We have a Bill of Rights 1688/9. Common Law since Alfred the Great. Justice is not a fashion statement, it is an emerging shield for us all.
— Godfrey Bloom (@goddersbloom) May 11, 2015
@goddersbloom An important primer to watch: http://t.co/ng788J0FaG
— eddie coke (@eddiecoke) May 11, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom If we were a 1-party state, its constitution would really be the party constitution protecting its members' rights.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom There is nothing special about the idea of putting promises down in writing hoping it will be a binding contract.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Many constitutionalists do not understand that our politicians' rights need to be protected.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Because politicians are so despised, nobody cares that they have no right to free speech.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Those who admire Enoch Powell should reflect on what happened to him for telling what he thought to be the truth.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Those who think politicians should speak the truth more should reflect on what happened to Keith Joseph in 1974.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph#1974
“A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world.... Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness…. They are producing problem children…. The balance of our human stock, is threatened….”
The response was outrage that despite his repeated apologies sharply undercut Joseph's campaign to replace Heath as party leader. The speech was largely written by Alfred Sherman but the most controversial sentence was inserted by Joseph himself.
It has now 41 years since a male politician dared to criticise Slut Single Mothers who are bad mothers to their bastard offspring. Expecting this lot to start doing it now would be like expecting a drug-addict who only cares about his next fix to call the cops on his drug-dealer. Ain't gonna happen. Only Secular Koranism is strong enough to cleanse this country of so many decades of sluttery, bastardy and degeneracy as well as five generations of feckless fuckers.
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Talking about limiting the power of the monarch is now irrelevant as talking about the divine right to rule.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom If politicians fear to express what they believe to be the truth then they are not fit for purpose.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The point I am making about the free speech of MPs can be found at http://t.co/e5TDEO9iul
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
If members of the Conservative Party have no rights and can have their membership cancelled at the absolute discretion of the Secretary of the Board of the Conservative Party, then this must also mean that the Prime Minister himself is vulnerable to being expelled from the Conservative Party without ceremony.
Claire Khaw's membership of the Conservative Party cancelled
The Conservative Party has no principles and its members have no rights
The Conservative Party pretends it has principles
Why the Conservative Party is a public body whose administrative decisions should be subject to judicial review
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A political establishment that has no principles or morals is no different to a psychopath.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A psychopath is a person who has no conscience and no moral principles and does not care if he hurts people.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom It used to be the case that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the conscience of the monarch or government.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E was created precisely to serve the monarch as a Creature of the State.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E is now a creature of the PC Liberal State and the PC Liberal State believes in gay marriage.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The C of E is stuffed to its rafters with feminists, Reds, LGBTs n those who don't give a damn about Xtian teaching
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom C of E is stuffed to its rafters with parasites living off it whose raison d'etre is to subvert Biblical teaching.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom A constitution is basically a rule book n the best rule book is short, clear and IN ONE BOOK not all over the place
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The old debate was about preventing monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right from abusing their power.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The current debate ought to be about drafting a constitution that would bring about good government.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The best constitution is a rule book that is clear, short n in one book whose words and meaning are not in dispute.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Liberty is what we ought to have after all the necessary laws are in place. What are the necessary laws?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Talking about "repealing the rule of law" is nonsensical. The rule of law is just means following the law.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The debate on Legal Positivism and Natural Law should be revived now that Islamists are proposing a theocracy.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate
What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom It would be helpful to have the principles of good government articulated and explained, would it not?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Is good government synonymous with democracy? Only if most voters are wise but they are patently fools and knaves.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom Is good government synonymous with the majority view of MPs? But they too are mostly fools and knaves.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The speaker is not classically educated or he would know Ancient Rome and Greece would elect tyrants and dictators.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character, bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator
The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency.
There is much talk of a Caliphate, which I believe means Regent of God. It is basically a dictator who is bound by Koranic principles. Better government by a rightly-guided Caliph, I would have thought, than government by a psychopathic political establishment suffering from dementia not bound by any principles, not even their own, which they will not or cannot state. When you start breaking your own rules and lying about what they were and why you break them, I think it is time you called it a day.
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom How do we know when we have good government? When politicians are not widely held in hatred, ridicule and contempt.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom You can have any kind of rule in your rule book but a rule is only as good as its interpreter and enforcer.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom EC of Human Rights affirms freedom of belief but in EU countries Holocaust Denial is an imprisonable offence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The Equality Act 2010 is clearly Orwellian thought-crime legislation but libertarians pretend not to notice.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
@eddiecoke @goddersbloom The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but we are all suffering from narcolepsy, it seems.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 12, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment