Section 59 is unlawful: Remedy

Off-topic
21

CHiPs (07/08/2011)

Think we’re going to have to disagree on this one. The definition you gave is the definition of a limiting and codified constitution. That is, the written constitutions of places like the US cannot be changed. “The right to bear arms”, “cruel and unusual punishment”, et al. will never be changed because it has been a law that has been passed and now nobody can change it. The UK can pass similar laws, somebody has mentioned that the EU Human Rights, as well as the UDHR, have been combined into the HRA which has been passed in parliament and is now part of our constitution. Therefore I cannot cruelly and unusually punish my girlfriend for not making me a sandwich. shhhhhh!!!. Obviously that’s an extreme example. Our system allows for constitutional change. For example, in the U.S. many centuries ago, there was very real danger which required general public to bear arms - not only from animals and such in rural areas, however also - in the aftermath of “freedom” - from those who wanted to change back. Thus they were given the right to have guns. HOWEVER, is there still a need? Probably not. Which is where the U.S. constitution lacks compared to the U.K. constitution. Our laws have adapted to what is best for the country (subjectively, of course) - highlighting that we do indeed have a very really and important constitution. Every law passed in parliament is part of the constitution, every convention which we have kept going for years is part of the constitution, and every previous court judgement (case law - I’m sure you understand much more about this than me…) goes into the constitution, as we must remember that constitutions don’t only apply to the government, but also to everyone the government governs.

Chips.

You say it is the definition of a limiting and condified constitution…I say that is what makes a Constitution.

The US Constitution can be changed, by amendments, but it is a difficult process.

You suggest the UK can pass similar laws, but they cannot. They can pass laws that restrict behaviour in the same way, but they are not similar laws, because the US laws are supreme. Should any US Government attempt to pass a law that is in contradiction with that Law the Supreme Court can quash that law. There is nothing like that in the UK.

The debate of whether a static constitution is of real value, whether the rights it protects should change over time, is a fair debate, but the UK does not have a constitution to which to compare. We have a framework in which the business of Government is done, but then so do companies, so do schools, so does my house, can I claim that my house has a constitution, because I have a framework which dictates the way I create bills, pay bills, days I do my laundry, what time I get up, what time I go to bed etc etc? Seems a bit silly to me.

A constitution is more than that.

Nick, I can only say to you…Taxes.

It is theft, extorted by the threat of violence.

Welcome to the world of being Governed.

22

By definition, a framework by which anything is governed is a constitution. Written or unwritten, codified or non-codified, in the commons or in your house, a constitution nonetheless, which is a point many non-politics students fail to understand.

That’s the accepted definition accepted by 90% of politics scholars appearing in 100% of politics textbooks and if you have a different opinion that’s fine, I’m just telling you the facts.

Personally I’m on the same side as you - I think we need a stronger constitution and - in particular - a bill of rights. The HRA doesn’t even nearly touch what the USA have, and - as you say - can always be revoked/changed due to governments parliamentary supremacy.

Chris

23

I don’t believe that is the accepted definition…

From the dictionary:

" (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state"

Even if you only take the first half of this, ignoring the second half which I have highlighted above already, the political principles on which a state is governed, we still don’t have a constitution, because our state is Governed by whatever changing political principles that Parliament holds at any given time.

Hence the 1911 and 1949 acts which fundamentally changed the way in which the House of Lords played a role in our State legislative process, simply because Parliament wanted to change it. No fundamental political principles, no framework unchanging, no basis for Government, just whatever Parliament wants. Which could be changed tomorrow.

I understand your argument that some believe that a statute can embody this, and I say, no it cannot, if that statute can be changed on a whim by any Government, unhindered by a process that is harder than changing any other statute.

24

As you said though we will have to agree to disagree, because your argument isn’t wrong, it is one I listened to during Constitutional Law classes and it is one held by many eminent scholars.

I just don’t agree with it.

25

excuse my ignorance on the law, i probably sound like a noob discussing it with you.

I am also in agreement that it IS far to easy to change the laws, but they are laws nonetheless and thus part of the constitution. I can easily change a T shirt, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s part of my clothing. Ridiculous example I know - but let me off - it’s Sunday matey :smiley:

Your definition of a constitution mentioned nothing of anything being written down or “set in stone” - it’s just the rules by which something is governed.

Voting in parliament is completely unnecessary - the government’s view always wins - however we still do it because it’s part of our constitution due to the parliament acts - that you have already mentioned.

The referral of parliamentary propositions to the House of Lords is still done today - despite being unnecessary due to the Salisbury Convention. YET we still do it as of our constitution. If we didn’t have a constitution, wtf would we do it!? :smiley:

Perhaps defining ‘constitution’ is very subjective as a constitution should work FOR the people, and perhaps the recognised constitution is not enough for you to call it a constitution - which is fully understandable. I just got involved to mention that we DO have a very real constitution, and if you disagree, thanks for disagreeing and providing me with some intelligent conversation - gee - I forgot what happened to that since school!

Chris

26

lol, yeah goverened by tyranny :wink:

thanks for the answers btw…

The whole ‘being governed’ things is an interesting one in itself, looking in to the freeman on the land shinanigans, lots of it makes good sense.

The government pretend it’s all fair and everyone has a choice, but of course it’s not fair. I’d rather not play their game of allowing them to tell me how to live my live. They pretend we all consent to their written will but most people haven’t actualy consented they just go along with it cos it’s too much of a pain in the arse to stand up for freedom… well at least that’s what most people used to do… things seem to be changing though :o)

oh and - what about taxes? another bit of research I did (you’ll like this one) is that paying taxes is illegal under the governments own rules. Check their definition of terrorism (terorism act 200), check the rule on funding it (point 13 I seem to recall), then read an article on the ‘wests’ desire to change the political leaders etc in Libya, Afgahnistan and Iraq… and see if paying taxes funds terrorism

Right, time to go play!!

27

You should check out some of the Law in Society stuff, it is this interesting idea of a social contract between the people and Government, that we agree to be Governed for the benefits derived from that agreement, and the detriments, the restrictions on what we can and cannot do come with the benefit of safety, protection and order.

The thing I noted when I studied it was that it isn’t really an agreement, it is foisted upon you at birth, which is interesting because it flows into my rather left-wing socialist views.

If I am forced into an agreement, whereby I cannot hunt, I cannot build my own shelter, I am not allowed to fend for myself, because of the restraints of a societal model that requires licences, planning permission and permits that all require the money that the society is founded upon…shouldn’t that society owe me something in return for accepting that?

I usually use this line of thinking when someone says…society doesn’t owe you anything…yes it does. It owes you a living, because it has removed your right to live in any other way, other than by that societies rules.

28

100% in agreement with you Kaos.

very very good interesting points.

revolution? :smiley:

29

Hmmmmm…:rolleyes: Is this what I think it is?

(7) Subsection (3)© does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house

Time to move the garage then? :laugh:

30

Use your mates bike :smiley:

it does say further up that it is applicable to man and machine though:doze:

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if - (a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.

31

Can they be released if you pay? I didnt see anything about crushing :ermm: They prattle on about release fees?

32

yeah I checked out the “social contract” before - my law dictionary says i’t"The express of implied agreement between citizens and their government by which the individuals agree to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for mutual protection; an agreement forming the foundation of a political society."

I actually sent Cameron (just before the “elections”) a NOTICE of refusal to contract… he’d been kind enought to post his offer of contract on the conservatives website (an offer from him to the british people) so I let him know that I removed all need to govern me :o)

I see many reasons even if this social contract exsisted, it has been broken by the government many times. They do not protect me (assuming I’m a citizen), they put me and others at risk with their actions. Therfore the contract (again IF it exsists is null and void)

Also - being forced in to an ‘agreement’ is an oxymoron. an agreement by definition is consentual. If we are forced then it’s bullying / tyranny / the rule of force… not the rule of law.

Good point - yes ‘society’ does owe us, as we are constrained by it… and if it doesn’t owe us then we should be able to get out of it’s clutches.

non compliance seems to be the best options @ the mo I reckon… we all do our own lil bit :o)

33

And this is why our country is in such a state, as mentioned by two on here who state that society owes them … maybe if they and many others got off there rears and did something for society instead of just wanting to take all the time then we’d live in a better place. :angry:

34

I am not even allowed to create my own food, but how dare I think the society that outlaws feeding yourself owes me something?

We should all play the game or starve.

Besides Baz you know we will never live in a better place while people like you are willing to use violence to suppress peoples rights to revolt.

35

You will live within societies rule, otherwise why would you be such a hypocrite and attempting Law as a career. Don’t be pathetic, outlawing feeding yourself, you (as usual) talk utter crap at times.
Kaos, it is the likes of people like me, Firefighters and Paramedics that are getting hurt tonight and last night trying their best to protect people - they will even protect you and risk all to do so. You are not even a tenth of the man that some of the Boys and Girls wearing blue are and you never will be. You can reply if you so wish, I won’t bother replying back, I’ve just remembered how much of a horrible piece of work you are on these forums.

36

get an allotment :exclamationmark:

37

You talk about making things better Baz while being a part of the apparatus that works to keep the status quo…hypocrite much.

Of course you won’t reply, you haven’t really got an answer. You talk about protecting people, great, so this makes up for all the times that the police have been used to suppress legitimate protest…no, it doesn’t make up for it, you are still a part of the problem, the fact that you are not entirely bad doesn’t change that.

Ah yes an allotment Bluestar.

Should I attempt to get one like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14288923

Via an auction, which requires money, which requires you to play by the rules of our society. That will work in an effort not to be Governed by a society and to fend for yourself…no wait it won’t.

I don’t expect our society to allow us to fend for ourselves, we are far past that point, but what I do expect is that a society that denies that right provides in its place. Yet even that seems like asking too much for the brainwashed. Yes how dare we expect a place to live and enough food to live on…who the f*ck do we think we are?

38

dont worry Kaos when your a qualified lawyer making loads of money you can give it all up , and go live somewhere where you can fend for yourself, grow your own food, make your own electricity, maybe make a motorbike out of acorn shells and run it on fish oil !!!

you can have your own rules and laws and do what ever you want

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/05/how-to/how-to-start-your-own-country

and i wish you all the very best with it , any idea what you might call it???

39

I doubt I will make loads of money, I expect most of my time will be spent doing Legal Aid work, as I don’t really fancy myself the corporate shill.

As I said Bluestar, too far gone in our society to ever consider fending for ourselves, for a start, we can’t produce enough food to feed ourselves, no matter how we went about doing it, and especially not on an individual level.

The point isn’t to do it, the point is a philosophical and sociological ideal to point out the injustice of a social order which denies people the very basics that a social structure has made impossible to attain individually.

Unfortunately there isn’t a witty wired webpage to get that idea across to you, so I doubt you will understand it.

40

Jaysus Kaos I love the way you put this. quote of the week award :smiley: