eurealist.co.uk

This from Neil Herron

Burnley Council … formal letter incorporating the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act

As we now begin to introduce the Human Rights perspective NPAS and DPE is looking very vulnerable indeed.

Legal Department
Burnley Borough Council
Town Hall
Burnley
BB11 1JA

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing with regard concerning a Final Demand from Drakes Bailiffs, dated 14/2/06 (copy enclosed) for 2 unpaid parking penalty notices dated 1/2/05 and 19/5/05. The penalty notices are: BE******** and BE********. I can confirm that I wrote to Parkwise on the 11th July last year and contested the validity of these tickets as no individual company has the right to demand money from me for an alleged offence which has not been proven in a Court of Law.

As stated in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.

As stated by Parkwise they do not issue fines but Penalty Charge Notices. However according to Burnley Borough Councils official website (Burnley.gov.uk), they do issue fines and is quite clearly listed in the A-Z of Council Services (copy enclosed). Therefore, it would appear that Burnley Borough Council and its agents (Parkwise) have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law.

Of the Bill of Rights, I feel I must point out that the text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction, and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal.

Because judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as convictions. It is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to impose lawful judgments &/or convictions. Furthermore with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!.
In a word The Declaration of Rights provides that if Burnley Borough Council wishes to proceed against me, they will have to refer this matter to Her Majesty’s Courts Service where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.

In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:-

39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers OR by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown.

E.g. the Local Authority with which I find myself in dispute.

In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:-

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

I have not as yet appealed to the National Parking Adjudication Service. The Independent Tribunal that receives 60p from every Penalty Notice issued, and is funded by the local authority collecting the PCN. The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the National Parking and Adjudication Service now serves to reveal that the process of this tribunal system is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent, and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that any such hearing is not established in a manner that is independent from the interests of my opponent.

I am therefore requesting that Burnley Borough Council suspend the warrant from Drakes Bailiffs, as I intend to file a Late Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

It is my intention to defend my case through the law courts of HM the Queen, as The Declaration of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta 1215, and the Human Rights Act 1998 provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen.
That is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom.

I look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours Faithfully.

Neil Corless.

Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?
David Howarth

Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial power.

LAST WEEK all eyes were on the House of Commons as it debated identity cards, smoking and terrorism. The media reported both what MPs said and how they voted. For one week at least, the Commons mattered.

All the more peculiar then that the previous Thursday, in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.

A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.

The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed.

For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. Instead of a full day’s debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor.

Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game of take-it-or-leave-it.
The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming.

Any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and even companies, might find themselves reorganised or even abolished. Since the powers of the House of Lords are defined in Acts of Parliament, even they are subject to the Bill.

Looking back at last week’s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.

The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill’s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves.

The Bill raises fundamental questions about the role of Parliament. Ministers, egged on, some suspect, by the Civil Service, treat Parliament as a voting machine. Its job, in their view, is merely to give legal cover to whatever ministers want to do. They treat debate and deliberation as mere chatter before the all-important vote. They see no great difference between full parliamentary procedure and a truncated procedure for statutory instruments because, for them, the result either way is the same, that ministers receive legal authority for their plans. Just as a perfect criminal statute for ministers appears to be one in which everything is illegal so that prosecutors have discretion to put anyone in front of a court, a perfect authorising statute is one that makes lawful any ministerial act or policy.

Some of us have a different view. We think that deliberation and debate matter, that they are part of what makes parliamentary democracy work and make the new laws we pass legitimate. Deliberation improves legislation but more importantly, it forces governments to give reasons for their proposals that go beyond their narrow self-interest. In private meetings of the governing party, or in the Cabinet, or above all in telephone calls between ministers and special advisers, purely partisan reasons can hold sway. But in public, especially where there is real debate, ministers have to offer reasons that might persuade others. If they cannot think of any such reasons, their embarrassment constrains them. As the political scientist Jon Elster says, even hypocrisy can have a civilising effect.

The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for
“controversial” matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to “uncontroversial” issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.

As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now.

David Howarth is Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge and Reader in Law at Cambridge University

On Saturday I checked into Eurealist and found that the blog had become corrupted, no problem I hear you both cry, just reload your back up copy of the template and you will up and running in no time, A wat! Oh yes, I did back up the template some months ago whoops! So I have been mucking about with the template, eventually I have got it sort of sorted, I hope. I took the opportunity to re-assess my blog listings, some no longer worked, others had ceased to be updated, also there were a few new ones, I have added.

Not Little England full name Great Britain not Little England is one such, I do not know why I have not put a link in before, well I do actually, it is the same reason that prevented me creating a backup of the template, my wife calls it laziness Hu!

I really do not know what she’s on about, I mean I was working on the template in my nice warm office with a glass of wine beside me yesterday evening, whist she was enjoying herself, scrambling about under the Mahonia? bush in the freezing cold rodding the drains (the Ladies lo had become clogged again).

Anyway MatGB at not Little England has recently started a Blog movement, to oust this government, a coalition of the willing to remove our dangerously authoritarian government. I am happy to support this laudable endeavour, but would caution that removeing this government will not in itself cause a reversal of the authoritarian policies of the TB GB mob. No we need to be very specific that we the people of Great Britian have had just about enough authoritarianism to last for quite a while, we need to make that very clear to those who would stand in Blair’s shoes and we must not allow ourselves to be fobbed off with sweet words from honed tongues.

Another one of the blog list additions is Gav`s Politics, Gav`s take on the Coalition of the willing is worth copying because he put into words some of that which has been rolling around in my head for the past few weeks, that I do not seem to be able to get a handle on:

“MatGB seems to have set a Indiana Jones-type ball rolling… First I agreed, tentatively, to support a coalition of the willing to remove our dangerously authoritarian government, and now we have a British Constitution effort.

My response is this:

An important aspect that must not be forgotten if we’re to look at this at a UK level is the inequity caused by devolution and especially the Scottish Raj.
As Bishop Hill said (though not in these words) yesterday we must be very careful about creating a Constitution that enshrines a partisan political view. The EU Constitution, IMHO, made that mistake.”