Post your letters

  • 3 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Colin

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • 1003
  • +94/-0
    • TruthWars
Post your letters
« on: August 18, 2012, 09:15:04 PM »
Please post your letters and replies here. Remember to blank out any personal information to comply with the Data Protections act. It's up to you if you leave your details in there. As for officials details, I'd guess it's allowable to leave those in place.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: Post your letters
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2012, 07:02:32 PM »

Dear Sir or Madam

Response to the bill of rights questions asked in the consultation document

Q1: What do you think would be the advantages or disadvantages of a UK Bill of Rights? Do you think that there are alternatives to either our existing arrangements or to a UK Bill of Rights that would achieve the same benefits? If you think that there are disadvantages to a UK Bill of Rights, do you think that the benefits outweigh them? Whether or not you favour a UK Bill of Rights, do you think that the Human Rights Act ought to be retained or repealed?

A.  There are no advantages only disadvantages.  The existing Bill of Rights 1689 is perfectly adequate for today?s needs without amendment.  It has served us very well for over 300 years and continues to cover every situation of rights that we could every require (as it has done historically all these years).  That is why Britain until now has been the world leading nation of freedom and liberty.  The disadvantages of ?adding? further ?rights? will be that they will severely twist the spirit of our existing Bill of Rights  -  to our detriment.


Q2: In considering the arguments for and against a UK Bill of Rights, to what extent do you believe that the European Convention on Human Rights should or should not remain incorporated into our domestic law?

A.  The European Convention of Human Rights was signed by Winston Churchill in March 1951 in the full and widely held knowledge that Britain already lived up and beyond its standards of requirement and had in fact set them.  It did not add anything to Britain?s pre-existing rights law the Bill of Right 1689 by which our nation had lived for hundreds of years.


Q3: If there were to be a UK Bill of Rights, should it replace or sit alongside the Human Rights Act 1998?

A.  There should NOT be a (new) UK bill of rights as our existing Bill of Rights is perfectly adequate even for today?s needs.  The idea of a new bill of rights is a political construct designed to ?improve? but surreptitiously reduce the rights by which we already live and benefit in Britain.  It is a subversive device designed to adversely modify the rights we presently benefit from.


Q4: Should the rights and freedoms in any UK Bill of Rights be expressed in the same or different language from that currently used in the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights? If different, in what ways should the rights and freedoms be differently expressed?

A.  I repeat from above.  There should NOT be a (new) UK bill of rights as we do not need one.  Our existing Bill of Rights 1689 is more than adequate for today?s needs.  It was written 300 years ago to cover every eventuality and it still does so very effectively.  Any ?additional rights? would subvert and adversely effect the rights we already enjoy and benefit from.  Please understand this point very clearly.


Q5: What advantages or disadvantages do you think there would be, if any, if the rights and freedoms in any UK Bill of Rights were expressed in different language from that used in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998?

A.  Please understand what I have written above clearly.  Neither ?addition rights? nor ?different language? (presumably still English) would have any beneficial effect upon the existing Bill of Rights 1689 we already have and enjoy the benefit of.  To interfere with our existing Bill of Rights 1689 in any way at all will adversely effect the benefit of rights and liberties we already enjoy from it.  Any alteration to the 1689 Bill can only worsen our rights,  not improve them.


Q6: Do you think any UK Bill of Rights should include additional rights and, if so, which? Do you have views on the possible wording of such additional rights as you believe should be included in any UK Bill of Rights?

A.  There are no ?additional rights? with which our existing Bill of Rights 1689 could be improved.  Do not forget that the European Convention of Human Rights was taken from our existing Bill of Rights 1689.


Q7: What in your view would be the advantages, disadvantages or challenges of the inclusion of such additional rights?

A.  As above,  there are no rights that could be beneficially added to our existing Bill of Rights 1689.  This question is pointless.


Q8: Should any UK Bill of Rights seek to give guidance to our courts on the balance to be struck between qualified and competing Convention rights? If so, in what way?

A.  I repeat.  There should be No (new) bill of rights as such a bill would adversely effect the rights we presently enjoy.  This question is pointless.


Q9: Presuming any UK Bill of Rights contained a duty on public authorities similar to that in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is there a need to amend the definition of ?public authority?? If so, how?

A.  This question is pointless and irrelevant as we do not need a new bill of rights.  Nor does our existing Bill of Rights 1689 need modification in any way.  It is perfectly adequate for our needs these days.


Q10: Should there be a role for responsibilities in any UK Bill of Rights? If so, in which of the ways set out above might it be included?
A.  Pointless question as you are trying to lead the British public into saying they want a new bill of rights by the questions you ask.  This is fraudulent and criminal. 


Q11: Should the duty on courts to take relevant Strasbourg case law ?into account? be maintained or modified? If modified, how and with what aim?

A.  Ridiculous question.  Strasbourg case law has no place in British justice,  rights or liberties as it treasonously originates with a foreign power.  To try to incorporate foreign law into British jurisdiction of any kind is High Treason under the 1351 Treason Act,  the Act of Supremacy 1559 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.  Anybody who attempts to incorporate it is committing High Treason against the interests of Her Majesty,  each of her subjects and the United  Kingdom as a nation state. 


Q12: Should any UK Bill of Rights seek to change the balance currently set out under the Human Rights Act between the courts and Parliament?
A.  I repeat again.  There should NOT be a UK bill of rights.  Our existing Bill of Rights 1689 covers all eventualities that we could ever require and has successfully done so for the last 300 years without modification.  It was written FOR ALL TIME.


Q13: To what extent should current constitutional and political circumstances in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and/or the UK as a whole be a factor in deciding whether (i) to maintain existing arrangements on the protection of human rights in the UK, or (ii) to introduce a UK Bill of Rights in some form?

A.  I repeat yet again.  We already have a most effective and perfectly adequate Bill of Rights 1698 which DOES NOT NEED to be replaced or ?improved? as it was from the 1689 Bill that the European Convention on Human Rights was taken.


Q14: What are your views on the possible models outlined in paragraphs 80-81 above for a UK Bill of Rights?

A.  You keep asking the same questions in so many different ways.  You are intent on coercing the British public into saying they want a new bill of rights so to satisfy the insidious and underhand wishes of the current administration.  Please read this very carefully.  We do not need any alteration or ?improvement? to our existing Bill of Rights 1689 as it is already perfectly adequate for our needs in this and the next century.  It has served us very well indeed for over 300 years and will continue to do so into the future. 


It is only the corrupt and subversive minds of the current administration that believe we need a new bill of rights and who try to fool the British public into having a new one written on Parliament?s terms (you will disagree but that is the way it would secretly be done) simply because our existing Bill of Rights 1689 cannot be repealed (impliedly or otherwise) as they wish.  They can do nothing to change it in any way so to adversely effect the rights and privileges and liberties we currently enjoy under its terms.  Their role as puppet politicians is to insidiously impose globalist world governance.  Our Bill of Rights 1689 was written in times of far greater patriotism and was written FOR ALL TIME.  THAT is something that Parliament cannot cope with in their obliged agenda of world governance.


Q15: Do you have any other views on whether, and if so, how any UK Bill of Rights should be formulated to take account of the position in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales?

A.  The whole concept of a new bill of rights is a political construct devised to divide and confuse the British public into accepting yet more new legislation aimed at subverting their lifestyle,  their rights and liberties and their freedoms and privileges toward globalist world governance.  If the British politicians actually worked for the British public (the electorate),  our country would be a far different place to live in. 


At the behest of those who direct and control them from above,  our politicians? sole agenda is ( as we have seen over the last 40 or more years) to destroy our country,  our culture,  our standards and now our freedoms and liberties.  They seek to achieve their aims with the people?s tacit agreement taking public inaction as mandate to continue on their corrupt path of destruction leading the public to believe that there is nothing they can do to halt or reverse the process.


Parliament is corrupt as we have seen in their expenses scandal.  But it goes much deeper and the concept of a new bill of rights is the current step to reduce the freedoms and liberties by which British people have successfully lived for hundreds of years. 


We do not NEED a new bill of rights.  Our existing Bill of Rights 1689 is fully functional and has ensured our freedoms and liberties for over 300 years.  There is no reason on Earth why anybody should need to change it.  Only the corrupt minds in parliament consider it inadequate so they can coerce installation of a new and more limiting bill of rights that we do not want.




Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: Post your letters
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2012, 07:19:02 PM »
 Please find my letter sent today 06-09-12. to  Dyfed-Powys Police.
Heddlu Dyfed-Powys Police.
Ganolfan Gyfathrebu'rHeddlu-Force

Communication Centre.
For the attention of :-

The Chief Constable .
The Staff Officer to the Chief Constable Clark , Jones-Clark DS674
 Dear Sir's .

                 Thank you for your previous communications also for your appreciated reply from yesterday 05-08-12 .
                Please allow me to introduce myself , am a member of a group some eighty members strong , who are all patriotic in respect of
                Queen and Country .
               The reason for contacting you is in reporting a serious crime committed by none other than our Government , who are intent on the break

               up of the House of Lord's , the privatization of our Police Forces , who are the best in the World , the undermining of our British Laws also
              our constitution .
                Therefore my requests to report the crime of treason , to seek a Crime Reporting Number and the subsequent sending of the report to
                The Metropolitan Police Force .
                Am aware that your Force has submitted a similar report in the past and quite honestly wish to be part of the action .
               As you are aware have sent a report to you on the reported crime,  should further details be required , will dispatch to you .
                  Yours Sincerely ,



Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: Post your letters
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2012, 09:16:32 AM »
Dear Chief Constable,
 In response to the encouragement email directly below I would like to say how glad I am, as a member of the public, that you have abandoned plans to link up with G4S. We are aware that to privatize the police force would put the employment security of the police and the security of the country in jeopardy. It is for this reason that I have inserted, further down, allegations of treason committed by Cameron, Clegg and Blair.

Hi All,
 If anyone wants to send the Surrey police any words of encouragement plus a reminder that if they accept our treason allegations then it will help their privatization case against the Government.

 As part of a growing group of ordinary patriotic citizens who have taken the trouble to look into the Constitution and its implications for ruling England in a lawful way. It can be clearly seen that the Constitution has been violated by successive Governments, politicians and civil servants starting with the Heath Government when he committed treason by submitting the sovereignty of the UK to the EU. Our forefathers formulated these laws to protect England from despotic and tyrannical rulers.

 As a police officer, you swore an oath to uphold these laws and protect England, from those who break any of them - whether common law or statue law.

 I therefore wish to report the crime of treason, against David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Tony Blair. I am aware that your personal knowledge of Constitution Law is likely to be minimal and therefore suggest that you pass this on to your legal advisers who should confirm the correctness of the allegations with respect to the law as it is written.

 The Crime under the Treason Felony Act 1848

 (for the purposes of this report: where it states 'Sovereign', read 'Sovereign People' and for 'Crown' read 'Head of State or Position as Head of State', and for 'foreigner' any 'foreign body, company or person' and bearing in mind that 'No parliament may bind it's successors').

 It is Treason Felony to compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to:

 1) Deprive the Sovereign of the Crown.

 2) Levy war against the sovereign in order by force or constraint to compel her to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament.

 3)  'Move or Stir' any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom, or any other country belonging to the Sovereign.

Reason for the crime report.

 Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have made a move to reform the House of Lords, following Tony Blair's damaging removal of all but 97 Hereditary Peers. The House of Lords is not there to do the bidding of the Government but as a safety check on any power grab attempt by the House of Commons. They also give advice to Her Majesty, holder of the Crown of England, for the sovereign people.

 This move falls foul of number (2) above, because it places constraint and intimidation on the Hereditary Lords, who have Letters Patent which are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state ('royal prerogative'). They constitute a rare, if significant, form of legislation without the consent of the parliament.

 This confirms that the Government have no jurisdiction over the House of Lords, and therefore Tony Blair's House of Lords Act 1999 had no power over this issue and that the Parliament Act 1911 was passed unlawfully for the same reason.

 Likewise the move by the current administration under Cameron and Clegg has no legitimate power to remove the Hereditary Lords and create an elected 'Senate', something which is alien and damaging to our democratic parliament.

 The Government was therefore acting beyond its authority and committed treason by attempting to alter the original tri-partite Constitutional arrangements of House of Commons, House of Lords and The Sovereign.

 All of the accused have damaged the security of this Island nation, none more so than Tony Blair by signing the Schengen Agreement which allowed invasion by foreign persons through open borders This is a violation of point number 3 of the above Treason Felony Act 1848. It is also a violation of the Treason Act 1351 parts 3 and 4. See below.

 Crime committed under Treason Act 1351

 1) Compassing the death of the sovereign, or of the sovereign's wife or eldest son and heir.

 2) Violating the sovereign's wife, or sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the sovereign's eldest son's wife.

 3) Levying war against the sovereign in the realm.

 4) Adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere.

 5) Killing the King's Chancellor, Treasurer (an office long in commission) or Justices.

 As stated above those I accuse of Treason above have also, through their actions under Treason Felony, also committed High Treason under the Treason Act 1351 parts (3) and (4), and the Common Law crime of Misprision of Treason. This they have committed by not making reparation for the initial wrong of the European Communities Act 1972 committing this country subservient to a foreign power. David Cameron has stated he will not take us out of the EU thus confirming his treason.

 All of these previous administrations could have taken us out of this foreign takeover by scrapping the European Communities Act 1972 as 'no parliament may bind it's successors'.

 Marcus Tulles Cicero wrote a speech about the enemies within the walls, who he said it is hard to stop, but stop them we must or we are lost as a nation, left to the whim and vagaries of an administration over which we will have no democratic control, and no voice.

 Clearly this Government is out of control and all of the accused have damaged the security of this Island nation, by allowing invasion of foreign persons through open borders and threatening key utilities to the detriment of the sovereign people. Most alarmingly, they wish to force privatisation of our police force thus further threatening the security of this country. This is tantamount to selling the public into slavery, as the 'police are the public, and the public are the police' (Sir Robert Peel).

 I therefore call upon you to uphold the law you swore to so do.



Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk