Sunday, May 04, 2008

Beyond the Fringe

This entertaining post from Oliver Kamm introduces David Lindsay and his one-man British People's Alliance:

The British People’s Alliance is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker and anti-war party of economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots.
Do read the comments to Kamm's post. Lindsay's blog is a joy, and the comments there should also be read. There's no fooling Lindsay, as this exchange demonstrates:
G Brown said...

I'm interested. I think this looks great. Plus I may be, er, looking for a new job soon. And to tell the truth, I'm not actually a party member of any party since I forgot to pay my subscription last year. I'll be in touch.

David Lindsay said...

G Brown, as an MP you would have been expelled from Labour anyway for not paying by direct debit. You know the rules.
It might be that this solitary political enterprise is called an Alliance because Mr Lindsay's tactical approach to building political credibility appears to consist mainly of conducting conversations with himself, under a variety of pseudonyms.

Meanwhile, the PJC Journal reports on a bold constitutional move:
John Harris read the Magna Carta and saw that it was good. So good in fact that he decided to make honest use of it. Particularly article 61.

Article 61 is the longest and most powerful of the clauses within Magna Carta of 1215. It proved so unpalatable to subsequent monarchs that when Magna Carta was craftily re-draughted in 1297, article 61 was not to be found.

But one man’s unpalatable article is another man’s invite to freedom. Enter John Harris, Public Defender and committed common law practitioner. Making use of Article 61, his recent visit to Buckingham Palace began his process of filing for redress of grievances.
On the 22nd day of March 2008 I personally went to Buckingham Palace to serve an Affidavit on Her Majesty the Queen. My Oath, (which has been signed and sealed by a solicitor) states quite clearly, that I now give Her Majesty 40 days to dismiss the traitors that reside in the Parliament of this country.
Mr Harris's affadavit can also be read at the UK Journal, where other prominent articles include Police let down by immagration crime, not just them. by "Enoch Powel" and the informative The Monarchy & The Laws of the Constitution, which tells us:
Research uncovers that the Royal Family are beholdent to The Vatican (which also contravenes laws against Catholic influence on the Soveriengn 'right to rule') and a body of research which also points to a controversy that the so-called Windsors are not the lawful heirs to the Throne of England! They are neither from or for this land and their relatives rule America too. Before WW11 they did not even speak English, but German (I suspect, Yiddish). The Crown has little to do with the nation of England, more a satellite to Vatican City and The Crown governs Law enacted within The City by Knights Templars who owe no allegiance to the people of this nation.
Unfortunately, Mr Harris misunderstands Clause 61 of Magna Carta, which allowed the Barons of England, if they felt the monarch had not provided an adequate response to grievances, to choose 25 of their number to take action for redress.

Magna Carta was first issued in 1215. In 1258, the Provisions of Oxford established a permanent Baronial Council. In 1264, during open war with King Henry III, Simon de Montford summoned what has become known as De Montfort's Parliament without reference to the King, and for the first time extended the representation to include commoners.

So by the 1290s, there was no need for Clause 61 because the occasional Baronial Council it permitted had become a permanent institution. As I have written before, half a century later this superficially resembled the modern Parliament very closely, with a King's speech being followed by meetings in separate chambers of Lords and Commons.

In other words, Clause 61 - far from granting a freeman the right to rebel - laid the foundations of the very Parliament to which Mr Harris objects. I doubt this sort of consideration will deter Mr Harris, and that is a good thing. Together with David Lindsay, he brings considerable gaiety into a sometimes drab political landscape.

No comments: