Tuesday, August 30, 2005

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

Violent, extreme, distasteful act?

"There is no proven connection between pornography and sexual violence. There have been dozens of reputable studies. Not one has shown any connection.

"In any event, if there is a connection between pornography and sexual violence, there is exactly the same kind of connection between reading the Koran and letting off bombs on the London Underground.

Are we to censor the Koran on that argument?


Monday, August 29, 2005

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

Rifkind, a moderniser?

Contact details for Members of Parliament without an email address

There is no email address for this Member on this system. Some MPs prefer to receive written correspondence by letter and do not make an email address publicly available.

You may contact MPs at the House of Commons by writing to:
House of Commons

Alternatively, you can telephone the Member's office at the House of Commons by going through the Parliament switchboard on: 020 7219 3000

Malcolm if you are reading, I will ring at 10:30 tomorrow.

My question: As a privy councillor, what is your position on "One Nation out of the European Union?"

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

A yard of bananas

If one was an Observer reader, you would recognize that this bunch of Bananas is a ‘YARD’ long and weights 1cwt. This bunch comes from a 640 acre (1 sq mile) family run plantation in the Caribbean. Each individual fruit is approximately 9 inches long, as measured along the convex face from the blossom end to the base of the peduncle.

On a hot summers day, there is nothing more refreshing, than a PINT of ‘banana shake’ as part of a healthy British diet. It certainly quenches the thirst after running a mile.

The European Union has ordered the British government to announce a date when it will abolish the use of pints, miles and even Britain's farmers' acres. A spokesman for the European Commission said the UK government had to fix a date 'as soon as possible' under their legal obligations.

I say we need to set a date for withdrawing from this illegal Treaty

If you wish to tell this man, Commissioner Günter Verheugen, where to go, e-mail to the following addresses:



Friday, August 26, 2005

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


The Battle of Crécy took place on this day August 26 1346, near Crécy-en-Ponthieu, in the Somme département of northern France and was one of the defining combats of arms of the Hundred Years' War.

It was during Edward's taking of Caen, on the way to Crecy, that the "mooning" incident occurred. Several hundred Norman soldiers exposed their backsides to the English archers and many of them paid a high price for doing so.

Lets us prey, that our Governments Defence policy, which appears to have embarked on a secret programme to "Europeanise" our forces through the backdoor of equipment procurement is not seen as a Mooning to our US allies.


Crécy was a battle in which an English army of approximately 12,000, commanded by Edward III of England, outnumbered by Philip VI of France's force of between 30,000 and 40,000, was victorious as a direct consequence of superior weaponry and tactics. It was a battle where the effectiveness of the english longbow, used en masse, was proved.

Read more at Richard Norths EUreferendum blog Smoking Gun & todays posting A crucial litmus test

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

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

"Herron Bin Loadin"

Section 137 of the Highways Act, 1980, states," a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50."

Trouble is that Blyth Council know that their binmen would be in trouble and be 'an accessory to the fact,' as it is they who left the bins in the street in the first place!

Writes Neil Herron to The Letters Editor Newcastle Journal


Tuesday, August 23, 2005

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

Looming Constitutional Crisis

Reported by the BBC

Canada is sending its navy back to the far northern Arctic port of Churchill after a 30-year absence. The visit by two warships to the area is the latest move to challenge rival claims in the Arctic triggered by the threat of melting ice.

The move follows a spat between Canada and Denmark, over an uninhabited rock called Hans Island in the eastern Arctic region.

An interesting constitutional situation could arise here!

"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".

Now if I recall correctly, In Canada, the Queen's official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

UK Governments since the 1972 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, in support of Denmark upon Canadian Citizens by force in the circumstances which are envisioned in Article 224 of the Treaty?

Oath of Allegiance

The oath of allegiance sworn by members of the armed forces to the Queen may turn out to be of real importance. If the Queen in Parliament passed legal notice to withdraw from the EU, and the Courts (including the European Court of Justice) tried to declare this unlawful, there would be, theoretically, a stand-off.

Would the armed forces breach their oath of loyalty to the Queen backed by Parliament?

see coup d’etat inquiry
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Caption Competition

Blair - "Look 12 bright stars have appeared in the sky to the East"

Hestletine - "What does it mean?"

Clarke - "Who cares, let's follow them religiously."

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

Rt. Hon. Bilderberger

Complaint against Mr Kenneth Clarke

CLARKE, Rt. Hon. Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Remunerated directorships
Deputy Chairman (non-executive) of. Alliance Unichem PLC
Director (non-executive) of. Foreign and Colonial Investment Trust PLC
Deputy Chairman (non-executive) of. British American Tobacco PLC
Chairman (non-executive) of. Savoy Asset Management PLC
Director (non-executive) of Independent News and Media (UK).

Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
Programmes on jazz for BBC Radio 4. (Registered 31 March 2004)

21 April 2004, fee for speaking at an event for Hammonds Solicitors in London, organised by European Speakers Bureau. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 26 April 2004)

14 May 2004, fee for speaking at an event for Société Générale Corporate and Investment Banking. (£5,001-£10,000) (Registered 26 May 2004)

2 June 2004, fee for speaking at an event in London for BanTec Limited. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 8 June 2004)

Member of FITCH International Advisory Committee - an international rating agency.

30 November 2004, fee for speaking at an A Level Conference, organised by Philip Allan Updates. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 13 December 2004)

9 March 2005, fee for speaking at an event for CapGemini in London. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 10 March 2005)

6. Overseas visits
22-27 April 2004, to Beijing, to participate in a DaimlerChrysler International Advisory Board meeting. Fee and travel and accommodation expenses for my wife and me paid by DaimlerChrysler. (Registered 5 May 2004)

27-31 May 2004, to Russia to take part in a seminar; travel and accommodation paid for by the Moscow School of Political Studies. (Registered 8 June 2004)

3-6 June 2004, to Stresa, Italy, to attend Bilderberg Conference . I paid for my own air fare; the hotel accommodation for three nights was paid for by the organisers. (Registered 8 June 2004)

3-8 September 2004, to Stockholm to speak at a seminar to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the British/Swedish Chamber of Commerce. Travel expenses for my wife and me paid by the British/Swedish Chamber of Commerce. (Registered 13 October 2004)

30 October-4 November 2004, to Botswana with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Botswana. My flight from Johannesburg to Botswana and from Botswana to London Heathrow and all internal travel and accommodation in Botswana were paid for by the Government of Botswana. (Registered 16 November 2004)

Bilderberg Group


Monday, August 22, 2005

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

Impromptu picnic

British Airways and Gate Gourmet, are holding fresh talks today aimed at thrashing out the terms of a new and improved contract, ahead of a deadline of 5pm tomorrow that will see the caterer file for administration unless the two can reach agreement.

Gate Gourmet, which has made clear that it can't survive without reforms to working practices, has agreed to reinstate some of the workers but will not rehire the "militant" staff who it believes spearheaded the unofficial action.

Well, I say, stuff Gate Gourmet and the TGWU and lets go for the impromptu picnic.

Back in 1998, I used to travel BA between the USA and the UK on a regular basis. I used to dread the 8 hour flight to San Francisco for two reasons. I am a smoker and I hate shit food.

Solution: nicotine patches, a good book and my own picnic.

Dijon Ham Salad Sandwiches

1-1/2 cups diced baked ham
1/2 cup sliced celery
2 green onions, sliced with tops
3 Tbs. mayonnaise
1 Tbs. Dijon-style mustard
1/2 tsp. dried savoury or 1/4 tsp. dried dill
Fresh baby spinach leaves, frilly leaf lettuce
1 tomato, thinly sliced (yellow, if available)
4 croissants, split


Combine finely diced baked ham, celery, green onions, mayo, mustard and herb. Toss well to coat ham. Layer spinach and lettuce leaves on bottom halves of croissants. Top with ham salad, tomato and top halves of croissants.

Anchor sandwiches for travelling by pushing in two picks for each one. Top picks with stuffed olives.

Lets have a ban of the eating of prepacked, by union workers, food in public places

Now that would be a 'GOOD ONE'

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

No 'Portadown News'

Portadown News to be decommissioned

It's been four and half years, 200 issues, a newspaper column, a TV sketch and a book - and that's as far as it goes.

The Mirror has offered me a new column, I haven't time to do that and this, so I'm calling it a day. Pure Derry, RandomShite and 'others in the media' will no doubt keep the flag flying and I hope plenty more join them. But I'm done. Thanks to the PDN's 10,000 online readers, its (paying) Mirror readers, anyone else who paid me, my mum, the dog and various people who didn't beat me up. And Shelley-Anne McAvoy, who made it all possible.


If your not sure about what I am on about, why not visit The Portadown News Archive

My mondays will never be the same :-(

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

coup-d'etat inquiry 2

Lords Seek Evidence on War Making Powers

This is submitted by Anne Palmer. Address removed Date forwarded 22.8.2005.

As the subject above affects each and every one of us, not only in this Kingdom, but also in other parts of the world, I feel it is my duty to respond. MP’s should be aware that some ordinary people have very little faith left in our Parliamentary system or Members of Parliament at this moment in time, and especially on this particular subject.

I can do no better than quote from the late Lord Williams of Mostyn on the Iraq war (18th March 2003) “The Government are facing their most serious test. Their majority is at risk. We have had the first cabinet resignation on an issue of principle. The main parties stand divided. The country and this Parliament each reflect the other. I think your Lordships will agree that as time has gone by the debate has become less bitter but not less grave. Why does it matter? It matters because the outcome of these issues which we are facing with such imminence will determine more than the fate of the present regime in Iraq and more than the future of the unfortunate people of Iraq. It will actually determine the way that Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century. It will affect the development of the United Nations. It will affect profoundly the relationship between Europe and the United States of America. It will affect the way the United States is minded to engage with the rest of the world and it will affect the internal dynamic of the European Union”.

First of all there is a need to set down what is meant by “The Royal Prerogative”. Contrary to popular belief, it is Her Majesty’s Government Ministers that sign treaties and makes decisions on going to war. Queen Anne in 1707 became the last Monarch to reject a Bill, while Queen Victoria became the last Monarch to give the Royal Assent in person.

Here I refer to the reply given to Lord Jenkins of Putney by The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne) on 1st December 1994, “The Royal Prerogative may be defined as those residual powers, rights, immunities and privileges of the Sovereign and of the Crown which continue to have their legal source in the common law and which the common law recognises as differing from those of private persons“ …”Examples of areas where the Royal Prerogative remains important include the conduct of foreign affairs, the defence of the realm and the regulation of the Civil Service.” “With the exception of powers personal to the Sovereign under the Royal Prerogative are, by convention, exercised by Ministers. The manner in which they are exercised will depend on the power in question. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the use of powers under the Royal Prerogative, as they are powers derived from statute”.

Having read the above reply, I interpret that statement as follows. Because the Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the common law which are recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights, such Royal Prerogative has the following restrictions;

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

The Bill of Rights 1688 is a declaration of Common law. It is also an operative statute and 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 also to “take into consequence anything to the detriment of the subjects liberties.

The Monarch is constitutionally bound to respect the Common Law which were recognised in Magna Carta and declared in the Bill of Rights and so bound by Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. The Royal Prerogatives of the Crown and Parliament were set by common law and cannot be lawfully infringed by them.

Each British Subject from the moment they are born is bound by an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this country, just as if that person has declared so out loud.

The Queen’s constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Sovereign’s hands. They include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers, to assent to legislation: to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances The Queen, as a constitutional Monarch accepts Ministerial advice about the use of these powers if it is available, whether she personally agrees with that advice or not. That constitutional position ensures that Ministers take responsibility for the use of the powers. (From Public Administration Select Committee “Taming the Prerogative”)”

From the very recent performances of the Executive, there is a great need to tame THEM, for the ordinary person sees the abuse of power and never more so than at this present time.

For those that may say we have no Constitution, I would point to the flurry of Private Member’s Bills, put forward by those that would repeal certain common laws or article from them. Most common laws are listed in the Civil Contingencies Bill.

We are told that European Union law is “supreme” and have read for ourselves that the European Court of Justice may overrule our Government. What would be the position of the United Kingdom Government if the EU attempted to impose its will on British citizens (Her majesty’s subjects) by force in the circumstances as described in Article 224 of the Treaty establishing the European Community Rome 25th March 1975? Especially “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”?

Under no circumstances should any Government of this Country transfer to others, even through “Treaties”, the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making or War Making Powers, or sending our Forces into battle. (I say this for I am mindful of the requirement by the European Union for complete Legal Personality in Clause 1-7 “The Union shall have Legal Personality” in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Even if we had derogation from this Clause, we have found, through experience, that the position would soon change, and we would never have the ability to control our own forces again.

There are different types of war, and after considerable thought, I believe a separation of these different types should at least be considered.

A) An unexpected attack from another State requires immediate action. This should be the only time when the Royal Prerogative should come into action similar to activation as at present. However, the Crown should also be presented with the same information, from the known source, and the Attorney Generals legal advice to the Prime Minister. Guidance should be forthcoming from the Crown or Heir to the Throne in Her Majesty’s absence. Parliament should be informed but because of the possible need for immediate action, debates in Parliament should be retrospective.

B) An incident simmering for a while, yet has not attacked our Country (such as the situation in Iraq) should be debated fully by both Houses before any action is taken. The legality issue must be clear and precise. The Crown must be well informed and particular note must be made available to Parliament. It should also be recognised that it is preferable to bring the people with Government.

C) A war or action involving more than one Country such as through the United Nations or Nato. As above. If Parliament is against action, this should be stated clearly to the Crown and the people, more so and especially if the Government is determined to go ahead.

D) War on Terrorism. War can only be against another State or Country; war on terrorism is dealt with under other legislation. If British nationals are involved in acts of Terrorism, treason laws must be used, and should have been used in the past. Where the Act of Treason 1795 was repealed in the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 (in error I understand-for the whole was repealed when it was only the death penalty that should have been replaced with life imprisonment?) this act should be re-instated. There is no such person as a good terrorist.

1) What alternatives are there to the use of royal prerogative powers in the deployment of armed forces?

There are no alternatives to the Royal Prerogative for it is embedded in our Constitution.
No one Minister should have the sole use of “The Royal Prerogative” any more. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (the Crown) should be advised/kept informed before announcement and she should give advice and consent or rejection. It is up to the Minister to put his/her case effectively to convince the Crown that the only course of action to take is sending Her Majesty’s troops into battle. The Ministers should only action the Royal Prerogative when sure they have the Country with them. She may take advice from her ministers, but that advice must be within the constraints of our Constitution. Members of Her Majesty’s Forces must be recruited as per Act of Settlement and their allegiance must be without doubt to the Crown and this Country.

2) Can models, drawn from the practice of other democratic States, provide useful comparisons?
Other “Democratic States” have looked to us, (this Country) and, had we been guided by our own role model, its rules and guidance from our unique history, we would have still been a ‘role model’ for other states. We must look to our own history once more, and the short answer is “look and learn” but do not copy others, just simply use the guidelines of those that have gone before and learn from our own history. It is this country that has won the battles aided and abetted by our true friends. Why draw from second best? Why would we want to draw from other states that have lost wars? If the Government have to start looking to other States for guidance, if they feel so undecided, insecure or unable to make decisions for themselves, they should resign forthwith. There is no place in Government for the weak and undecided. These are not leaders, they are ‘followers’.

3) Should Parliament have a role in the decision to deploy armed forces?
The decision to send our troops into war must be the most serious action any Government can contemplate. I accept that the more people that are involved in the decision-making, the more difficult the decision-making can become. We see this happening in the European Union at this time. It also happens in the United Nations. More people may die when there is delay in matters of this nature. Our forces are bound by their Oaths of Allegiance as are our Government and MP’s, and this is how it must remain for all time coming. I am mindful that Parliament ‘had its say’ on sending our troops into war with Iraq, and I believe that it is right for them to continue to ‘have a say’, and as they have already ‘set a precedent’ on the decision making on ‘going to war’ they believe this should continue’. I hope it does, although I see no point at all in asking Members of Parliament, if they have to be ‘whipped’ or pressured into voting a way that their own heart or conscience tells them otherwise.

I ask the Members of the Committee a question at this point, and I ask it with the greatest of respect, “In hindsight”, do you think that Members of Parliament gave the right answer as far as going to battle with Iraq was concerned? That leads me on to the next point which is, in order to make a decision, the person (people, MP’s) have to be given the true facts of the matter. The question then has to be, “where do the MP’s get their facts from”? Direct from the Attorney General? The Prime Minister? The Foreign Secretary? Our Security or Secret Service? This has to be the most important issue. How can we rely on ’facts’, if we (or Government Ministers) no longer ‘trust’ the source, from where the alleged ‘facts’ came?

We listened in horror when the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he could use them within 45 minutes and that it was a threat to us in the West. Those words spoken by the Prime Minister sent a chill down the spines of many of the people watching that programme.

Britain however, should always be ‘at the ready’ for battle. Unfortunately, we are allowing ourselves to be left “at grave risk” by following the European Defence Policy. It is like a re-run of the 1930’s. It is this Government’s duty to ensure that this Country is able to protect itself at all times. It is no use relying on other states. We see the Government ordering defence equipment that is incompatible with the US tried and tested systems. Will they be compatible with NATO? Will they be compatible with The United Nations?

4) If Parliament should have a role, what form should this take?
I do believe that Parliament should have a role, but as above. Parliament cannot have a “true” role however, if it does not have access to the full Legal Advice of the Attorney General, and the full advice from the security service that CAN come into the public’s domain. Many people are aware and accept the need for secrecy and confidentiality. However I am also aware that the countries of the EU know our financial position, armaments and manpower, most if not all the statistics of our military position and the availability of our Army, Navy and Air-force, they know also of our oil and gas reserves, economy, strength of our forces and equipment.
I therefore find it difficult to accept that certain secrets should be kept from the people of THIS country.

5) Is there a need for different approaches regarding deployment of UK armed forces:
Even in today’s world our approaches regarding deployment of UK armed forces have been tried and tested again and again. Our UK Armed forces do however, need the backing of the Members of Parliament, they need equipment that they can rely on, now, today, not in 2009 or 2012 or 2020. Shoes that melt? Sharing protective clothing? I despair at equipment being aliened to the European Union’s Future Rapid Reaction System (FRES) and ask is it compatible with NATO? The United Nations? Or the United States of America? (See the EU’s Green paper on Defence Procurement and it soon becomes obvious that we, as an independent and sovereign nation, are no longer compatible with the EU at all) We do indeed need different approaches; we need independence and complete authority (sovereignty) over our defence and its equipment for the true defence of our Realm.

a) required under existing international treaties;
No Treaty should be entered into or even contemplated that removes or restricts the movement of our Forces, equipment, or decision-making powers away from this Country. Full backing be given in particular to Nato and to the United Nations. However, I do see problems arising because the latter as with the EU is getting far too big to work, as it should. There has been the suggestion of the need (urgency) to “modernise” the United Nations. Experience has shown that “modernisation” in modern terms means “to make things easier for the ones with the loudest voices and the most votes”. (The ‘modernisation’ of the House of Lords as an example)
I am greatly concerned, in view of the European Union’s desire to have a European Union Army of which the Rapid Reaction Force is the beginning, that we are slipping into a situation that we cannot get out of. This present Government wants to be at the heart of “Europe” but the next Prime Minister, or the people may not want to be. I refer to “Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation 1, KB 733). I refer to the words in “Aspects of the EU’s Constitutional Treaty dated 23rd March page 19, “However, if Parliament were to pass legislation which was clearly expressed to be inconsistent with EU laws, it would amount to a constitutional and legal revolution for any court in the UK to assert that the principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors no longer applied, and we consider it inconceivable that any court in the UK would in the foreseeable circumstances, behave that way”. The Committee’s conclusion believed that the constitutional treaty would maintain the existing situation; I maintain emphatically that it would not. I place here in this consultation paper, that no one should take risks with this great country of ours in guessing whose interpretation is right.

On page 7 of the Quarter 4 Report to HM Treasury, as at 31st March 04, and things have moved on at a pace since then, ”an EU operation with recourse to NATO assets under Berlin Plus arrangements, or an autonomous EU operation.

The decision in sending our troops to war is constitutionally bound and has to abide by the common laws of this country, and it must remain our Government and Parliament’s decision including and embracing the Crown. We cannot put the defence of our Country at risk. We cannot, or should not put too much trust in other countries, and we must be accountable and responsible for ourselves as a sovereign independent Country. Some friends are false friends; we lose them when business profit gets in the way, when contracts with other bodies take preference to friendship. Warnings however, go unheeded and caution is thrown to the wind and history will then repeat itself over and over again. Nation States are dead, say it loud and long enough and some might even believe it. Nation States can work together, they do not have to give up sovereignty over national laws, economy, defence, airspace, ports, fishing, sea, agriculture, trade etc at all. To meld into a one State of Europe would be a disaster for this Country and the people.

b) Taken in pursuance of UN Security Council authorisation;
Full backing should be authorised by the United Nations Security Council before committing our troops into battle, and especially when attacking a sovereign nation state that has not attacked our (or any other) country. There should be no question as to the legality of the action to be taken. To place our troops, Officers, Generals and Commanders under the fear of being charged under International Criminal Court or, as we have incorporated the ICC’s rules into our Law, expect our Forces to go into battle and fear, that on their return they may find that they could be charged under criminal law for alleged criminal actions by the service personnel under them. This to me, places them in an impossible position, it may also affect their decision making at a critical time on the ‘war scene’ which might even result in losing a battle or the un-necessary deaths of men under their command.

c) As part of UN peace-keeping action;
I see no reason to change our role in the United Nations as regards part of the UN Peace keeping action or particularly our role in UN Security Council. No one must speak “for” us, we must speak for ourselves. Should our Government be inclined to give up its role on the Security Council (particularly as our PM has said that he would not) I would see it as a betrayal of trust. I am aware that he will have a role this year in any case as (Temporary) President of European Union.

d) Placed under the operational control of the UN or a third State?
This question intrigues me. Do you mean the coming third State of the European Union? NATO is a “body” of different States as is the United Nations. When one mission is finished our troops return home and back under the control of our Army Commanders, our Navy Commanders etc. Our army is the “British” Army made up of four elements in what used to be four Countries and four nations, but now bound together by treaties and have been since 1707. The position has not changed from that time until 1997 and devolution. The European Union continues (in spite of the rejection of the EU Constitution) to work its way through to becoming a state and it wants its own Army, but we know from the United Kingdom’s union, that a country without an army is no longer a free country. It can no longer defend itself. Our Troops should only be used in those already tested organisations. We cannot keep spreading them around as we are doing at the moment.
We do not (to the best of my knowledge) hire out our Army to “third states”. They are not mercenaries. Their loyalty is to our Country only.

6) Should the Government be required, or expected, to explain the legal justification for any decision to deploy UK armed forces to use force outside the UK, including providing the evidence upon which the legal justification is based?

Without doubt, every time. WE are not yet under a dictatorship. If there is no evidence there is no legal base for committing our forces. It is far better to give that evidence openly rather than having it “leaked” out, as in today’s world, as seems to happen. I also believe (rightly or wrongly) that it is only through lack of trust in the government of the day, that evidence is leaked. I also realise that certain evidence can be deliberately leaked to the government’s advantage as well as against. There are certain rules of engagement that have to be followed before any “attack” on another sovereign Country. All the requirements thus laid down should be followed.

7) Should the courts have jurisdiction to rule upon the decision to use force and/or the legality of the manner in which force is used. If so, should that jurisdiction be limited by considerations of justiciability of any of the issues involved?

As the Attorney General is the most important senior person to give the legal basis, or his interpretation of the required legal base, I doubt very much that it would be deemed ‘correct’ for the Courts to have jurisdiction to rule upon or over the decision to use force. However, I have to question, which “Courts” are you suggesting? Our British Courts, the European Union Court of Justice? The European Court of Human Rights or the International Courts?

It is the unique separation of powers that makes our Country great and that separation of powers must be protected at all costs. Government (Parliament consisting of both Houses) make the laws. The Courts apply (interpret) the laws.

The question is however, which “Rule of Law” would the judges, whose oath of allegiance is to the Crown and this Country, look to? Will it be to this Country’s Constitution or to the European Treaties this country has entered into?

Many people now believe that entry into the European Community was, right from the beginning, illegal/unlawful, particularly as they feel they were, (to put it politely) also deliberately misled during the only referendum on the European Community they have ever had. Anything that prevents the people from enjoying their rights as laid down in Magna Carta and Bill of Rights is illegal/unlawful.

Would the proposed “Supreme Court” have jurisdiction? Even that sadly would/could be overruled by the European Court of Justice
I have mentioned the Oath of Allegiance more than once in this report because it is important and there appears to be a sense that MP’s have lost sight of that solemn oath, some openly dislike saying that oath. The people have a duty to protect the Crown, their laws that the Monarch solemnly declared in Her Coronation Oath. It is time that the Crown was brought closer to the people. It is time that she is seen to take part more often. The Crown is the glue that holds this country together. They are Her Majesty’s forces that governments of the day send here there and everywhere.

Having more or less completed this paper, I have just come across others that spell out just how much this Government want these powers. What price loyalty? What price the RESPECT they wanted. I have decided therefore to include one more paragraph.

I have watched over recent years the humiliation metered out to our Queen, even when debating ID cards the message went out that Her Majesty would not need to have fingerprints, etc taken etc other Members of the Royal Family would have to. This would mean that the next KING’s intimate details could be flashed round the world for anyone to read. We have watched while the Royal Yacht was removed, etc. I have read the words that they (Royals) have managed through birth to be where they are and is this right in a democratic society? Do you really think we have a “democratic” society? In this politically correct world where the people are beginning to be afraid of saying the ‘wrong thing’ for fear of being prosecuted is a democratic society? Where English people that declare themselves so, are ridiculed, denigrated as Little Englanders, yet Scots, Welsh and Irish can rejoice at being so, is that democratic? Why do I want to include the Queen more? Or to ensure Parliament too has a role? The answer is because I have lost trust in this Government. The Removal of the Royal Prerogative for signing Treaties, sending our troops into battle, bringing what it contained ALL under the control of Government? And what will the Government do with that power? The Prime Minister’s signature is already on the EU Constitution. That signature signalled that he is ready to hand the legal authority for all those duties that are under the Royal Prerogative, to the European Union, Article 1-7 (1-6) “The Union shall have legal authority”. Will the Committee endorse the proposals? Will both Houses? I hope the Committee understand that the people will not have any loyalty to the European Union and they never will have.

My final type of war, not placed above or mentioned as yet, not even thought about until I had completed this paper, is of course, Civil War.

By e-mail to constitution@parliament.uk And a written paper to
The Clerk to the Constitution Committee, House of Lords, London, SW1A OPW

Saturday, August 20, 2005

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

Milking it for what its worth

The Tour of Britain is the name given to a cycle race, conducted over several stages, in which participants race from place to place across parts of Great Britain. The latest version, a professional stage race, was first run in 2004, but the history of the event dates back to 1951.

Tour of Britain

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

The EU and One Language - Euro-English?

This news was just received via EU Pundit

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem
of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst plas.

If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl


Friday, August 19, 2005

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


Wednesday, August 17, 2005

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

Mad Blogs and Englishmen

It seems such a shame that when the English claim the earth
That they give rise to such hilarity and mirth -

But mad Blogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun
(sort of Noel Coward)

Click on logo and learn

"The words and promises you bring are fair enough, but because they are new to us and doubtful, I cannot consent to accept them and forsake those beliefs which I and the whole English race have held so long."
(King Ethelbert to St Augustine - AD 597)


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

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

"No" in 520 Languages

When a simple "NO" Na, Non, Nee, Nein, Nej, Ne, Nei, Oxi, Não, Ei, Ní hea, Ále, Naamik or even nyet, is not quite enough,

Here is a useful resource when communicating with the European Union

"No" in over 520 languages

Does anyone know Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel e-mail address?


Monday, August 15, 2005

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

Finding a Space for Parking Policy

The House of Commons Transport Committee PRESS NOTICE (read here) Finding a Space for Parking Policy, was issued on the 9 August. It states that “Concerns have been raised over the standard of enforcement activity undertaken by some councils and contractors”

In light of these developments, the Transport Committee has decided to inquire into the current effectiveness of parking provision and enforcement policy. In particular, the Committee wishes to examine:

• Are local authorities carrying out parking control reasonably, fairly and accountably?

• What action would raise the standard of parking enforcement activity? Is Statutory Guidance needed to promote consistency?

• Is the appeals process fair and effective? How could it be improved?

• How can public understanding and acceptance of the need for parking policy be achieved?

Interested parties are invited to submit written memoranda to the Committee before Monday 3 October 2005.

Well Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, despite the fact that the hyper link provided on the press notice does not work, here is my memoranda for the committee and to people who are citizens of member states of the EU.

If you receive a fixed penalty notice for alleged illegal parking in England or Wales, in theory, under COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Which entered into force on March 22nd, 2005. You can be pursued for that penalty, when you return to your home State.

I would like to inform you, that under English Law you are not obliged to pay a fixed penalty, unless you have been convicted by a court of law. This fundamental freedom is established in the Bill of Rights 1689, where it states: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

Under section 11 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998, A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; The 1689 Bill of Rights has not been repealed.

Although, Article 1 (iii) of 2005/214/JHA states: an authority of the issuing State other than a court in respect of acts which are punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being infringements of the rules of law, provided that the person concerned has had an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters;

I would like to inform you, that the National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights

The Court of Justice has recently confirmed its previous caselaw according to which an arbitration panel is not a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC. Consequently, the ECJ has no jurisdiction to answer a question referred to it by such a panel.

As a foot note, I see Niel Herron has got The City of Sunderland on the run again.


Saturday, August 13, 2005

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

coup-d'etat Inquiry

Lords seek evidence on war making powers

The Lords Constitutional Committee is to conduct an inquiry on "The use of the royal prerogative power by Government to deploy the UK’s armed forces". The Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Lord Holmes, said:

“This has been one of the most important constitutional issues of the past few years, on which feelings run understandably high. It is important to conduct a thorough inquiry to identify how the requirements of democracy and national emergency can best be reconciled.”

click here for Call for Evidence: War Making Powers.

Ok Lord Holmes, for what it is worth, the following is my two penny submission

The Clerk to the Constitution Committee,
House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

Lords Constitution Committee
Call for Evidence: War Making Powers
11 August 2005

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."

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".

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 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". 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.

Various defence reviews have resulted in the Government issuing mission statements 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 a 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 recent cinema advert for the RAF depicts a foreign "peace keeping" operation and has the slogan "Their country needs you".

This is a equivalent to a coup-d'etat.

Supplemental information submitted 1st of Sept 2005 Looming Constitutional Crisis


Tuesday, August 09, 2005

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

Royal Pirates

Well, well, well. The Royal Navy didn't rescue the Russian submariners after all.

It was all down to a Cumbrian based company James Fisher Rumic The Ministry of Defence need a good poking for taking all the credit.

The employees of James Fisher Rumic should be awarded the Order of St. Vladimir

Hat tip Bishophill


Monday, August 08, 2005

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

Birds of Paradise

Message to British'...... Muslims', Pakistani's, Somali's, Asian, African, Irish, al-Qaeda or British whatever you wish to call yourself.

I call upon you to travel to countries where 'Bird Flue' is infectious. Get yourself infected and travel back to the UK. Become a Suicide Bird Flue Carrier. The virgins of paradise await you.

Bird flu 'as serious a threat as terrorism' Daily Mail

Note to Big Ears, Do you think we are stupid. This is all COBRA’s. Political 'Hoody" and all "hiss"

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

Norway No Way

Stable opposition to Norwegian EU membership

The opposition to Norwegian EU membership remains stable, with 49.6 per cent against, down 1.9 points from June. 36.3 per cent are in favour, up 0.3 points.

The Norway Post

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

Treason..Goose and Gander

It is AN OFFENCE at Common Law ("Misprision of Treason" - see Halsbury's Statutes, 4th Edition, Vol. 11, p. 818) for any person who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he can to a Justice of the Peace.

So here goes

I am supplying you with the following information about the treason and misconduct in a public office that I believe has undoubtedly been committed by Peter Benjamin Mandelson .

(1) Perjury of the Oath of Allegiance;
Took an engagement in the nature of an oath; Intending to bind the accused; To commit treason.

(2) Treason Felony, seeking to divest the Queen of her dominion, since he will be seeking to impose laws made by foreigners within her dominion;

(3) and Treason Proper or High Treason, adhering to the Queen's enemies within or without the Realm.'

In November of 2004 Pursuant to Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community, Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead not being a person compelled to do so, took an engagement in the nature of an oath intending to bind the said accused to commit an offence namely treason. He freely gave a solemn Oath before the Court of Justice of the European Union "To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties."

This being treason and misconduct in a public office in direct contradiction to the Oaths he swore as a Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and that, which he swore as a member of Her Majesties Privy Council.

Notice of Treason

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

Want to blow a whistle

I recently came across this site whilst searching the net Spin Watch. Maybe one or two of my readers may find this of interest :-)

How should whistleblowers get in touch?

Public knowledge about and effective action against spin can only occur with the help of whistleblowers inside PR agencies, corporations and government.

If you have inside knowledge about wrongdoing in a PR or lobbying agency, a corporation or government office, we would love to hear from you.


If you have knowledge or documentation please get in touch. If you have really sensitive information - remember - do not use the telephone, fax or email system of your employer. If you have information in electronic form (emails, word or pdf documents, MP3 files etc) you can upload it to our site by clicking on the downloads link in the top bar, then selecting '. 'Add Download'.

Get in touch anonymously if you must, but please do get in touch and we will try to help get your story out.

You can email them at whistleblower@spinwatch.org

You can phone them on 07790 823921

Good luck


Saturday, August 06, 2005

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

Cook, Kelly'ied

Robin Cook, Kelly'ied. Odds 'staked' against him......'ben'. Check the body for Ricin.

'Ricin the state purgative' ask your pharmacist

The man was just about to publish his memoirs

No doubt, to be withdrawn out of respect.


Thursday, August 04, 2005

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

France Finances Terrorisim

As reported in News 24 France paid millions of dollars to Iraqi insurgents. In June the French government had paid $6m to free Liberation newspaper correspondent Florence Aubenas and her Iraqi interpreter.

As Britain is a net contributor to the European Union and France a major recipient, it makes one think that the British tax payer, is actually contributing to the killing of our own troops in Iraq.

Two minuets silence anyone?


Wednesday, August 03, 2005

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

give allegiance or leave

"If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out,"

Mr Howarth, Conservative MP said. Asked what if these people were born in Britain, he replied:

"Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

Scotsman 3-8-05

Mr Howarth, I agree, and I sincerely hope that this request of yours extends to all those who have perpetrated treacherous actions to achieve ever deeper European integration.

Let me remind you of the Privy Council Oath of Allegiance.

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God.


Tuesday, August 02, 2005

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

Straight, Banana's! (feel-look-tilt)

According to the European Central Bank homepage. Euro banknotes incorporate state-of-the-art security features. This makes them very difficult to forge. Counterfeits can be quickly and easily spotted. No technical devices are required. Always check more than one feature (using the feel-look-tilt method). If you are not sure about the authenticity of a banknote, compare it with one you know is genuine.

Ok lets have a "feel", yep it feels good, they look nice too.. but.. "tilt"


Document Security Systems. said in a lawsuit filed Monday in Luxembourg that all 30 billion euro bank notes in circulation infringe on a patent it acquired this year that was issued by the The European Patent Office in 1999. It is seeking unspecified royalties from the European Central Bank based in Frankfurt, Germany.

The The European Patent Office issued a patent to the estate of the late Ralph Wicker, whose family business devised ways to protect against counterfeiting of currencies. Wicker died in 1997, and all his patents were bought out by Rochester-based Document Security Systems earlier this year.

"As a champion of pan European innovation protection, the European patent office knows it has a key part to play in implementing the Lisbon Strategy"

So writes Alain Pomidou (president) in his forward to the 2004 EPO anual report. He also writes

"The European Patent Office has taken on the task of promoting this process with its expertise and know-how, working in close co-operation with the EU institutions".

Arse and Elbow eh


Monday, August 01, 2005

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

Ireland, The 'Ruby' isle

Ireland has been know as the Emerald isle, because of the lushness of its pasture due to its maritime climate and the constant deluge of rain.

But over the past year, there has been a new deluge. According to u.tv news More than 100,000 workers have arrived in Ireland from the ten new EU states since they joined the union last year.

The department of social and family affairs says it has handed out just under 105,000 PPS numbers to ex Communist workers from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and other accession countries.

Ireland is one of the only EU states that is not restricting the influx of immigrant workers.

According to figures from the
Central Statistics Office, Ireland will need 50,000 immigrant workers to come here each year to sustain economic growth.

As the birth rate of the indigenous population was only 61,684 in 2004. It occurs to me, they are more in need of pastoral care, if they wish the pasture to remain green.

Wey hey, what ever happened to the celtic tiger? Turned into The Sheoques perhaps!

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

could not be resuscitated

Wim Duisenberg, the former European Central Bank chief who helped create the euro currency, was found dead Sunday

Duisenberg was the first head of the ECB, serving from 1998 to 2003. Having shepherded the euro through its introduction in 1999, he became known as the father of the European common currency.

Duisenberg had drowned after an unspecified cardiac problem. He was found unconscious in the swimming pool at his home in the town of Faucon and could not be resuscitated.

Listed on BlogShares