| |
G4EBT > ALL 06.12.08 19:59l 135 Lines 5561 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 5A9720G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: uk parliament under attack
Path: IZ3LSV<IK2XDE<DB0RES<DB0GOS<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 081206/1738Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:20358 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:5A9720G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : ALL@WW
Ian, G3ZHI wrote:-
> an mps office has been searched by the police without a warrant.
And what a farce that's become.
Worth a bull in its own right.
I'm not sure why they keep banging on about a warrant.
The Prime Minister, Speaker of the House, Sergeant at Arms, Commissioner
of the Metropolitan Police, Home Secretary and everyone else in the
ludicrous pantomime should know that no-one - not a magistrate, not
a High Court judge, not anyone, can issue a warrant to allow access
to the Houses of Commons in any event.
So talk of a warrant is irrelevant. The Speaker of the House of Commons
has been a complete embarrassment for some time - not the brightest bulb
in the box.
No-one, but no-one, not even the Queen, can enter the House of Commons
without the invitation of the Speaker and the House itself. We've just
seen the quaint elaborate ritual involving "Black Rod" with the state
opening of parliament and the Queen's speech.
Black Rod is best known for the part he plays in the ceremonies
surrounding State Opening of Parliament and the 'Throne speech'. He
summons the Commons to attend the speech and leads them to the Lords.
As part of the ritual, as Black Rod approaches the doors to the chamber
of the House of Commons to make his summons, the doors are slammed in his
face. This is to symbolise the Commons' independence of the Sovereign.
Black Rod then strikes the door three times with his staff, and in reply
to the challenge "Who is there?" answers "Black Rod". He is then admitted
and issues the summons of the monarch to attend.
In essence, the Monarch is ordered to attend.
This ritual derives from the attempt by Charles I of England to arrest
five members in 1642, in what was seen as a breach of privilege, though
strictly the King was at that time entitled to enter the chamber.
After that incident the House of Commons has maintained its right to
question the right of the monarch's representative to enter their
chamber.
> The last time this happened was in 1642 when charles 1st barged in and
>the speaker said "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see
>nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct
>me, whose servant I am here". Charles was beheaded on Tuesday 30 January
>1649 he was charged with high treason and found guilty a terrorist king?
True.
King Charles I was charged with subverting the fundamental laws
and liberties of the nation and with maliciously making war on
the Parliament and people of England.
(It's parliament that does this nowadays - not the Monarch).
In a reversal of the traditional definition, Parliament declared that it
was treason for a King to wage war upon his own subjects. When the House
of Lords refused to give its assent to the ordinance, the House of Commons
declared itself to be the supreme authority in the land with powers to
pass laws without the consent of the King or the Lords.
Charles Stuart had broken the sacred reciprocal bond between king and
subject, and by making war on his own people, he had forfeit his right
to their allegiance.
Parliament appointed a High Court of Justice in Jan 1649 and Charles was
charged with high treason against the people of England. The King's trial
opened on 20 Jan, when he refused to answer the charges, saying he did not
recognise the authority of the High Court.
But he was found guilty of the charges against him, sentenced to death on
27 Jan 1649 and beheaded on a scaffold outside the Banqueting House at
Whitehall on 30 January.
His execution sent shock waves across Europe, and in England he became a
martyr. To this day, wreaths of remembrance are laid on the anniversary of
King Charles' death at his statue, which faces down Whitehall to the site
of his beheading.
> history is great
It wasn't for the judges who condemned Charles 1 to death! When the
Monarchy was restored in 1660, Charles II had the judges disembowelled.
Everyone had tired of Puritan rule during the Cromwellian era.
On Cromwell's death, his son Richard had tried to carry on as Lord
Protector (1658-59), but wasn't the forceful character that his
father had been.
The outcome of the Commonwealth and Protectorate confirmed in the English
a hatred of military rule and the severe Puritanism associated with it.
From this point on Parliament opposed Puritanism vigorously.
In 1660 Parliament offered to restore the monarchy if Charles
would agree to concessions for religious toleration and a
general amnesty.
Charles and agreed to the proposals and returned to London on
a wave of popular support to be crowned Charles II (1660-85).
The Restoration was notable for a relaxation of the strict Puritan
morality of the previous decades, which roughly equated to the religious
police of today's oppressive Islamic regimes.
Theatre, sports, and dancing were revived.
The "Declaration of Breda" drawn up by Charles II and three advisers
resulted in tolerance for Puritan views within the Anglican fold.
A free pardon and amnesty was offered to all who would swear loyalty to
the Crown within forty day of the King's return. The conflict with
Puritanism left distrust for religious individualism and emotionalism
("enthusiasm") among Anglicans. The Church has been in a mess ever since,
no less so than today. Intolerant, but tolerated, as in "put up with".
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 17:16 on 2008-Dec-06
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
