I do not believe for one second the moarchy ever did or ever will step down from power.

They are more educated too...

They simply take it behind the scenes, tell the people what they want to hear and the blame falls on the servants at their command.

A monarch is a sovereign... and has no reason to ever give up power except by force of a gun!   (Like the great charter where the king was forced in article 34 to agree that no free man shall be denied his court.  (which applies here too btw)

If I were the monarch of England I would have wanted that war too btw...."its good for business" and keeps me in power

Since Oliver Cromwell and the puritans established Parliament as the sole law maker successive governments have made statements in the House of Commons advising the monarchy to know their place - which isn't politics.

But there is a second power at large though....  its: Big fish eat the little fish....

The reason the current Queen is so popular is because she hasn't put a foot out of place and has played by the monarchical rules - it's widely believed that the monarchy would have been done away with had it not been for this current Queen. But there is some concern over the next in line to the throne who is pestering Parliament with a series of letters about his political concerns - particularly nature/the environment. Parliament aren't happy about it - nor are the press - and that's just sending letters.

I'll give you an example. The monarchy were opposed to WW1 but they had no power to prevent the government from going to war.

Under British law - Tony Blair appears to be guilty of a series of minor crimes related to the forging of documents and lying to Parliament (re the invasion of Iraq). Monarchy or no monarchy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Maybe eventually he'll figure out that opposing attorneys quote law books all the time.

Doesn't decide their cases.

Or maybe he'll learn that an argument built on a flawed assumption can't stand.

Or maybe he'll learn that when there are no actual instances to illustrate a point, it's not a good case.

Probably not, though.