Labour to achieve Lords landmark

Habeas Corpus is the law against imprisonment without trial, something which the Dear Leader is trying to do today.

Ahh good ol' Habeas Corpus...perhaps someone would like to remind Bliar and his cronys about this.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

A small detail our beloved leader may have overlooked....

YOU CANT LOCK PEOPLE UP WITHOUT TRIAL IN THE UK UNCLE TONY........IT'S ILLEGAL..

Jeez some folk.

this sounds familiar..

Quote:

---

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

---

hmm...right to bears arms anyone?

and this...

Quote:

---

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

---

So the Yanks did have a point (sort of :book: )

Ah yes, but only allowing Protestants would be racist wouldn't it.............

Religionist yes....racist .... ~:confused: ...well you got me there mate. :book:

Perhaps we should take such things to the Court of Appeal or Session, since the Bill of Rights cannot be repealled... Also, I'm sure that there was something in there about Parliament not having the power to remove rights granted unto the people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

How is it actually an affront? Did it suddenly declare that the act of Habeas Corpus was repealed and that the country under a state of martial law? I suppose a supreme head of state with all powers would be better?
The way the Royal Family both pays money in and gets money out is a bit silly and time-wasting. It should just get payed less. What could be done is that it is given property or something and it gets it money from that. The money could be re-paid over a period of time and would be more economic in the long run.
For the house of Lords perhaps a council of wise and learned people should be elected. These people would then appoint all peers, whilst they would be barred from standing for Parliament and other political posts, nor would they be allowed to have any previous record of politics.

---

The affront is the fact that the Royal family are afforded certain rights and privileges simply due to the fact of their birth. In any true Democracy, this is unacceptable. I was fervently against the old inherited peers in the house of Lords for the same reason

I didn't say anything about a supreme head of state with all powers-that's some nice putting words in my mouth. In fact, do we really need an official head of state? Removing the royal family from the equation, our political system would seem to be fine. We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.

---

I would consider that statement again if I were you mate. I think you will find that any modern state need a definable 'head' to sign off the laws and treaties etc.

Unless of course you are advocating personal anarchy....

I would have loved that at 17, but at pushing 50 it would just do my back in ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

The affront is the fact that the Royal family are afforded certain rights and privileges simply due to the fact of their birth. In any true Democracy, this is unacceptable. I was fervently against the old inherited peers in the house of Lords for the same reason

I didn't say anything about a supreme head of state with all powers-that's some nice putting words in my mouth. In fact, do we really need an official head of state? Removing the royal family from the equation, our political system would seem to be fine. We wouldn't need to elect a president or anything like that.

---

Ididn't mean to put any words in your mouth, I was merely drawing your statements to what seemed to me to their logical conclusion. By the same logical process, your argument that the Royal Family are given unfair treatment because of a mere accident of birth would mean that the descendants of a wealthy industrialist would not be allowed their inheritance. You thus attack one of the foundations of the modern capitalist world, the right to inherit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Ididn't mean to put any words in your mouth, I was merely drawing your statements to what seemed to me to their logical conclusion. By the same logical process, your argument that the Royal Family are given unfair treatment because of a mere accident of birth would mean that the descendants of a wealthy industrialist would not be allowed their inheritance. You thus attack one of the foundations of the modern capitalist world, the right to inherit.

---

I'm not attacking the right to inherit-I don't care about the possessions, even though they are mostly paid for by the tax payer. It's the political inequalities that concern me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I would consider that statement again if I were you mate. I think you will find that any modern state need a definable 'head' to sign off the laws and treaties etc.

Unless of course you are advocating personal anarchy....

I would have loved that at 17, but at pushing 50 it would just do my back in ~D

---

Why? It seems to me that our current political system would work quite well sans queen. I suppose you could re-name the office of PM president if you wanted to, but I doubt it would have much effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I'm not attacking the right to inherit-I don't care about the possessions, even though they are mostly paid for by the tax payer. It's the political inequalities that concern me.

---

Oh come on. They can't even vote let alone have any political power.

only allowing things on grounds of religion will soon be illegal in the U.K. as rules on religious discrimination fall into place with rules on racial discrimination (just to bring up the only give Protestants a gun thing again).