Follow by Email

Monday, 20 May 2019

US versus THEM

LATE MAY - After my previous ‘muse’ entitled ‘The Eyes Have It’ I thought at that time this next muse would be about money and banking. Not so. The political shenanigans going on in Britain these days have caused me to think again. And then I came across a quote by the late Bill Hicks, American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist and musician.
“I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be (President) Prime Minister is the one who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking and screaming into the (White House) House of Commons.” ― Bill Hicks
That’s the theory. Then my thoughts turned to an ancient instruction-cum-admonition which I first heard years ago. It reads: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” That’s the one that changed my mind about what to write today. What if that turns out to be good advice?

In a few days time Mrs May expects Britain to vote in the EU elections and by the time this muse sees the light of day the voting will be over . . . but not the consequences of our actions.

Who should we vote for/for whom should we vote? Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats and a Solicitor, has started a case to block the UK Government from extending the Article 50 Notice or revoking it without first having to get an Act of Parliament. 

“The constitutional law set out in the Gina Millar case is, in my legal opinion, clear and unchallengeable that any attempt to extend the Article 50 Notice or to revoke it without a specific Act of Parliament will be invalid and unlawful.  That would mean that if there has been a purported attempt to extend the Notice by agreement without an Act of Parliament that that would be invalid and therefore we would be out of the EU regardless of what the Government said we were.” 

But you won’t find much about his case in national media. If he wins his case it means that we have already left EU with effect from 29th March, and the pseudo EU elections in this country are unlawful (because we aren’t any longer members of the EU). Well, hush mah mowf. Whoda thunk it?

All this raises another question. If you nevertheless decide to vote, for whom should you vote? Bear in mind that a ‘party’ is a corporation or institution, not a person and not a ‘who’. Here’s another question. What do you know about your regional candidates? Do you even know their names? Under such circumstances WHY would you try to put your trust in ‘princes’? Why would you try to put your trust in a faceless corporation or institution? In Brussels and Strasbourg the individuals have no power to represent your interests and they are rewarded handsomely for being unable. Just ask Lord Peter Mandelson and Lord and Lady Kinnock, all Labour party multi-millionaires because once-upon-a-time they were EU commissioners. No wonder Mr Farage is making himself available for election in the name of his new party! No wonder Lord Adonis is having a crack at it, too.

If you stop to think about it there is a reason why you do the work that you do and don’t choose to do something else. It might be that there are few local opportunities to do something else; it might be that you really like doing what you do above all other opportunities; it might be that you are just too content (or idle) to try to change. But, rest assured that the man or woman who strives for power over people (ie a politician) is not an idle person, or one without energy to fight for what he/she wants. People who seek power are a peculiar people who have little clue about the history of mankind – or else they believe they know better than everyone else. These are the people who seek your votes. These are the people to whom you (and I) say ‘Rock on Tommy – you and your party will do for me’. In short, we hand over our power because we can’t be asked to use it ourselves, not even when it is likely to be in our own best interest. And then we wonder why we didn’t get the cream. 

We didn’t give our full attention to ALL the points in that manifesto – just to those we liked. Or, worse, we were beguiled by that seemingly attractive person with a microphone who keeps on spouting off in Talk Shows (the clue is in the name – they are supposed to be entertainment, doncha know?) on voyeur-vision.

I wish I had a £pound for every time I’ve heard one after another of them claim ‘they want what’s best for the country, and the party’. And, of course, they know what the best is even if you aren’t too sure. But we want what’s best for us, don’t we? Screw the rest. If that’s true then we’re all as bad as one another and we vote for and often get what we deserve . . . including the rubbish. So, be careful who you vote for/for whom you vote.  Let’s not put our trust in princes (or corporations), hey?

Some months ago I wrote an article (a muse) entitled ‘Who Gave Them Dominion over us?’ One man replied with the correct answer. “We did”, he said.  Having reminded myself of it, I’ve just now read through it again.

I closed with an observation from the much respected Judge Andrew Napolitano, the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He wrote:

“Ultimately, we are responsible for the folks we have elected and the things they have done, whether secretive, hypocritical or in our faces. Ultimately, we have the government we deserve. Will we change this before it is too late?” (Judge Andrew Napolitano).

WE gave THEM dominion over us.
Big Mistake.
With awareness, comes responsibility

Cause no harm  
Be honest
Be peaceful
Be responsible

Whether or not you are a member of a political party, you didn’t choose the party leader. YOU didn’t chose Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn or any of the others. Someone else did. We have allowed them to hold sway over us. And we have the nerve to say that ‘they’ are responsible. Something ain’t right in the State of Denmark. (To paraphrase the Bard). And, in the words of a popular song: ‘Watcha goin’ to do about it?’

* * * *

"Suffrage does not define democracy..."

Friday, 3 May 2019

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

May 2019 - Anyone who has followed any of my earlier musings already knows something about my simple philosophies. 

Whenever I can I prefer not to use labels to describe people because labels and names often can generate unhelpful images and prejudices in the minds of readers. Your experience of life is different to mine therefore your view of the world is likely to be different to mine in several respects. Harmony of thought is neither instant nor is it gained easily but accurate definition becomes easier if we can do away with ‘-ists’ and ‘-isms’.

Among other beliefs, some secular and some spiritual, I believe in individual FREEDOM: of expression and of religion; I believe in personal and family responsibility; I believe in the Rule of Law and Trial by Common Law Jury; I believe in limited government; and, mostly, I believe in a free market economy even though ‘free’ rarely means free. I know I’m not unusual because, from time to time, I find others who believe similarly.

I believe, too, that taxation is legal theft supported by menaces by the state and I believe that party politics work against the best interest and well-being of the people. THAT tends to make me a bit unusual.

Oh, and bankers are not our best friends despite what their adverts say.

I believe in the Rule of Law and Trial by Common Law Jury.

Think on this, if you will. It is the first requirement needed for a safe, sovereign, peaceful and prosperous United Kingdom. Common Law equates to natural law and by ‘natural’ law I’m not referring to gravity. 

Natural law expresses itself as a common understanding of what is fair and what is not fair, based on the evidence presented to the jury. Children are instant experts at common and/or natural law. Adults certainly know about right and wrong.  When it came to Trial by Jury our predecessors gave us the standard of 12 jurors to hear and judge the case arguments, and a convenor, now referred to as a judge. The Jury is called upon (required) to agree an unanimous verdict based on the evidence. In a Common Law court ‘no unanimity’ equals ‘not guilty’ or else the law itself is flawed and must be over ruled.

“The Full Restoration of our ancient and proven Common Law Trial by Jury and Annulment by Jury Constitution, wrote Justin Walker, puts us, the people, firmly back in authority over our agenda-driven and self-serving politicians, judges, lawyers and bankers by lawfully removing from them their powers to punish and deceive.” 

Years before we ever had a ‘Parliament’ the King John of England reluctantly agreed a treaty with his Lords, Barons and his subjects. It became known as Magna Carta 1215 and it forms the bedrock of our Constitution. When the treaty was agreed the intention was that it should continue to be a treaty ‘in perpetuity’ - it said so within the document - meaning for ever after.

(Encyclopaedia Britannica defines a treaty as: “The term treaty is used generically to describe a variety of instruments, including conventions, agreements, arrangements, protocols, covenants, charters, and acts. In the strict sense of the term, however, many such instruments are not treaties. The key distinguishing feature of a treaty is that it is binding.” 

(Treaties are expected to be executed in good faith, in keeping with the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: “agreements must be kept”), arguably the oldest principle of international law. Without this principle, which is explicitly mentioned in many agreements, treaties would be neither binding nor enforceable.) Hence our problem with UK leaving EU, even though the treaty that binds us has get out clauses.

You’ve stayed with me thus far. Now there are two important questions in need of your consideration:

1. Can you think of any reasons why the Ten Commandments should not be displayed in a so-called court of law? According to George Carlin the real reason is because you cannot post ‘Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery’ and ‘Thou shalt not lie in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.

2. Can you think of any reasons why Judges, lawyers, police officers, won’t admit to the superiority of Common Law courts over state-sponsored courts?
Answer 2. There is no money in it for them, and no authority, either.

Now can you see how truly precious Common Law Trial by Jury is to us? Can you understand how we have almost let this amazing gift slip through our fingers because we and our fathers listened to and believed those who would have dominion over us?

I often say there is nothing new under the sun and it holds true here. As Justin Walker wrote “The Full Restoration (nothing new) of our ancient and proven Common Law Trial by Jury and Annulment by Jury Constitution, puts us, the people, firmly back in authority.”

And that, m’lud, is when the fighting began. If it is legal for the government to judge us according to statute law but illegal for we, the people, to judge ourselves according to Common Law Trial by Jury – we are moving towards tyranny with our eyes wide shut.


* * * * *

For a more complete presentation on our democratic right to Common Law Trial by Jury and our Constitution emanating from Magna Carta 1215, 
I invite you to view
by Kenn d’Oudney.

* * * *

Next time, look for the second Requirement necessary for a safe, sovereign, peaceful United Kingdom and “The Creation of Prosperity for all by bringing back debt-free and interest-free Treasury money.”

Written and published by Michael

Monday, 22 April 2019

As if by magic our liberty is stolen

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty 
of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
Benjamin Franklin. American author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, diplomat, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

Reflect on this headline, dear reader, and consider my often repeated observation that ‘there is nothing new under the Sun’. Liberty, as it was understood down the centuries, is being subdued all over the planet by those who would rule over us. As they have always done. 

Through the power of modern telecommunications our rulers apply their rules as if on steroids. And we allow them to do so. Until.

Until we see them as they are. Not as concerned beneficiaries for you and me but as self-interested egotists. The warning coming to us from days of yore is the same as ever: ‘Give them an inch and they will take a mile’. (Or the metric equivalent). So, why give them an inch?

Like so many of us I’ve heard the various leaders of the packs who strut their stuff in search of popular acclaim and endorsement. I’ve read their newspaper articles; I’ve even attended various public meetings where some have tried to cast their spells on their willing adherents. 

Perhaps, unbeknown to me, I’m becoming one of them because I write in an attempt to inform and wake others and cause minds to change. But I don’t want to be a leader. Not at my age.

What I want – what I really, really want – is to see the minds of family, friends, neighbours, community and country become AWARE and AWAKE to the diet of lies fed to them each day. I want them to ask WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN. 
Children do it naturally all the time. Adults are too often too sophisticated (meaning un-natural) and too defensive of their own supposed status (meaning their pride) to stop and reflect. We have too few quiet moments in among the hurly-burly of work, family and other responsibilities. Think Simon and Garfunkel and their 59th Street Bridge Song (Feeling Groovy). “Slow down, you move too fast.”

I think, too, of the words of media interrogator Sir Robin Day when he interviewed the then Defence Secretary, John Nott, at the time of the Falklands War. 


John Nott begins his explanation with the words: “MOST politicians have five minutes of fame before they disappear forever.” We, lemmings that we are, allow them their five minutes (figuratively speaking) and we and our children and grand children reap the whirlwind. Even that proverbial expression isn’t new. Look it up in the Old Testament, Hosea, chapter 8, verse 7. It’s in the book!

Then think about the actions and words of our current Prime Minister, and our current Leader of the Opposition; the Leader of any other party you care to identify – all of them are here today and will be gone tomorrow, and our descendents will bear the benefits and the consequences which are our legacy UNLESS WE STAND AND INSIST that ‘they’ STOP.  Cease and desist, as my old Head Master used to say. Better still, don’t allow them access-to-your-mind-time. Or, as Groucho Marx said: “I don’t want to join any club that would have me as a member.” 

Why? Because their assumptions and assertions are no better than yours or mine. In essence, time and time again they assert, in effect, ‘I’m right and you are wrong . . .  unless you agree with me . . . in which case both of us are right.’  Rarely do ‘they’ admit that they are wrong. Why would they? They want your vote.

Groucho Marx also said; “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?” Already the day is upon us when only ‘they’ are permitted freeness of speech. Everyone else is guilty of an –ism. And –isms aren’t allowed.  That has to be worth thinking about.

* * *

And there is nothing new under the Sun.

Next time – what can we do about it?

Saturday, 6 April 2019


There's no joy in my heart,
Only sorrow
And I'm sad
As a man can be
I sit alone in the darkness
Of my lonely room
And this room
Is a prison to me

I look at my window

And what to I see
I see a bird
Way up in the tree
I want to be free free
Free - ee - ee - ee
I want to be free
Like the bird in the tree
(Elvis Presley)

25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
(The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 6)

Now there’s a thought.

What it’s All Really About?

by William Keyte

Right, for goodness sake keep reading and don’t stop until the end! I'm going to try and break this subject down into short enough chunks that you won't think 'I can't read this now, I haven't got the time' - or something similar. 

Sorry to be a little bit irksome here, but not enough people are doing the reading. We need to get off our backsides and educate ourselves. If you do not know the material presented in this document, then you're already playing into the hands of the deep state which simply wants you as a spineless and compliant slave to the Orwellian corporate future that they’ve planned for all of us. 

What follows is some of the most important information you will receive about how the state and government is supposed to function. If you find any of this information difficult to believe or swallow in any way then read the longer articles in the Learning Resources section of the New Chartist Website that back up these statements. 

Here we go ... 

The Problem 

Many of us know already that humans are under extreme threat right now. The 'conspiracy theorists' were right all along. A small group (relatively speaking) are, indeed, engaged in conspiracy to defraud, harm and enslave the ordinary people. The conspiratorial nature of our reality is indeed undeniable, but it all stems from one problem: That people, now, following constant propaganda over millennia, are always looking for someone or something else to do things for them! 

Stick with me, this is important. 

The most obvious expression of this is in the formation of a government to do things for us. (Dangerous move - but OK, as long as you understand the principles laid out in this document). The system of governance that we (the people) created for our society has taken authority over us; but it should be the other way around: The creator should always remain in authority over that which it has created.  

The government that we created to perform jobs for us, was infiltrated (along with practically every other government) by a cabalistic (meaning obscure, mysterious, dark and arcane) group which is now being used to control us. This wouldn't have happened if the fundamental principles of how a state is supposed to function always remained known and understood by the people. Specifically: A legitimately-formed society always subordinates its government. 

The United Kingdom, once England, was and is meant to be a legitimately-formed state because its governing system was always intended to fall under the authority of the people. It was an example of true Equity in which all people are equal under the law. People are not subject to the law in slightly different ways and nor should some be more privileged than others. All are subject to it equally including the head-of-state, in our case: The Monarch.

How? Read on, this is critical... 

A bit of a Shock to Many 

It was never intended for the people to influence their government and state merely through voting in elections. That is not the primary mechanism by which the people hold their government to account - contrary to what most people believe. The real name for this system of voting in elections - especially a party political system - is 'Suffrage'. And as we all know, it doesn't work anyway. Most people believe, incorrectly, that this system of voting is called Democracy. 

Wrong! This is the first surprise. We have been deceived about what Democracy really is. And when you understand what it really is, you'll realise very quickly that it is the most valuable thing the people can have. This will be a shock, even for many in the 'awake and aware' community - especially in America where it is common to argue that they are a republic, and not a democracy. This is false - they are actually both: a Democratic Republic. The ‘republic’ bit merely describes the style of the head of state (a president) as opposed to a Monarchy in the UK. But it's the 'Democratic' part that is the crucial bit - and you'll see why. 

Read on - keep going! 

The real constitutional mechanism by which our government is subordinated, and maintains us in authority is, in fact, the real definition of Democracy itself - and it’s not voting in elections! Many in the 'truth' movement have been tricked into believing that we don't want a Democracy - simply because we've been told, wrongly, it's about voting. It’s Not!

So What is Democracy Really? 

Real Democracy is what the conspirators have been desperate to hide over the last 800 years. It contains a very powerful mechanism that keeps the people in authority over their government at all times - not merely once every four or five years! This will surprise many. 

Common Law Trial by Jury 

Don't stop reading - there's more to this, because real Common Law Trial by Jury (which doesn't operate today) contains a devastating weapon that has been deliberately hidden from the people. It's called Annulment by Jury. Most people think that Trial by Jury is simply there for us to judge the accused. No - that is not the only reason. In fact it could be argued that that is merely the secondary and less important reason for Trial by Jury. Full, unabridged Trial by Jury which should be in place today, allows the jury (a small sample of our community) to throw out government-created law (legislation). 

Yes, you did read that correctly! The real judges in a proper Common Law Trial are the jury: not the Judge! The Judge's role has been renamed from 'Convenor' - merely an administrator. They won't like to hear that! 

The jury is supposed to judge on all aspects of the case - which doesn't happen now. There are lots of crucially important things that I could tell you about real Trial by Jury, but I won't because I'm keeping this short and sweet. But this is the biggy!... If the accused has indeed technically broken the legislation, then as jurors, people think they are supposed to return a 'guilty' verdict to reflect the facts of the case and back-up the law. No! This is not the case. Because the jury is supposed to be judging on fairness and justice - specifically, they are looking for malicious intent. Does it feel right according to my conscience, to punish this man - regardless of whether he has technically broken the law? It is perfectly possible and right that a common law jury returns a not-guilty verdict even though the accused may have technically breached some piece of government legislation. 

But, ladies and gentlemen, the effect of this is spectacular!... If that happens, then under Common Law, that piece of government legislation is found to be defective and begins the process of being extracted from the statute books!! That's the biggest bombshell for the political class because they don't like it up 'em. The people (could even be one individual) is responsible for throwing out government-created law! 

Don't you just love it!? Think about it people, because, under common law, a guilty verdict can only be returned if it's unanimous (all jurors return a guilty decision), just one individual member of our community could be the cause of bringing about the end to an unfair, impractical or unworkable piece of legislation! One dissenter causes a Not-Guilty verdict. That's power of the people, ladies and gents. Now do you get it!?? This could happen at any point - whenever there is a trial. So government legislation is meant to be tested under Common Law at all times and is always subject to the authority of the people. The government’s own ‘law’ could and should be tested every day all over the country under our authority!! 

Social Contract 

That is the social contract that people talk about. We are led to believe in some rather vague, airy-fairy way that the social contract is all about the government being allowed to govern as long as the system of representation is maintained (voting). Rubbish! 

The social contract is that the government is allowed to 'govern' as long as it remains subservient to the rule of law: which is the people being in judicial authority over them through Trial and Annulment by Jury - as it was in ancient Greece! Parliament is not sovereign: the people are sovereign. Sorry, politicians, life's such a bitch isn't it? In essence this means that the people are the government. 

Different Jurisdictions of Law 

Just to clarify. There are different jurisdictions or 'layers' in law. Government is allowed to create ‘law’ (called legislation through creating Acts of Parliament). But all of this not only has to be ratified by our head-of-state - the Queen, but is also put to the test every single time it comes up in a trial. Common Law is a higher jurisdiction of law and is created by the people (not government) and not (as is often claimed by people in the Judiciary) judges. It is created through the decisions made by the people when they sit on juries. Common Law is a consolidation of the decisions of juries. All government-created ‘law’ (legislation) must be in alignment with Common Law. Now do you get the picture?! Where does all this come from? 

Magna Carta 1215: the Original and Best 

That's your constitution, people! The last time I looked, it was definitely written as well. Yes, you have a written constitution - contrary again to what others would have you believe. And yes, in their nasty, conniving way, they created their own preferred ‘power-grabbing’ versions of it later on to replace the original that they didn’t like. But it was unlawful to attempt this - as these were only legislature versions (from parliament). The Government can’t write constitutional law and is not allowed to write itself into a higher position within that stratum. Government can only repeal or amend legislation – which means anything that government has created previously. Government cannot write itself into judicial authority. Government is contained within the Common Law. And the 1215 Magna Carta was written and sealed before the formation of parliament. 

Effects of Brexit or Remain 

What happens if we affirm our position in EU and don't leave? All those powerful mechanisms I’ve just described, that protect the people and keep them in authority over their government will disappear, because EU doesn't have Common Law. In EU, you're guilty until proved innocent. EU doesn’t have Trial by Jury - because EU uses the Napoleonic system of law. Nasty! 

Now do you think staying in EU is a good thing? 

Don't worry Remainers - most Brexiteers didn't have a clue about this either :-) They tricked everyone. 

If you like what you have just read, then read more on the New Chartist Movement Website. Have a look at the 'Articles' and the 'Learning Resources' sections. Keep looking into this and Happy Reading!

William Keyte • New Chartist Movement Campaign Team 

English Bill of Rights 1689

Oops! I almost forgot the Bill of Rights in which it is written: “And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Now there’s another thought.
- - - -

Sunday, 10 March 2019

An open letter to UK Members of Parliament

From my department of useless information: When I was a young man I joined the Labour Party under the rise-and-rise of Harold Wilson because he was such a refreshing change from so many others at that time. I had no idea who was my local constituency MP at the time. Like many, I voted for the pied piper.

When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister I joined the Conservative Party because, unlike so many others of my age group, I found nothing much to dislike about her expressed political views. I had no idea then who was my local constituency MP. Again, like many I voted for the pied piper.

Today I am not a member of any party. I discovered some time ago that ‘the party’ exists for the continuation of the party.  Fullstop. Constituents who aren’t members seem to be classed as useful idiots whose views and beliefs can be safely put to one side until the next election. Once the vote has been given it is taken to represent acceptance of ALL the party manifesto, even when some parts of the manifesto aren’t acceptable – take it or leave it. It doesn’t matter which party I’m talking about. The principle remains unchanged.

The divide within the parties today, especially over Brexit and the EU adds emphasis to my view. I didn’t have anything to do with electing Theresa May as Party leader and thus Prime Minister. If she says and does anything that I cannot condone – tough. It has nothing to do with me. It is to do with what SHE says and does, backed by faceless string pullers in the Civil Service. But the important thing, to her, is clearly to present a united front, insofar as that is possible. She wants to be the face of the pied piper.

Similarly, when Her Majesty the Queen applies pen to statute to make it law, she does so on the basis of what her advisers tell her, even if to do so breaches her Coronation Oath.

Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?”

Queen Elizabeth II: “I solemnly promise so to do.”

Party MPs and Independents also take an Oath, as you know. “I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

Some might adhere to this Oath but many clearly don’t. Their allegiance is too obviously jointly to their own career and the party first, and so QCs of the governing party + civil servants ‘advise the Queen’ as to what she should do. But they do not permit Her to publicly differ from their advice. She is not allowed ‘to govern’, not even in accord with our ‘respective laws and customs’. The concept of a prisoner in a gilded cage comes to mind.

The current population of the United Kingdom is 66,837,847 as of Saturday, March 9, 2019, based on the latest United Nations estimates. The votes in favour of Theresa May as MP for Maidenhead, with an electorate of 74,000+ was a reduced majority of 26,500 on a turnout of 58,200. Hardly what I’d call true representation – not even on a good day.

I conclude with a different observation. As recently as January 2019 Conservative MP Crispin Blunt put down an early day motion calling to abolish  the practice of saying prayers at the beginning of parliamentary business in the House of Commons and House of Lords. A practice believed to have begun in 1558, I might add. Attendance is voluntary, I’m told, but I have no idea how many MPs participate. Mr Blunt isn’t the first to raise the subject and I’m sure he won’t be the last. Typically, he's talking about wanting to stop people from doing what they perhaps want to do while those who don't wish to participate are free anyway to stay away. How arrogant.

I’m told the Speaker's Chaplain usually reads the prayers. I could be pedantic and assert that reading prayers is different to praying. I take it that you know the form of the main prayer is as follows:

"Lord, the God of righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind; so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed. Amen." 

In today’s climate it is little wonder that some MPs feel unable to utter those words and would wish them to be eliminated, but they are under no obligation.

Rightly or wrongly, Her Majesty bears the title of Head of the Church of England and the likes of Crispin Blunt seem to want to trample on that, too. It makes me wonder about the value of any oath involving government or Parliament or politician.

On my study wall is a quotation attributed to Sir Winston Churchill together with a photograph of him in his hey-day. It reads:

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English Speaking World and which, through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury and the English Common Law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

I fear for my country. One day Her Majesty will pass; one day MPs and Lords will be moved out of the Palaces of Westminster to enable refurbishment, with no assurance that they will ever reassemble; one day a new head will be offered the Crown to be Monarch of a totally disunited and fractured Britain; and one day there will be a General Election which will recreate all the follies and illusions that we have today. You’ve heard the expression ‘United we Stand, Divided we Fall’ haven’t you?
I could weep. And MPs dare to address each other as Honourable and Right Honourable when so many are seemingly without honour.


Tuesday, 5 March 2019


Socialism in the UK means no pools, no swearing and citizens pulling their own teeth
Guest Post by Simon Black

The events that I am about to describe to you are 100% true.

They have already happened to various people across the United Kingdom, which in some respects is leading the charge to 21st century “Big Brother” authoritarianism.

It’s all real, and it’s all disturbing. To humanize it a little bit we have pulled several true events together into a single story about a man we’ll call “George.”
George thinks he might stop by the community garden. His neighbours regularly gather there around a waist-deep, inflatable pool they purchased to beat the summer heat.

But then he remembers that the landlords ordered the pool removed… they were concerned that a burglar might inadvertently hurt himself while attempting to rob a home, so the pool needed to go. (The Sun, 12 July 2018)

Instead George figures he’ll get a start on some errands. He hops in his work van and stops for a bite to eat on the way into town.

But when George’s meat-lovers pizza arrives, it looks quite sparse and smaller than he remembers.

“Public Health England has new standards we’re following,” the man behind the counter explains. “We’ve cut the meat and reduced the size… it’s to combat childhood obesity.” (The Telegraph, 25 December 2018)

Well I’m not a child, George thinks, but politely keeps it to himself.

George parks downtown, and still feeling a bit peckish, throws away the empty pizza box in the trash bag in the back of his van. But before he can get his shopping started, a member of the local council enforcement approaches. He noticed the trash in the back of George’s work van.

“Do you have a waste carrier’s license, to carry rubbish in a commercial vehicle?”
“What, to throw out my lunch? I didn’t toss it out the window, did I?”

George received a £300 fine. Yes, in the UK, you now need a license to have trash in your private property. (The Sun 2nd August 2018)

By now George is understandably feeling a bit peeved. And when he sees a sign that says police are conducting a facial recognition trial, he pulls his sweatshirt up over his face. But he hasn’t gone 12 paces before officers pull him aside.

“It says participation isn’t mandatory,” George protests.
“Awful suspicious to cover your face,” the cops say. “What do you have to hide?”

“Oh piss off!” George shouts. So the bobbies issue George a £90 public order fine for swearing. No, apparently you can’t opt out of “optional” facial recognition or swear in the UK. (The Independent, 31 January 2019)

Exasperated, George continues to the hardware store. He has to buy a hammer and nails so that he and his neighbors can build a barricade in front of their homes. There’s a big festival coming to town… and last year, police failed to stop revelers from inflicting massive property damage on shops and homes, in addition to multiple stabbings and a number of acid attacks. (The Star, 25th August 2018)

At first George thought the barriers were a bit overkill. Perhaps he could just get some pepper spray instead?

But when he checked the official UK police resource website, George was appalled to read that “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.” So, no pepper spray – too much liability.( )

George arrives home, ready to build, but gets a knock on the door.
It’s the UK anti-terrorism police unit. They received a call from a concerned citizen who had seen the recent 'Life has No Rewind Button' commercials. The videos tell citizens to report any suspicious behaviour, because “Reporting suspicious activity won’t ruin lives, but it might save them.” (Scott Shackford, associate editor.|Jan. 30, 2019 

Just like in the commercial, the citizen grew concerned when she saw George buying a hammer… Citizens are told to report on others who make purchases of weapons or “other objects that could be used to cause harm.”

It takes George the better part of an hour to prove his innocence to the officers. By the time they leave, his damn tooth is aching again from all the stress.
What ever happened to that National Health Service request I made a year and a half ago? George thinks.

He contacts the NHS, who tell him to wait patiently, he will be seen when the resources become available. But he’s already waited over a year. And he’s losing patience. Who knows how much longer it will take.
So George clamps a pair of pliers around his tooth… and he yanks it clean out.  (, 29th January 2019)

Just another day in the Socialist UK.

Well, it must be true.  It was in the news.
On the other hand, you couldn’t make it up.

Thursday, 28 February 2019

A job, a job. My Kingdom for a job

I’ll sell or give away anything for a job.

Don’t smile. It isn’t funny.

From time to time when chatting among friends after someone we know has died, I reflect with a brief comment about the imminent funeral and say: “You know, I’ve never heard anyone stand at a grave side and say ‘he really did want to work his listed overtime next Saturday’.” And people then smile, wryly. They get the point.

We work for money to buy . . . food . . . clothes . . . a roof over our heads . . . a holiday in the sun . . . or anything you care to think of. But, sometimes, we lose sight of the cost of those things, and I’m not talking about pounds and pence. What I’m talking about is the simple phrase ‘we work for money . . . to buy.’  As in, “You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things”. (The Beatles)

The assumption implicit in that song is the idea that the ONLY way to satisfy any of our necessary and natural needs is first to work for money . . . and then all these things can be added. 

It seems to me that’s the emphasis being laid upon Brexit by those who would rule over us. You could lose your job, your business, your income, your-everything-you’ve-ever-worked-for. It’s all about the money, honey. We call it scaremongering – and other things - don’t we?

With those thoughts buzzing in my head I began to divide the world (families, neighbours, towns, counties, countries, continents) as I see them in my mind. The list is never-ending.

On one hand On the other hand
Men Women
Adults Adolescents and youths
Educated         Not-so-well-educated
Single Married
Conservatives         All the other political views
Socialist All other political views
Christian All the other religious beliefs
Muslim All other religious beliefs
Religious beliefs         No religious beliefs
Caucasian         Non-Caucasian
Native born Immigrant
Good English Not so good English speaker
Home owner Home renter
Grateful Ungrateful
Worker Unemployed
Employer         Employee
Arrogant Humble
Foreceful         Timid
Self Confident         Not self confident
Good speaker         Not a good speaker
Attractive         Not so attractive appearance
Friendly Not friendly
Optimist Pessimist
Selfish Selfless

The list is endless but I’ll stop there. Jumble them in any way you like so that it isn’t a simple case of seemingly opposites but a mixture from real life of real people.

Now tell me how you believe we can have a meeting of the minds easily! We can’t. There are too many mis-matches.

If that is the case, why on earth would you elect any one of these mismatches to be your representative . . . on your local council . . . in your associations . . . in your national assembly (meaning Parliament within UK). Especially when it isn’t YOU they will represent, and you know it. They are chosen by the PARTY managers who see them as worthy party representatives, and you know it. 

WHY would you vote for them/the party and deceive yourself into believing that they are YOUR representatives when only the inside crowd have had any say in choosing them? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

And the answer is? We do it because that’s the way we’ve always done it and because we’ve never acknowledged that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to obtain a different result . . . is the essence of madness.
Oh, yes. That’s another ‘on the one hand and on the other hand’ match. Those who are mad, and those (in their own eyes) who are not mad. Both cannot be right.

So, going back to my opening headline – is all this Brexit hullaballoo about jobs (or potentially the lack of them)? Or is it about personal vested interests? Even when they are mis-matched and almost innumerable?

Could it be about national integrity? Clearly, it isn’t about maintaining our own Constitution, Magna Carta 1215, Common Law and Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, Rule of Law, Natural Law. I put it to you that these things aren’t spoken about openly because there are too many vested interests and such people (illusionists is the best I could call them) are, clearly, willing to give away our Kingdom for a horse or twenty pieces of silver equivalent.

We have another name for those people.

If my writing has struck a chord with you, please go to:  for further information.

The 2019 People’s Charter

The Six Requirements Needed to Collapse the Criminal ‘Deep State’
1. Restoring our ancient and proven Common Law Trial by Jury Constitution that puts the people back in authority over our politicians, lawyers and bankers by removing from them their power to punish. 

2. Creating prosperity for all by bringing back debt-free and interestfree Treasury money that’s simply based on the wealth and labour of our nation – exactly as we did in 1914 with the enormously successful 'Bradbury Pound'. 

3. Ending the abuse and harm of all children whilst protecting the Common Law rights of parents so as to strengthen the family unit. 

4. Having the right numbers of Police and Armed Services needed to guarantee the sovereignty and protection of our country from all those who wish us harm. 

5. Exposing and removing a hidden and alien system of 'legalese' governance that uses outright fraud, deception and entrapment to unlawfully impoverish and constrain the ordinary people of our country. 

6. Ensuring that science is always used for the well-being and advancement of all and not for the profit and greed of the few.

* * * * *