Ex-policeman Albert Burgess - A case for treason

silentrevolution

http://www.tpuc.org/node/560

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

L i b

What utter nonsense. That man was a special constable, eh?

Reply 2

tehjonny

He is quite a powerful speaker for someone so softly spoken.

You won't convince many here though. Most are firmly in the 'my betters now better' camp :frown:

Reply 3

tehjonny

The missus thought it was stand-up :biggrin:

Reply 4

L i b

There's no logic behind it whatsoever.

Reply 5

silentrevolution

L i b

There's no logic behind it whatsoever.

Sedition laws and treason laws are illogical?

Reply 6

L i b

silentrevolution

Sedition laws and treason laws are illogical?

Nope*, but to apply them to this situation is ridiculous. For another, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of the law of treason or sedition in this country. For one, treason is not against the state or the country, but against the Queen and the Crown. Sedition is an effectively irrelevant offence in modern law, and can certainly not be committed by legal means: since the 19th century at least, the courts have demonstrated violence or an intention of it is required as an element of the offence.

His assertion (and you'll have to forgive me, I've not watch the whole thing with my full attention) that is is somehow a criminal act for a parliament to attempt to bind itself is ridiculous - if parliament can bind itself, fine; if it can't then it can't - neither leads to a criminal act and neither undermine the lawful status of the European Communities Act or any other implementing legislation.

Whilst he is no doubt an irritant to his local constabulary division, he's not going to achieve anything. No police complaints commission will uphold his complaints, no court will uphold his claims that the law has been broken. The only thing he is achieving in all this is looking like a kook.

(Edit: * or at least that's not what I was saying in my previous post. There is probably a decent argument in there that they are illogical, but not one I intend to make.)

Reply 7

silentrevolution

L i b

What utter nonsense. That man was a special constable, eh?

Question: What is this evidence of?

The United Kingdom became a member of the European Communities in 1973. The original Communities – European Community (European Union) – has its own constitutional structure as defined in the Treaties signed by all Member States. The Court of Justice of the Communities (EU) has, since the 1960’s asserted the supremacy of Community (EU) Law over the Laws of any Member State. The Laws of the Community (EU) – the Treaties, laws enacted by the Commission, Council of Ministers and the European Parliament together with the judicial decisions of the European Court – are binding on all Member States. In the United Kingdom, the acceptance of Community (EU) Law is under the European Communities Act 1972 – an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament - Accordingly, all Community (EU) Law derives its force and authority under this Act. The sovereignty of Community (EU) Law must, according to the European Court of Justice, have supremacy over the Member States Law, because through accession (signing of all Treaties) to the EU, Member States have ‘surrendered’ their sovereign power, in relation to those matters now regulated by the Community. (EU) Referenced from – Constitutional & Administrative Law - Forth Edition. Hilaire Barnett, BA, LLM, Queen Mary, University of London 2002

I answer with the word Treason.

Reply 8

Rob 106

May or may not be legaly treson. It is still wrong.

EU citizenship - I wasn't asked and I don't want it.

Reply 9

L i b

silentrevolution

Question: What is this evidence of?

I answer with the word Treason.

So which of these does it do:

* compassing the death of the Sovereign, or of the Sovereign's wife or eldest son and heir;
* violating the Sovereign's wife, or the Sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the Sovereign's eldest son's wife;
* levying war against the Sovereign in the United Kingdom;
* adhering to the Sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere;
* killing the Queen's Chancellor or Justices;
* attempting to hinder the succession to the throne;
* killing the Lords of Session or Lords of Justiciary in Scotland
* counterfeiting the Seal kept in place of the Great Seal of Scotland.

Eh?

Moreover, how is this any different from the Treaties of Union which formed the country in which we live today? The United Kingdom wouldn't exist if not for the unification of countries by treaty and law.

106 Rob

May or may not be legaly treson. It is still wrong.

Load of arse.

EU citizenship - I wasn't asked and I don't want it.

Nobody asked you if you wanted to be a British citizen either.

Reply 10

Rob 106

L i b

Load of arse.

Nobody asked you if you wanted to be a British citizen either.

Yea, but we are suppose to leave in a modern democracy now. Why were we asked if we wanted to join a European economic community?

Just because something has happened doesn't mean it is right.

Reply 11

L i b

106 Rob

Yea, but we are suppose to leave in a modern democracy now. Why were we asked if we wanted to join a European economic community?

Out of courtesy, not out of any 'right' you assume you may have. The referendum was simply a consultation exercise.

Just because something has happened doesn't mean it is right.

Well, if you condemn that as wrong, then no country on earth should exist, and you should be calling for the UK (as well as its predecessor states) to be abolished.

Reply 12

Rob 106

L i b

Out of courtesy, not out of any 'right' you assume you may have. The referendum was simply a consultation exercise.

Well, if you condemn that as wrong, then no country on earth should exist, and you should be calling for the UK (as well as its predecessor states) to be abolished.

Consultation?
So why didn't they "consult" over the EU?

This is different, we are supposed to live in a democracy.

Reply 13

L i b

106 Rob

Consultation?
So why didn't they "consult" over the EU?

Because they didn't fancy it.

This is different, we are supposed to live in a democracy.

A parliamentary, representative democracy.

Reply 14

Rob 106

L i b

Because they didn't fancy it.

A parliamentary, representative democracy.

You are right.

Reply 15

twizzel

I am albert burgess the ex policeman, I have read the posts with interests and feel some explanation of the treason laws is needed, the definition of treason given is only one definition and was taken from the treason act of Edward 3rd. But treason is not only against the Royal family but it is also against the state i.e. us. In England the ordinary man collectivelly has a will which is supreme over the Sovereign and parliament, parliament is like the house wife the husband comes home gives her his wages which she dispenses to pay the bills and feed and cloth her family, but her powers are limited she cannot for example sell or give the house away while her husband is at work. Parliament like the house wife carries out the day to day running of the country in our name and like the house wife it cannot sell or give the country away. But give it away they have and that is treason, they have allowed laws to come from overseas and replace laws from our ancient and very good constitution and that is sedition. It is treason to allow the food production ability to be so degraded that you cannot feed your population, we can no longer feed our population. It is treason to allow your armed forces to be so degraded that you cannot defend this country, our armed forces are worn out fighting over seas and their numbers and the equipement available to them no longer fit them for all out war to defend this country and its people. Our manufacturing industry has been destroyed that is also a definition of treason. Ever since Alfred the Great this country has refused to accept foriegn domination for a thousand years we have ruled ourselves to suit ourselves parliament have destroyed that and that which ever way you look at it is treason. Pleases do not believe the politicians they have proved they are not to be trusted among other things over the expences, this is your country do not sit back whilst it is given away join the fight to keep Britain British. Albert

Reply 16

L i b

twizzel

Says who? Edward III's legislators at least had the foresight to prevent this sort of thing, and declared that only Parliament can define treason by statute due to the abuses treason law was being used to justify. As such, every treasonable offence - and there are few of them - are printed clearly in Acts of Parliament. Frankly, I don't see one covering anything you suggest.

In England the ordinary man collectivelly has a will which is supreme over the Sovereign and parliament

That seems to run counter to several centuries of constitutional theory and, indeed, British history. What makes you believe this?

But give it away they have and that is treason, they have allowed laws to come from overseas and replace laws from our ancient and very good constitution and that is sedition.

The European Union is not 'overseas' - we are part of it.

Indeed, it seems rather odd that you are arguing for the powers of the Parliament - the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which was itself formed by the dissolution of its predecessor Parliaments and the creation of new ones by treaty: a union far more incorporating than the EU will ever be. This of course happened with the creation of the Parliament of Great Britain in 1707, when the parliaments of England and Scotland ceased to exist, and the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, when the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist.

If what you suggest is treason, which it isn't, then our country and our laws are built on treason.

Reply 17

twizzel

The Scots politicians who signed up to the act of union were paid £20.000 to buy their treason to Scotland by the Westminster parliament. So from a Scots perspective the act of union was treason at the highest levels of their government. Look at the oath in the 1689 bill of rights and you will see that this oath forbids any foreign laws being imposed upon us, this is the same oath used in the act of supremacy 1559 and it is the same oath used by the Privy Council today. Some one makes play of the fact that I was A Special Constable and it is true that was my appointment and I consider that to have held the office of constable to be a great honour, I don't know what you have heard about the Special Constabulary but I have no doubt it is wrong, in my case I have around 200 arrests and have been involved as a prnciple officer in 3 murder enquires, in one I detained the prime suspect. Leolin Price CBE QC says that I have made a formidable case for treason which merits serious consideration and investigation. As to your point that we are part of the EU our very membership is evidence of treason at the highest levels of government. When John Major after Maastric said the Queen is now a citizen of Europe, he was relegating our Queen to no more that a French onion seller. He was in fact taking away the style and honour of the Queen and that is treason under the 1848 treason felony act. The differance between you and me is that I was actively taught love of country at school, that has not been taught for many years, I was taught that as an Englishman I was in this country a loyal subject of Her Majesty's any where else in the world I was a Prince. I am jealous of my countries history and traditions and most of all its ancient and very good constitution. A far better constitution than any other they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery and all the truly democratic countries America Canada Australia and New Zealand have copied our constitution, where we can do or say anything and go anywhere as long as it does not harm another, where the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the State. In mainland Europe the rights of the state are more important than the rights of the individual. If you believe that is a better way than ours move to Europe, do not try and force me to accept second best I will die first. Albert

Reply 18

L i b

twizzel

Well, no, for one it was not only the Parliament of Scotland that ceased to exist in 1707, but the Parliament of England too - it is not solely a Scottish matter.

As for bribery: historically, no, that is false. Of the £20,000 of which you speak, the vast majority went to people who were committedly pro-Union already and plenty of it to men who didn't even have a vote in the Parliament. Whilst there was some small-scale corruption, it mainly surrounded the conditions of union rather than union itself. Either way, malfeasance in public office is not treason.

The Parliament of Scotland had petitioned, multiple times since 1603, for Union; it was England who were always reluctant.

Look at the oath in the 1689 bill of rights and you will see that this oath forbids any foreign laws being imposed upon us, this is the same oath used in the act of supremacy 1559 and it is the same oath used by the Privy Council today.

Doctrine of implied repeal: a more modern statute that conflicts with a previous Act repeals it. A fundamental of the British constitution. Moreover, the European Union is not 'foreign', it is a union which includes us.

Some one makes play of the fact that I was A Special Constable

I am perfectly willing to take you on your merits and discuss the issue rather than personalities.

When John Major after Maastric said the Queen is now a citizen of Europe, he was relegating our Queen to no more that a French onion seller. He was in fact taking away the style and honour of the Queen and that is treason under the 1848 treason felony act.

Well, treason-felony is not the same as treason, it is a different offence, but all the same I don't think Her Majesty has been "deprived" of anything by earning the status of the a European citizen: indeed, it is another honour which she happens to hold amongst many.

A far better constitution than any other they say imitation is the greatest form of flattery and all the truly democratic countries America Canada Australia and New Zealand have copied our constitution

The British constitution certainly is influential, but I don't think it is without fault. It is worth noting that most of the Commonwealth countries have modified British constitutional practices, bringing in written constitutions and other powers to regulate the authority of their institutions.

America has taken on a former version of our constitution - not the Westminster system, but a model of separated powers where the executive is not drawn from the legislature. I'm actually beginning to believe that might be rather better in some ways to what we have now.

Regardless, no constitution on earth will save you from having to put up with the government's less popular opinions from time to time, which is basically what I think you're trying to do.