WHO Poll
Q: 2017/18 Brighton (h)
a. If e can stop being the masters of our own downfall we should take 3 points, win
73%
  
b. We seem too flaky at the moment and don't expect an easy game, draw
9%
  
c. We can't put teams away and have a soft underbelly, lose
11%
  
d. Did you know that Eurovision 1974 was held in Brighton and launched ABBA onto the world stage with Waterloo
5%
  
e. I love Friday Night Football, it gives me the chance to show everyone down the local just how big a West Ham nut I am, hat, scarf, shirt, you name it I'll be wearing it
3%
  



riosleftsock 9:36 Mon Aug 28
Free Speech vs Hate Crime
Free Speech, by Godfrey Bloom
Going Postal, Godfrey Bloom
It is a national disgrace that the principles of English Law are no longer taught in our schools. They are the template for much of the free world and our national heritage is dependent upon them. Men and women have died for them over the centuries; they are not our government’s to give away. Each generation of them have but their stewardship. Let us review them in context for a moment. First came the principle of natural justice, embodied in a local legal protocol, the conception of the Anglo Saxons. This was the embryo of common law, a concept so popular it was adopted even by the Normans. The advantage to the State being it is not just fair, but seen to be fair. Such adjudication was based on precedent, it gave the law & interpretation of it to not just one small group of men but drew on the wisdom of generations that had gone before. An awesome depth of knowledge, experience and wisdom. English law therefore is infinitely superior to Corpus Juris (or Napoleonic Code).

English Law tells us that which we may not do, not that which we may. This historically gives us a people and commerce friendly basis for contract, as well as a code for criminal jurisdiction hence its success globally. It underpins that important ideal; government by consent.

The pillars of English Law are the presumption of innocence, trial by one’s peers & Habeas Corpus. There are others but these are the mainstay along with vital safeguards on property rights. As a libertarian I would argue up until just fifty years ago the last thousand years have proved these concepts satisfactory to men of goodwill living in harmony with their fellow countrymen. The law in England has historically been the freeman’s shield against the tyrant, no King, despot or crazed usurper is above the law, & rightly so. There have been lapses over the years, how could there not have been? War is always a destroyer of truth & law as is avarice & insanity in a ruler, but in the main the system has worked well.

What has gone wrong? Why has the threat to English Law come about?

Any political or legal system that is essentially built on freedom of the individual is constantly under threat. Constant vigilance is essential. In order for the State, which is inherently hostile to the freedom of the individual is to remove the understanding of the rights of the citizen. The State provides the education for 93% of the population under a strict syllabus. The principles of English Law are remarkable by their absence. If you want to steal something what better for the perfect crime if the victim did not even know they were in possession of it.

Ask any State sixth former or indeed teacher to give you the principles of English Law. Maybe one in a thousand would give you a coherent answer.


English Law Part One, part two and later today part three will be available on GB's website

The law was the shield for the citizen, the law has become a stick with which the State now beats its people. The advent of the enabling act is as bad as war for the destruction of the system. The enabling act hands unlimited power to the bureaucrat. There is no judgement by peers, court of appeal or judicial precedent. The faceless quangocrat is now our lord & master. The best you can hope for is a judicial review, all that decides is if the bureaucrat followed the rules he wrote.
Local government no longer holds the reins of power, planning decisions go to a little man in Bristol to make a final decision. The Englishman’s home is no longer his castle. The man on that Clapham omnibus now deems most judgements to be unfair. Senior judges are political appointees, often members of secret societies (Common Purpose) pursuing political ideals. The Crown Prosecution Service is politically hijacked; the Home Office is not fit for purpose.

Now we have the ultimate humiliation, mockery is to become a political offence. This means satire is dead. Satire is out of fashion now but in the 50s & 60s it was an important anti-establishment tool. No wonder the State hates the concept of humour as a political weapon lampooning their own greed & corruption. Paradoxically it is a return to blasphemy law. The irrepressible Dave Allen of yesteryear would be banned along with Sir David Frost & Peter Cook.

We have no less than a ban on British humour, all under a ‘conservative’ government. Youngsters should weep. Me? I’ve seen the best of it now but I weep for young people.

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Mad Dog 10:50 Mon Aug 28
Re: Free Speech vs Hate Crime
Didn't read the full post. However I know Rowan Atkinson is on some crusade at the moment due to piss taking effectively being banned.

Also Mark hammil off of star wars is trying to buy Twitter or something like that in order to get trump banned. I don't like trump (nor Twitter) and don't think a president should be posting. But surely that is attempting deny free speech. I agree with your views so I don't want you to say them.


Unless you ate actively inciting hatred and violence, have at it.

One of the things I like on here is you can call anyone a cunt. Something you don't get on numb or other websites (even if the bitching it is repetitive on here)

Megatron 10:36 Mon Aug 28
Re: Free Speech vs Hate Crime
I didn't read any of that you boring, sheeny wazzock.





Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: