Friday, December 31, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

'Silly Season' Aug 2004

On this 8th Day of my Christmas, after having spent the 7th day formating and reloading softwear on to my virus attacked PC. My true love reminded me August 2004

Blair impeachment campaign starts A campaign to use age-old powers to impeach Tony Blair for misleading the public over the Iraq war is being launched by a group of MPs

Dyke accuses Blair over Iraq war The BBC's former director general Greg Dyke has made a scathing attack on Downing Street over the Iraq war and its treatment of the BBC.

Army frightened for its future There is alarm at the highest levels in both the services and the Ministry of Defence over an extraordinary gamble that the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is taking with Britain's Armed Forces in the name of European integration.

MPs' scrutiny 'failing' on EU law MPs are "asleep on the job" when checking European laws to stop them interfering with British business, the Confederation of British Industry says

Police station closures attacked Three police stations have closed for every month Tony Blair has been prime minister, official figures show.

Britons 'ignorant of UK history' British youth are ignorant of their own history with fewer than half questioned knowing Sir Francis Drake defeated the Spanish Armada, according to a poll

Tories angry over new CPS boss A QC who co-founded Cherie Blair's legal chambers has been named new head of the Crown Prosecution Service amid allegations of "rampant cronyism".

RAF gets a new fighter with a gun it cannot fire Attempts by the Ministry of Defence to save money will leave all 232 of the RAF's new Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft with a gun they cannot fire.

Thursday, December 30, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Remember July 2004

At-a-glance: Butler report Lord Butler's inquiry has published its verdict on the intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq. Here are the main points War dossier left out warnings on flawed intelligence, says Butler It found that much of the intelligence was seriously flawed and Iraq did not have any stocks of chemical or biological weapons ready for deployment before the war started in March 2003.

Regional assembly vote dates set "historic opportunity" Voters in Yorkshire-and-Humber, the North East and North West will be asked to vote on assemblies and to choose new structures of local government.

Reform vital for EU vote – Byers Mr Byers in using a speech in the Ukraine to argue that millions of jobs rest on a "yes" vote. In a warning to ministers, he will say: "The lesson of the last few years is clear. You cannot win an argument over Europe unless you go out and make it." So when are they going to make it

UK student debt rises to £14bn Official lending to students in the 2003-04 academic year was 4% higher than the year before, at £2.7bn

Tories highlight sheep counters 300 people were once employed to count sheep is an example of red tape in the UK farm aid system, says a Tory-backed review of government waste.

Blair urges new era in crime fight 5,000 most prolific criminals in England and Wales are to be constantly satellite-tracked.

Watchdog attacks NHS inequalities

Uproar in Labour ranks over Mandelson comeback Peter Mandelson promised last night not to let Tony Blair down for a third time after staging a remarkable comeback by being nominated as Britain's European commissioner.

In pictures: ships facing the axe

Cuts reduce RAF to The Few

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Half way

Remember June 2004

European Election: United Kingdom Result In the UK the European elections are typically guaranteed a low turnout. Here it was the lowest in Europe at 24%

Leaders meet MPs over EU results The Labour and Tory leaders have been holding talks with their backbenchers after their worst results for decades in the European elections.

Britain signs up to new union of Europe Mr Chirac said he was very happy with the result. It would create "a federation of states but also of peoples". It would lead to "very extensive" advances in majority voting, especially in justice and home affairs and opened the way for a European prosecutor.

'Blair delusional over WMDs' David Kay, who led the ISG after the invasion, said the weapons simply did not exist so Mr Blair and other leaders should say sorry for being wrong.

Cancer patients 'waiting longer' Cancer patients are waiting longer for potentially life-saving treatment compared to six years ago

Army doctors 'lacked equipment'
Army doctors sent to the Gulf ahead of last year's war with Iraq lacked basic equipment

Thousands march for pension rises Thousands of workers and pensioners marched through London on Saturday to highlight the UK's pensions crisis.

MoD dismisses 'huge budget cuts' The Ministry of Defence has dismissed as "speculative" a media report that it is to face the biggest cuts in 20 years in an upcoming spending review. And as for that speculation Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has announced large cuts in the armed forces as part of modernisation plans

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

5th day of turkey

On this 5th day of turkey, my truelove reminded me, May 2004

EU newcomers welcomed to the club The 15 old members welcomed in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia at midnight.

Ex-KGB man backs new MI6 chief “This was a man whose role in the dodgy dossier was emphasised in the Hutton Report," said Peter Kilfoyle.

Anger over postal vote 'shambles' Claims that all-postal votes for the June elections are proving a "shambles" have been dismissed as ministers insisted the deadlines would be met.

Health watchdog guidance 'ignored' NICE was set up by the government to decide what drugs and treatments should be available on the NHS. But a study in The Lancet has found evidence to suggest that some of its recommendations are being ignored.

Jets are 'too heavy to take off'

Monday, December 27, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

$%^&$ (*&?<^>)

April 2004

Norris McWhirter Freedom Fighter Dies

Hughes the Muse" resigns over visa scam row Ms Hughes said she had not set out to "intentionally mislead anyone", but she could not "in conscience continue to serve as immigration minister". Blunkett describes his worst day
however his worst day was still to come

Immigration debacle reveals Labour's contempt for the people by Steve Moxon who was an administrative officer in Managed Migration at the Home Office. He was suspended, pending the outcome of an investigation as to whether disclosures he made to the Sunday Times are within the terms of the Public Interest Disclosure Act

Ambassadors' letter to Blair
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States.

EU 'covered up' attacks on Jews by young Muslims
Jewish leaders accused the European Union yesterday of covering up the true scale of anti-Semitic violence carried out by Muslim youths, reigniting a controversy over Europe's failure to confront Islamic extremism at home

Labour MP's anti-constitution move
Nearly 60 Labour MPs already back the Vote 2004 campaign for a referendum - although that does not necessarily mean they oppose the constitution.

Let the issue be put. Let the battle be joined Hope you haven’t been holding your breath. Here is Tony Blair's statement to MPs announcing a referendum will be held on the planned EU constitution.

Violent crime figures rise by 11% More serious violent crimes such as homicide and serious wounding rose by 13%, compared to the same quarter in 2002, while "less serious" violent crime such as assaults was up 21% to 106,000 incidents.

Falconer is rebuked over whistleblower Lord Falconer, the Constitution Secretary, was rebuked yesterday by a Commons committee over the disciplining of a "whistleblower" who gave evidence to MPs about the failings of an official child protection agency.

Navy to 'lose two carriers' in cutbacks

RAF bases axed in defence review

Sunday, December 26, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

cold turkey lunch

On the third day of my Christmas my truelove reminded me; March 2004

"He was an ordinary person's hero - an extraordinary ordinary person." Steve Thoburn,Metric martyr dies

UK trade deficit hits record high
Britain's trade deficit with the rest of the world hit a record high. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the deficit in goods and services reached £4.6bn

Euro No campaign mothballed
The anti-euro No Campaign is to be wound up, following Gordon Brown's decision to rule out a fresh assessment of the five economic tests for entry.

Degree grades 'show dumbing down The rising numbers of first-class degrees awarded by universities make them look like they are "dumbing down",
'Dumbed down' consultants warning Government plans to overhaul medical training could put patients at risk, according to doctors.

Blair puts on cheerleader act This was Tony Blair's version of "Always look on the bright side of life".

EU Regulation 261/2004 on Denied Boarding Compensation IATA is appealing to any airline that can produce evidence that illustrates potential damage as a result of this Regulation, showing where possible, how this regulation might potentially cause the airline to be driven out of business.

Saturday, December 25, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

buffet breakfast

Ok, I have started the day with a buffet breakfast of alka salsa slice of toast and coffee. The turkey has ceased to gobble and will soon be spiting at the potatoes in the oven.

On this second day of my Christmas, my truelove reminded me: February 2004

Bankruptcy rates at 10-year high Bankruptcy rates at 10-year high Individual bankruptcies are at their highest level since late 1993, official figures have shown.

Euro-MPs voice their anger over collapse of cash control The European Parliament's annual report on the EU's £70 billion budget expressed "extreme alarm" over failures in the commission's accounting system, finding that the books did not add up and large sums of money could not be traced.

Howard outlines his vision of EU
Charles Grant, from the Centre for European Reform, said the speech marked Mr Howard's desire for a more positive relationship with Europe from that favoured by his predecessor, Iain Duncan Smith.

Metric Martyrs Have European Challenge Dismissed The five who became known as Metric Martyrs have heard their bid to have the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg review the issue of selling in imperial measures has been rejected, 18 months after they applied

MoD hit with more kit complaints Eighty Royal Marines have been flown home from training in Norway with frostbite, amid claims they had inadequate sleeping bags.

Party votes out Reading MP
Mrs Griffiths has become the first member of parliament to be deselected by her constituency in 10 years.

Army charges for welfare parcels Free postage of parcels to UK troops serving in Iraq will end the Army has announced.

Blair plans to ditch Sir Humphrey
Who is to blame for Labour's complete failure to delivery on any of their promises? The Civil Service of course!

Right, it's time for some Christmas 'glogg'

Friday, December 24, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

A Year in a Week

Ok, my holiday starts today, 'waes hael' and a Merry Christmas to one and all. As we know the popular media will be publishing their summery of the years events sometime over the coming week. I am starting today, my review will feature news events based on a "month in a day", over the 12 days of Christmas (hangovers permitting) Here we go:

On the first day of Christmas my true love reminded me, January 2004

The European arrest warrant came into force, allowing British citizens to be extradited under a fast-track process even if their actions do not constitute an offence in Britain

Devolved government costs £650m a year

Dome 'costs taxpayers over £30m Taxpayers have had to pay out more than £30m to maintain the Millennium Dome since it closed at the end of 2000

BBC listeners want right to kill burglars, 'The people have spoken - the bastards.' said Steven Pound

More motorists are sent to prison than burglars. More drivers are sent to prison each year than burglars, according to official figures. In 2002, the most recent year for which annual statistics are available, 10,178 people were jailed for burglary compared with 15,039 for motoring offences.

How they tried to cover up my story about Sgt Roberts Sean Rayment broke the news of the circumstances surrounding Sgt Steve Roberts's death in the Iraq war. Here, he reveals how Geoff Hoon and the MoD tried to pretend it wasn't a story

Kinnock faces censure over EU 'slush fund'

Minister admits strike death secret Kim Howells, who is now a transport minister, admitted destroying files to prevent the National Union of Mineworkers being implicated in the killing of a taxi driver during the 1984-85 strike

Hutton Report Summary of conclusions

Hutton a whitewash, say 56pc A majority of voters thinks the Hutton report on events leading to the death of Dr David Kelly is a "whitewash", a YouGov poll for The Telegraph says

Cloud of confusion over cannabis law The re-classification of cannabis - from a Class B to Class C category

Gilligan quits BBC over Hutton row

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Taking the Biscuit

Thank you very much for your recent email about ID cards, Michael Howard has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

He has asked me to say that he takes the points you make about ID cards,
but he has always supported the introduction of identity cards, both as
Home Secretary and subsequently as a backbencher.  This is in complete
contrast to Tony Blair, who has been against and in favour by turn.  In
1995 he said:  "Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on
compulsory ID cards......let that money provide thousands more police
officers."  Now he supports them.

Many people have concerns about liberty and freedom.  Michael Howard,
too, attaches great importance to the freedom of the individual.  But
our two great watchwords in the Conservative Party are freedom and
security.  Unless we can provide the people of our country with
security, they may well be unable to exercise the freedom we wish them
to enjoy.

The police believe that identity cards can help in the fight against
terrorism, crime and illegal immigration.  Michael Howard agrees with
them.  He can envisage more than one scenario in which a scheme like
that put forward in the Government's Bill could help make the country

That is why we supported the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill
in December.  This was a vote on the principle of the Bill.  We are not
wedded to the component elements of the scheme which we shall, of
course, review in government.  We shall also be taking a number of
measures to deal with crime and immigration in the short-term.

Mr Howard set out, in greater detail, his thinking in a recent article,
the link for which is below.

his thinking in a recent article

Yours sincerely,

Ian Philps
Office of the Leader of the Opposition

Well, doesn't that just take the biscuit?

"Unless we can provide the people of our country with security, they may well be unable to exercise the freedom we wish them to enjoy."

The freedom, "they wish us to enjoy" What about the inalienable freedoms we should all be enjoying now

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Euromyth = Oh my! True!

Most good stories have already been Bloged be someone or other today, so I thought I would just shuffle some old words about abit.

The EU Constitution = Cut ties to the Union!

European Commission = Consume, I'm a poisoner

European Court of Justice = Sure conjecture of utopia.

The Common Fisheries Policy' = Fish crime? Spoil the economy!

Single European Act = Unease percolating

European Currency Union' = Announce our creepy ruin?

European Parliament = Remuneration appeal


Man, people are in a rut!


Am an appointee ruler

I just love a good anagram = ???

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

believe in fairies

I used to believe in Santa Claus because my parents told me so, and I ceased to believe in him when my big sister disabused me.

The process by which large numbers of people become convinced of things that are not true has always been an important feature of political life. But never more so than recently.

Not many adults give an honest answer when Peter Pan asks if they believe in fairies. The only negative answers usually come from precocious children who have learnt to think for themselves but have not acquired social skills; I can still remember being silenced by my parents and shunned by the audience.

With maturity, most of us learn that it is wiser to go along with the crowd and with reason. What is widely believed is usually true. That is why it is not just more congenial, but also more efficient to adopt the conventional view than to engage in original research. But the strongest force driving us towards false opinions is the natural human desire to believe what we want to believe. If the choice is between declaring your belief in fairies and watching Tinkerbell fade from view, who would not shout that they believe in fairies? and as the seat of power slips away from the Tory's, so it seems Michael Howard believes in fairies


":Mr Howard could not bear the thought of looking "weak on terror", so preferred to make his front-bench team seem ridiculous yesterday in forcing them to fall in line behind a scheme that will cost billions, make us no safer and ultimately prove highly unpopular. He has deprived millions of people like me with an innate scepticism towards government of a real choice next year. At the very moment when one senses that voters are growing uneasy at the controlling instincts of New Labour, the Tory front bench has endorsed Big Government on stilts."
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Orwell's Nightmare Land

(To the tune of Winter Wonderland
all together now 1,2,3

Ever since, nine eleven,
It's become, a tyrant's heaven,
Or we'll aim and squeeze,
Living in George Orwell's nightmare land!

While veiwing TV, is keeping you dumb,
Gone away, is your freedom,
You must go along,
To get along,
Living in George Orwell's nightmare land!

Cameras are now on every lamp post,
Tilt your head and take a look around.
Since no one dared to stand up,
And say "No, Man!"
They track and trace you everywhere in town!

Some of us, now conspire,
To resist, and open fire,
Let's face unafraid,
With plans that we made,
Fighting off George Orwell's nightmare land!

Cameras are now on every street pole,
All watched by some bureaucratic clown.
We'll have lots of fun achieving our goal,
Of shooting all those little bastards down!

Now is no time to be chillin',
Hitting back is so thrillin',
We'll frolic and play,
The guerilla way,
Fighting off George Orwell's nightmare land!
Fighting off George Orwell's nightmare land!

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

2+2 = 4, 2+2+God=?

Picking up on a previous post Godless Cult

The pseudo philosopher and cult leader Josemaria Escriva often used to Cite 2+2 = 4, 2+2+God=? So who is the cult leader? Josemaria Escriva was a priest who founded "Opus Dei" in the year 1928 and according to the Sunday Times today, our new Education, Education, Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is a cult member.

I wont go into explaining this cult, just type "Opus Dei" into your favourite search engine and Educate yourself, and after this ad-hoc research, you may even take the decision to educate your own children too.

The law on education in this country is clear. Parents have a legal duty to educate their children, but no duty to send them to school. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 reads: "The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable: (a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and (b) to any special education needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."

The meaning of this is that you can educate your children at home.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

BBC Bias or EU Propaganda

An interesting post on The Road to Euro Serfdom Blog. It picks up the Vote No Submision to the BBC's review of European coverage

However, the question that people must ask themselves is; 'Am I susceptible to propaganda?' The only way you can honestly answer this question is to study both sides of the argument with an open and informed mind.

The EU's de Clercq Report 1993 devised initiatives to ensure that:

"...European identity must be 'ingrained in people's minds' as a 'good product' using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly 'women and youth', should become 'priority target groups'. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union...so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause."

A comment on this report and its implications is available from this link to the Bruges Group Here

The above ties in with a parallel report by the Commission's Media and Culture Directorate, which showed that money has been made available for the media to promote "a more positive line towards Europe".

It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has relevance to contemporary politics. After all, when most people think about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns that were waged by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in the 1930s. Since nothing comparable is being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no longer an issue.

But propaganda can be as blatant as an EU Flag or as subtle as a joke. Its persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behaviour. Propagandistic messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drink driving, but they are also used to win elections, referendums and to sell push up bra's.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we wish our state broadcaster to be pumping out EU Propaganda.

According to the BBC Annual Report and Accounts 2002/2003 which may be read from this link

BBC Annual Report

there are two outstanding loans from the European Investment Bank to the BBC totalling £91 million.

"The European Investment Bank has made two loan facilities available to BBC Commercial Holdings. The first, for an amount of £66million, is available for drawing until March 2005 and must either be repaid in full as a single repayment by March 2013 or on an amortising basis by March 2015.The second, for £25million, is available for drawing until November 2003 and is repayable in one single instalment by November 2007.The interest rate applicable on both facilities is determined with reference to the European Investment Bank's own funding cost and carries no margin above this funding rate. At 31 March 2003 nothing was drawn down under either of these facilities".

Now cast your mind back to the totally pro-EU bias of nearly every BBC anchor and correspondent over recent years - not noticed by yourself perhaps, well maybe now you have read this it will become more noticeable.

Still not convinced then ask yourself why any organisation would make funds available at their own cost of borrowing, it is an impossible feat that defies all known laws of economics - were it truly achievable. But it is not, rather this is a blatant propaganda subsidy and YOU are the target - more BBC anybody?

Also see EU protocol-public-broadcasting


Friday, December 17, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

The Bugger's of Brussels

Bugger is an interesting word, being a Middle English term, deriving from the French, used to describe enemies of the Catholic Church.

Following on from the previous article, one could say, that the potential Turkish accession is buggering up the EU but hey, the Bogomils of Bulgaria and Bosnia may beat them to it.
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Is the European Union a Godless Cult

In this coming week, the run up to "The day of Giving of Gifts", I would like my dear reader to consider a fundamental issue of DISCERNMENT.

When it comes to truth about the European Union, how can we tell what is fact and what is fiction?

The proposed EU Constitution greatly strengthens the EU's central bureaucratic mechanisms at the expense of state sovereignty and democratic accountability; but its most controversial feature is what it does not included: i.e. any mention of Europe's Christian heritage.

This omission was by no means an oversight. It was rather a deliberate policy decision by a militantly secularist elite determined to bring about a naked public square barring all opinions based on religious values.

Only a postmodern European Cult could have manufactured a constitution extolling its "cultural, religious and humanist inheritance" while pointedly leaving out any explicit reference to its essential Christian patrimony.

A 'cult' has been described as a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new members (e.g. The people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they become members). It also uses mind control techniques to keep people dependent and obedient.

Destructive cults understand that to keep believers dependent on them, they must try to neutralise sources of criticism.

However, the Bible teaches that we are to test all teachings (I John 4:1,6), expose those teachings that are false (Eph. 5:11), confront and rebuke the false teachers (Titus 1:9,13), and then separate from those who persist in false teaching (Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10), lest in the end, we are disqualified for service (II Timothy 2:20,21), or worse yet, we are identified with the false teachings and the false teachers themselves (2 John 10,11).

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

This is a lengthy piece

Would Attempts by the EU to Use Force to Impose Their Legislation on the UK be Lawful?

This is a lengthy piece, so I should advise you to go and make a cup of coffee before settling down.

"Article 224 (of the European Treaty) states that Member States shall consult one another with a view to taking in common the necessary steps to avoid the operation of the Common Market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in case of serious internal disturbances affecting public policy or the maintenance of law and order ("ordre public"), in case of war or serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out undertakings into which it has entered for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security".

Governments since the 1972 European Union treaty have claimed that European Law is "supreme" in the UK . What would be the position in law if the EU attempted to impose its will on British Subjects by force in the circumstances which are envisioned in Article 224 of the Treaty? Under the Civil contingency Act 2004 Such an "emergency" could be manufactured at any time and it would be prudent to consider what could be done to protect the common law rights and liberties of British subjects in such a situation.
This article will consider the history of attempts to obtain an answer to these questions. The subject is entitled to know what the law is, in order that he may plan his actions appropriately.

International treaties & the Royal Prerogative.

Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into treaties on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions. (The term "prerogative" means a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class).

(a) Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not so, the executive could dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.

(b)The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated "Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be exercised to their prejudice".)

Royal Prerogative may not be used to suspend or offend against Statutes in Force.

This comes from the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words; "Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according to their respective laws and usages." Prospective Monarch: "I solemnly promise so to do." Note the similarity to the Judicial Oath. This is because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown.

The limitations of Royal Prerogative are clear:

"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law."

(The Lord High Chancellor Command Paper 3301, 1967, Legal and constitutional implications of UK membership of the European Community.)

Bowles v. Bank of England (1913) confirmed that "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions".

Pepper v. Hart and the Interpretation of EU Legislation.

The interpretation of laws is the responsibility of the Judiciary in the directions which they give to juries and in the deliberations of Magistrates. Chapter 29 of Magna Carta requires that only the law and a juries decision can justify the infringement of the subjects liberties.
Blackstone describes how the will of parliament expressed in Statute law should be interpreted;

"The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law".

The common law position described by Blackstone has been restored by an appeal to the Courts in 1993. The judgement in the case of Pepper v. Hart brought changes which mean that clarification about what the intentions of Parliament expressed in an Act were can again be found in the statements of the Bills sponsors when it was debated in Parliament. A Court "may make reference to Parliamentary material, such as Hansard, where legislation is; ambiguous or obscure. The material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill together with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and the statements relied upon are clear".

This Judgement caused the Attorney General to issue Practice Directions to the legal profession warning of the necessity to consult Hansard in future.

The Effect of EU Legislation on the Rights of British Subjects.

Applying the principle of Pepper v. Hart to the Single European Act 1972 we find the following statement made by a sponsor of the Bill;

"The House as a whole may therefore be reassured that there is no question of this Bill (The European Communities Bill 1972) making a thousand years of British law subservient to the Code Napoleon".

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Hansard, 15 Feb 1972. Pg.270.This statement confirms the legal opinion given by the Lord Chancellor in Command Paper 3301 which was referred to above in Para 30, page 11;

"There is no reason to think that the impact of Community law would weaken or destroy any of the basic rights and liberties of individuals under the law in the United Kingdom".

These statements, and others made during the debates, reflect the common law limitation to prerogative in relation to treaties. Anything contained in treaties which is to the prejudice of the rights and liberties of the subject is not to be taken into consequence or example.

There is no legal justification for the proposition that the Single European Act allows our liberties to be disregarded. Economic matters however are allowed to be dealt with in the UK as civil cases under EU principles.

The McWirter case.

An attempt was made to test this conclusion before the High Court in 1972 by Ross McWirter of the Freedom Association. He invoked the Bill of Rights to show that the government did not have authority to give away the right and liberties of the people. He was mysteriously assassinated before the matter was decided.

His brother Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastrict treaty in 1993. Summonses were issued against the Foreign Secretary for treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the case and then drop it as "not in the public interest". This was against the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights against "suspending laws or the operation of laws".

It was also contrary to natural justice because the Attorney General was sitting in judgement in his own cause.

The Subjects Rights and the Prerogative.

In the UK the prerogatives (legal powers) of the Crown and Parliament were set by the common law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them. The principle that " the common law makes the King and the King is not above the law" was settled by Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 by force of arms against the proponents of the "Divine Right of Kings".
The framers of the Bill of Rights, which established the present Constitutional Monarchy, restated Magna Carta and were careful to ensure that no divine right of either King or Parliament could in future threaten the subjects rights.

Winston Churchill was well aware of the significance of Magna Carta and as a historian with a deep understanding of unchanging human nature wrote this warning and reassurance to future generations;

"The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success." Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956) Vol. 1, 201-202

The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of the common law. It is also an operative Statute. It contains the Oath of Allegiance which is required by Magna Carta to be taken by all Crown servants including members of the Armed Forces, MP's, and the Judiciary. They are required not to "take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties".

The authoritative textbook of the common law, Blackstone's Commentaries, in this famous passage describes the subject's rights;

" The rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen… consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliament be supported in full vigour; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative… And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened."

Options for Resistance.

Neither the law or a Juries decision allow EU legislation to be imposed on British subjects in anything other than economic matters. What options are available to British subjects to resist the unlawful extension of EU influence?

Blackstone noted that the subjects rights, if they were to have any effect, had to be protected by constitutional mechanisms consisting of five auxiliary rights:

The constitution, powers, and privileges of parliament and their limits....

The limitation of the king's prerogative ....

The right of every Englishman to apply to the courts of justice for redress of injuries done to him by anyone.

The right of every individual to petition the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances or infringement of the rights before mentioned, which the ordinary course of law is too defective to reach.

The subjects right to posses arms for their defence against transgressors of the law, either individuals or the State.

These five auxiliary rights of the subject are available in case of need. Any British subject may make use of them in order to demand that his rights be respected.

Petition to the Crown.

The present Monarch has not entertained petitions from private individuals. This places Her in breach of the Coronation Oath to rule "according to the laws of the Kingdom and the usages thereof". She is therefore, regrettably, part of the problem.

Application to the Courts for Redress of Grievance.

If Parliament and the Crown act in a manner which is not sanctioned by the law, our adversarial legal system requires that individuals present their grievances before Juries.

A person who becomes aware of treasonable acts which tend to the overthrow of the laws and constitution of the Kingdom is obliged to bring them to notice lest he commit the common law offence of Misprision of Treason ("when a person knows of treason, though no party or consenter to it, yet conceals it, and doth not reveal it in convenient time." (R. v. Thistlewood, 1820)).

As noted in the McWirter case, senior members of the Judiciary have obstructed this as "not in the public interest".

Access to the Courts has also been circumscribed in recent years by the pretended power which the Judiciary have awarded themselves to declare individuals to be "vexatious litigants"

Petitions to the House of Commons.

Petitions to the House of Commons should be debated. In recent times the Commons have adopted a practice of passing petitions to the Department which has given cause for complaint for them to answer. This is unlawful because it breaches the common law prohibition on sitting in Judgement in ones own cause.

It should be noted that the Courts have the power to enquire into the prerogatives of Parliament which claims its sovereignty from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights;

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament."

The phrase "ought not to be..." shows that there is no absolute sovereignty of Parliament.

Petitions to the House of Lords.

Magna Carta at Chapter 61 describes the Duties of the Barons to respond to such petitioning;

"….Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us.

And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear".
This option is threatened by the abolition of the House of Lords.

The Right to Arms For defence.

"The right to keep and bear arms can claim an ancestry stretching for well over a millennium. The antiquity of the right is so great that it is all but impossible to document its actual beginning. It is fairly clear that its origin lay in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact, the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man. He then acquired the duty to serve in an equivalent of a citizen army.

These customs were brought into England by the earliest Saxons. The first mention of the citizen army, or the "fyrd" is found in documents dating to 690 A.D., but scholars have concluded that the duty to serve in such with personal armament "is older than our oldest records." (Not knowing of the earlier records, 18th century legal historians including the great Blackstone attributed the origin of the English system to Alfred the Great, who ruled in the late 9th century A.D.).

This viewpoint of individual armament and duty differed greatly from the feudal system which was coming into existence in Europe. The feudal system presupposed that the vast bulk of fighting duties would fall to a small warrior caste, composed primarily of the mounted knight. These individuals held the primary political and military power. Thus peasant armament was a threat to the political status quo. In England, on the other hand, a system evolved whereby peasant armament became the great underpinning of the status quo and individual armament came to be viewed as a right rather than a threat.

This in turn significantly changed the evolution of political systems in Britain. Since so much military power lay with the private citizen, the traditional monarchy was necessarily much more a limited monarchy than an absolute one. Even after the Norman Conquest of 1066, which brought feudal systems into Britain, kings regularly appealed to the people for assistance. William Rufus, second Norman king of England, was driven to appeal to the citizenry to put down a rebellion of feudal barons. To obtain the assistance of the individual armed citizen, he promised the people of England to provide better laws then had ever been made, to rescind all new taxes instituted during his reign, and to annul the hated forest laws which imposed draconian punishments; inspired by his promises, the citizenry rose with their arms and defended his government against the rebels.

After his death, his brother, Henry I, often drilled the citizen units in person, seeking to appeal to the individual members. In short, kingship in Britain became a far more democratic affair than it would ever become on the Continent, due in major part to the individual armament of the British citizen.

State Constitutions and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.Robert Dowlut
"Man is a maker of things, and a property owning animal... From the right to self-defence and protection of property comes the right to the rule of law, and a multitude of like rights, such as the right to privacy expressed as 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. A ruler is legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals."

John Locke.

The right to have arms is not restricted to individual use for private self-defence, as the following Judgement demonstrates:

"The right of His majesties subjects to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, (such as hunting) is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of the Kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty... And that this right which every (subject) most unquestionably possesses individually may, and in many cases must, be exercised collectively, is likewise a point which I conceive to be most clearly established...

"It seems to follow, of necessary consequence, that it cannot be unlawful to learn to use them (for such lawful purposes) with safety and effect. For it would be too gross an absurdity to allege that it is not lawful to be instructed in the use of anything which is lawful to use...

"The lawful purposes for which such arms may be used (besides immediate self defence) are the suppression of violent and felonious breaches of the Peace, the assistance of the Civil Magistrates in the execution of the laws, and the defence of the kingdom against foreign invaders.

"To strengthen the civil power, and to keep themselves at all times prepared for a vigorous and effectual discharge of their duty as citizens ... are, in my view, sufficient visible and legal objects for the continuation of the London Association."
The Recorder of London, 1795. (From "The Origins and Development of the Second Amendment". David T. Hardy. 1995).

The Lawful uses of Arms.

Blackstone describes the circumstances in which the subject may use the arms which he is entitled to possess;

" But the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed se defendo, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or a member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem (injury) is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act: these, though accompanied with all the other requisite solemnities, may be afterwards avoided, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of loosing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance. And the same is also a sufficient excuse for the commission of many misdemeanours. The constraint a man is under in these circumstances is called in law duress, from the Latin "durities", of which there are two sorts: duress of imprisonment, where a man actually looses his liberty… and duress "per minas", where the hardship is only threatened and impending".

Blackstone's Commentaries. Book 1, Ch 1. Page 131.
Any attempt by Government to take defensive arms from individuals would amount to duress. Resistance to attempts to disarm the law abiding subject would be lawful. Prosecutions for "unlicensed" possession or disposal of arms would be unlawful.
As noted in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta above, it is lawful to make war on a Monarch who refuses to comply with the law.

Resistance by Private Individuals.

The time has come for the militia to be restored for local defence. The Home Guard was the last active militia. Despite opposition from the political establishment ,they were not part of the army, they elected their officers and were for local defence only. In the early stages of WW2 the War Office tried to take them over but were thwarted by men who knew what the British constitution was.

The recent revelations that the then King was collaborating with Hitler to establish a Nazi regime in the UK have vindicated their position.

Resistance by Crown Servants, Including Members of the Armed Forces.
The Oath required of Crown servants includes " I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance..." The qualification "true" confirms that allegiance is not required to a Monarch whose actions are unlawful.

It can be shown that we have recently had a coup-d'etat in this country. This was accomplished when the Government took control over the armed forces to use them for political purposes. The Bill of Rights allows the Crown a standing army in peace time and who's members swear allegiance to defend Her "in person Crown and dignity against all enemies". No one else (except the Duke of Argyll), is allowed an army.

The Armed Forces Act 1996 purports to allow the Crown to set aside the requirement for annual army acts. It states that the Crown may authorise the armed forces by "Order in Council" until 2001. This provision would permit the Government to use the Armed Forces even if Parliament was suspended, and is contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

The recent defence review has resulted in the Government issuing a mission statement that claims that the forces role in future is to defend the Realm and "to implement Government policy, in particular foreign policy". This is from the document published by the MOD and available from them and on the Web. It means that the Government is now claiming that it can use the Army for its own purposes where the safety of the Realm is not threatened. Serving members of the Forces have been invited to sign new contracts agreeing to this new arrangement. Recent recruiting adverts for the Forces reflect this. A cinema advert for the RAF depicted a foreign "peace keeping" operation and has the slogan "Their country needs you". This is a equivalent to a coup.

Why has it been done? Past defence reviews established a British contribution to a UN "Rapid Response Unit". This organisation can only be a forerunner to the global army much talked about by the Bilderbergers.

Home Defence is also being undermined. In future, there will be no fighting, i.e. infantry or armour, role for the TA as they will be used only for administrative & support roles. Therefore there will be no need for them to know how to use weapons. This too was stated in another debate in Parliament on the rundown of the TA.

Members of the Forces will have to decide for themselves which side they are on in a future conflict between the EU. and the UK.

It is believed the present regime are taking precautions against this. Examples are the recent repeal of various treason acts and the recent Civil Contingency Act. The US intelligence defence establishment raised concerns in the Clinton era about "patriotic terrorists", defined as individuals who are members of the security forces who are not content with their political direction and are in possession of information which might be of assistance to "terrorists".

In 1998, following a bomb explosion in Omagh and a media feeding frenzy, Parliament was recalled and a "Prevention of Terrorism " Act was passed. Many clauses were added without being debated. The Act purports to allow detention of an individual who "possess information which might be used by terrorists" in the UK or abroad. They are to be convicted without a Jury on the uncorroborated "evidence" of a senior police officer.These were reinforced after 9/11


These are weighty matters and deserve the most serious consideration. It is said that each generation will at some time have to fight to retain their liberty. The author of this diatribe is of the opinion that time is short in our case.
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Bill of Rights 1689

From Neil Herron's Blog Neil Herron's Blog here legal challenge to fixed penalty parking fine. (citing the 1689 Bill of Rights)

I can testify that this approach really works. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to the DVLA Preston office in November 2003. I now have my returned, cancelled cheque on my office wall.

Att. Mrs P Woolley
1 Fulwood Park
Caxton Road

Without prejudice and you may wish to seek legal advise on this mater

As I am not the owner or keeper of the vehicle, how can I be held responsible for paying and taking out a licence. This is contrary to section 1 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. Where it states that the keeper is the person responsible for taking out and paying for the licence.

On the day in question, as an employee, then surely the only offence I had committed was that of failing to display. (not exhibiting licence) section 33-1 (b).

As an employee I was driving the vehicle, with the owner / keepers consent, which was being used by the (owner, keeper) employer, for his business use.

Had the policeman properly cautioned me for the offences, and informed me promptly, in a language, which I understood and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against me; which I can assure you he didn't, contrary to Article 6.-3 (a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I would have elected to go to court and not pay the fixed penalty that was issued to me at that time.

Please find enclosed a personal Cheque to the value of £31. This is submitted under protest and if cashed, I reserve the right to bring proceedings under section 7. - (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998

May I remind you under section 6. - (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Section 11. A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-

(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom.

The law in England, states in the Bill of Rights 1689
'That all grants and promises of Fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

In 1913 (Bowles v Bank of England) it was ruled that:
"The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, cannot be relied on by the crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions."

On the 21 July 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'

In 2002 (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ("Metric Martyrs") ) In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental.…….The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689……Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test:….

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

The Code of Chivalry

Live to serve Queen and Country.
Live to defend Crown and Country and all it holds dear.
Live one's life so that it is worthy of respect and honor.
Live for freedom, justice and all that is good.
Never attack an unarmed foe.
Never use a weapon on an opponent not equal to the attack.
Never attack from behind.
Avoid lying to your fellow man.
Avoid cheating.
Avoid torture.
Obey the law of Queen, country, and chivalry.
Administer justice.
Protect the innocent.
Exhibit self control.
Show respect to authority.
Respect women.
Exhibit Courage in word and deed.
Defend the weak and innocent.
Destroy evil in all of its monstrous forms.
Crush the monsters that steal our land and rob our people.
Fight with honor.
Avenge the wronged.
Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause.
Fight for the ideals of Queen, country, and chivalry.
Die with valor.
Always keep one's word of honor.
Always maintain one's principles.
Never betray a confidence or comrade.
Avoid deception.
Respect life and freedom.
Die with honor.
Exhibit manners.
Be polite and attentive.
Be respectful of host, women, and honor.
Loyalty to country, Queen, honor, freedom, and the code of chivalry.
Loyalty to one's friends and those who lay their trust in thee.

Anyone seen MANDY
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Tar Baby

A.D. 2004 In this day at the parliament was the Home alone Secretary at westminster then in the evening, 'found in his metaphorical vat of tar'. (blind justice)

The pseudo dick taitor cuddled up to kimbelys tar baby and couldn't get away.

Result of DNA test = vinegar stroke, Blunket Gone

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

"is there no hope of victory"

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves".

Winston Churchill.
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Progress eh

A.D. 2004. In this year at the parliament was the Queen Elizabeth at
Westminster and at the Nativity in Sandringham.

People in Britain spent over 152 days of this year toiling, just to pay their taxes (5 months). This year, Tax Freedom Day fell on 30 May. That's 3 days later than last year and 6 days later than when Enron Brown entered 11/10 Downing Street.

It's a tribute to Enron Brown's skill with "stealth" taxes that so few people seem to have noticed the huge rise in taxes that has overtaken them. But Tax Freedom Day is a clear measure of the total burden which he can't escape.

And don't forget that Enron Brown has been on a borrowing binge, which future taxpayers will have to pay for. Adding that burden in would push the date out to 11 June.


During the Middle Ages peasants did not belong to themselves. Everything they owned, their food, homes, and animals all belonged to the lord of the manor. Known as serfs, peasants were required to work for 50 days for their lord and in return were allowed to farm their own piece of land. The peasants were not free to leave the manor and were required to ask for permission. To gain freedom a peasant had to save money for his own land or marry a free person.

Progress eh
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

"foul emblem"

Local rag reports on EU rag A Sussex pub landlord faces legal action for flying the EU flag The Argus Report here

The flag was spotted by a disgruntled resident who complained to the Council about the "foul emblem", which apparently offends him when he has to walk past it. The Council ruled "The EU flag is not a national flag and thereby falls within the same category as any advertising-type flag. These require advertising consent from the council."
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

The New Road to Serfdom

The most important question facing the future of individual liberty in the United Kingdom is the question of this country's relationship with the European Union. It is not merely the most important question, but, in one sense, the only question. If the current drive towards a unitary European super-state, in which the British government has been actively collaborating since 1972, succeeds in destroying British national sovereignty, and in consolidating its rule over the British people through the proposed European Constitution, then it will decisively - and probably irreversibly - condemn future generations of British people to live under an essentially totalitarian state which yields nothing to either the Soviet communists or German National Socialists in the degree or scope of its rule over the individual.

EU Constitution. EU rules – OK?

“EU law shall have primacy over the law of member states”

Vote NO in the referendum
Listed on BlogShares