Talk:British Constitution Group

"Such as the notion that statute law is contractually and can be declined and strawman theory." What do this meant to being is? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've altered that sentance slightly and added a link to make it easier to understand. Let me know if it's still not clear Ydam (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like it needs an adjective after "contractually." Totnesmartin (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you mean. Thats supposed to be the adjective contractual not the adverb. Ydam (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikirationalists can sometime be as woo as the loonies they seek to debunk
Whatever misgivings one may have in thinking that the British Constitution Group is just wacky and regardless of the academic arguments postulating for or against straw man theory and the like there is indeed a number of anomalous facts that more than just suggest that presumptuous elites have been usurping power from a constitution that must exist because even parliamentarians fall back on it in support of their arguments every week. There’s a danger of being rational to a fault, egocentric self regard can cause this. Some of the so called rational debunking that goes on here is as ‘woo’ and ‘pseudolegal’ as the real loonies assertions.

An Act of Parliament is Statute Law. Common Law and Statute Law are entirely different. Bizarrely many establishment orientated institutions including allegedly learned ones associated with academia, including much of the legal academia too, actually note the fact but make arbitrary, contradictory and preposterous assertions such as "Whilst Common Law still exists, in practice law is increasingly a matter of Statute". Common Law is a living and evolving entity based on Constitutional Declarations and case law as decided by juries, not judges but juries, Juries have been well described as 'Little Parliaments' Its this type of case law that allows archaic law to be redefined. Statute Law cannot undo anything in Common Law. Acts of Parliament that are not challenged by Common Law have the force of law but are not 'law 'per se. It's the People who are the ultimate arbiters of the Law; through their constitutional contracts with the Crown and not by the right of parliament. The biggest lie perpetrated upon us is that Parliament is Sovereign; this is simply not supported by anything other than their own arbitrary assertion. It's the People who are Sovereign. The astonishing thing is that all this is so easily proven.

The most obvious examples of constitutional abuse, which technically and in fact, are treason, are the governments gerrymandering of the judiciary and the courts. Every time anyone is thrown into prison by an administrative hearing, which includes all county courts, family courts, most admiralty courts, even up to high court level and any civil matter being tried by a magistrates court, such an act of imprisonment is unlawful and unconstitutional. It is unequivocal law that prohibits imprisonment without trial at law. Those hearings are not courts of law, they are Unlawful Administrative Hearings, ironically, as defined by Law. No person can be imprisoned without the option of a jury. This is also unequivocal. Such abuses are a daily event in Britain. The ‘Star Chamber’ is also unlawful; it describes a court heard in secret without public oversight. The government is desperate to create secret courts and remove the right to a jury for an ever increasing range of cases.

Further abuses of our constitutional rights include the gerrymandering of the House of Lords which parliament has absolutely no right to do whatsoever. The only authority that they rely on to deny the supremacy of Constitutional Law are their own unlawful assertions. Some may not like the Lords because they are deemed to be undemocratic but constitutionally the Lords power is not political but advisory with just one prerogative of power, which is to prevent the Commons from enacting unlawful statutes, what the hell is wrong with that!? The removal of the Law Lords to a separate Supreme Court is an attempt to pervert that constitutional role and is in effect and fact, treason. The list goes on but I’ll leave you with one other. As a consequece of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 an entrenched Constitutional Instrument was created called the Declaration of Rights which was ratified as a statute called the Bill of Rights. No part of the statute has ever been repealed because the higher law Declaration is a Constitutional Common Law instrument beyond the powers of Parliament to alter. If Parliament ever tried to do so their fiction would be revealed. Amongst several other profound clauses it is clear from that Declaration it is unlawful and unconstitutional for any parliament to cede ANY sovereignty to a foreign power.


 * With all due respect you are doing nothing but repeating the failed pseudo-legal woo that forms the basis of the misguided nonsense and groundless twaddle on which the FMOTL 'movement' is based.


 * If I might take just one example you state "Common Law is a living and evolving entity based on Constitutional Declarations and case law as decided by juries, not judges but juries". This is completely false. No... It's worse than that it's the exact opposite of the truth.


 * Common-law includes the precedents set by courts but that refers to the decisions of 'the court', that is to say the judge(s) hearing the case not the decisions of the jury who determine only the facts of a case.


 * Let's create a fictional scenario and imagine that I am up before the beak for hitting Roger Hayes around the head with a fresh halibut on a Wednesday. I admit hitting Mr Hayes with said halibut but base my defence on a claim that The Hitting People With Fish Act 2013 doesn't apply on a Wednesday. Now then... The Judge is going to instruct the jury that my defence has no basis in law and The Hitting People With Fish Act 2013 applies on all seven days of the week.


 * In the end the jury decides to acquit me in the face of all the evidence and the court's (the judge's) ruling on the basis that although my defence is legally untenable they think hitting Mr Hayes around the head with a halibut is a rather good idea.


 * This imaginary case sets a precedent that The Hitting People With Fish Act 2013 applies on Wednesdays. The fact that I have been acquitted by a perverse verdict has absolutely no effect outside of this specific case and does not set any sort of precedent.


 * Judges determine the law and juries determine the facts. It is the determination of the law which sets legal precedent and influences common law not the determinations of juries in particular cases. If there were to be a run of cases where juries refuse to convict people even when they are as guilty as hell on the basis that they believe the law to be wrong then that will eventually have an effect and the law may well be repealed, amended or quietly ignored but that would be a matter of practicality not because the juries have established any sort of binding precedent.

Longdog (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay getting back to this conversation; I only get here occasionally. Longdog, you've made a point about the nature of juries that is based on judicial procedures as they have become regularized in recent times. Case Law is not in itself the element that has constitutional supremacy, a judge may only define a case according to Law, however the judge cannot make Law. If a judge updates an interpretation of Law within the context of a particular issue he is merely stating what the Law is and has always been, he’s not determining anything new. I am not now nor ever have been a sycophantic devotee of any organisation, half baked or otherwise, however the growing manifestation of such outfits across the Common Law domains is a reflection on a growing awareness that we are being unlawfully governed, that we do indeed have a written constitution (You can read the constitutional instruments in all their written glory in the Palace of Westminster Library). The whole purpose of a constitution is that it’s beyond the tinkering of anyone, no matter how grand they may be. No statute has the power to alter a superior Constitutional Law. Only a Constitutional Instrument can do that. To date we got all of ours through actual or the threat of violent revolution (See Magna carta and the Declaration of Rights). Once we allow such tinkering we give up our constitutional rights, obligations and protections. If any class of elites can just make law up as a mere expedience of circumstances, what is there to prevent any or the most onerous tyranny to follow?

Now to get back to the issue of Common Law and juries. The only entity that can effectively create law through the process of “it being just in all of the circumstances” is the eyebrow raising rarity of a Jury of the Queen’s Bench, which is the only Common Law court at that level. Although the nomclemature of ‘Grand Jury’ was discontinued in the 19th century under an Act of Parliament, that like so many was a brazen denial of constitutional supremacy, relying upon the ignorant acquiescence of the population, such a jury does in fact have the authority of a Grand Jury for most practical purposes. Whether or not one agrees with the forgoing, Longdog’s repudiation of my contribution above has narrowed itself solely to the issue of juries. He has not commented on the other, more important, issues I wrote of concerning our constitution and its everyday abuse by the judiciary and parliament. Roger Hays and his group, regardless of any perceived looniness inherent with them, have been able to point out quite correctly the essential issue. There’s nothing woo about that particular issue at all. It may well be that the BCG and Roger Hates have shot themselves in the foot by being silly in other things but we should not allow that to misdirect us from the truth because it’s not their truth, it’s ours, the people of Britain and indeed all of the Queens realms plus that other Common Law domain, the USA. Ultimately the issue is the Achilles heel of an increasingly authoritarian and discredited political cadre who may be hoisted upon their own petard. They claim to represent law and order when in fact the opposite is true and more and more of us now know it.


 * Your perception of the nature of constitutional law is interesting but not realistic. The constitution of any country whether written or unwritten is important but it is not inviolate or immune to change. Like all law... Common, statute or otherwise, it is man made and what is made by man can be changed by man. You only have to look to the US and its many constitutional amendments to see that.


 * If we take the UK as an example we could somewhat simplistically say that to pass a law according to the constitution it needs to be approved by the House of Commons, The House of Lords and then given royal assent by the monarch but that is, as I say, simplistic. In reality The House of Commons can force legislation through without the Lords by using The Parliament Act and "constitutionally" the monarch has to give their assent. The need for royal assent is part of the "constitution" but parliament can change that by the simple expedient of abolishing the monarchy. Just because we are a constitutional monarchy in 2015 that doesn't mean we will always be.


 * The constitution has changed many times in the past and will no doubt change many times again. Longdog (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok Longdog, show us the examples of when and where the Constitution has changed. You seem too keen to make statements that cannot be backed up reference or evidence. Also, show us what the current Constitution is - you seem to know sooooo much about it - and yet so little.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.132.220.93 / talk / contribs


 * Which specific bits of the constitution do you want to talk about? The principle of one man and one WOMAN, one vote which has evolved over the last couple of centuries? The Act of Union? The adoption of The European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law? The various changes to the laws of royal accession over the centuries? Home rule for Eire? The replacement of The House of Lords with The Supreme Court as the highest court in the land? The changes to the structure of The House of Lords? Unless you define what 'The Constitution' actually is it's hard to say what is and what isn't constitutional law.


 * The House of Commons has pretty much absolute power to change any law. It doesn't need the assent of The House of Lords (various Parliament Acts) and the royal assent is delegated. There is no law that Parliament cannot introduce, amend or repeal and no aspect of Common Law that cannot be abrogated and however you choose to define 'the constitution' they can change that too.


 * There are no doubt certain changes to the constitution which it would be impossible for parliament to change because they'd all end up swinging from lamp-posts but that doesn't mean the don't have the POWER to do it. Longdog (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Roger Hayes and the 'Lawful Bank' / 'The Alternative Money System'.
I'm wondering whether or not this article would be the best place to add an entry about the 'Lawful Bank' / TAMS scam which Roger Hayes is / was promoting.

It's an interesting if not quite amusing topic in my opinion but I'm thinking adding it to this article is turning it more in to an article about Hayes himself than about the BCG.

To my mind there are four options.


 * Add it to this article
 * Create a new entry on TLB / TAMS
 * Create a new entry on Roger Hayes and include the TLB / TAMS scams
 * Do nothing

Thoughts?

Longdog (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you could add it to this article for the time being, it'll be found more easily seen that way. If the section gets big enough then we can always split it out at that point. I'm glad someone finally got around to documenting that lawful bank idea. I'd wanted to do it myself but never found the motivation. Make sure to mention his intention to 'retire' your real money in exchange for 100 times as much in his monopoly money. Ydam (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I won't forget the retirement thing.Longdog (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK... So I've added a bit on The Lawful Bank and being a total n00b I'd appreciate comments. Too long? Too short? (I have pages of stuff on these nuts and some of it is comedy gold)Too sarky? Not sarky enough?Longdog (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

UK Column
Hi, www.ukcolumn.org seems to be related. UK Column would be a useful article, as it could score high in search results, thereby quickly put people out of their misery when they start scratching their heads about the bizarre s(h)ite they landed on. Anyone? Littledogboy (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Time to delete this entry?
Well... Not delete necessarily but edit to put everything in the past tense perhaps.

As far as I can tell The British Constitution Group has now become the The British Campaign Group and it is essentially just a one man (Hayes) outfit whose last foray into anything involving the real world was a "Conference To Challenge The Banker" in Liverpool in Feb 2016. As far as I can tell it flopped badly and there has been no follow up since. http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

The 'Lawful Bank' is deceased and only exists as a forum where one man talks to himself... https://lawfulbank.com/forum/2/general/

I still think Hayes' past buffoonery is entertaining and an object lesson in the 'effectiveness' of the FMOTL woo but he's definitely a busted flush. So what's it to be? I can past-tensify the whole thing or is it time to bring out the humane killer and BLAMMM!? Longdog (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We certainly don't delete articles on things that are no longer in business — where did you get that impression? For the record, we have an entire history nav on people and movements that are patently over. That's not the point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough Rev... I'll tinker around and update a few of the links and whatnot. Longdog (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)