Two Englishmen arrested – for posting videos on the internet

Read it and weep!

A police spokesman said: ‘‘We have investigated a number of incidents across the internet after they were brought to our attention last year. ‘We have yet to analyse what has been seized and will then be in a better to look at what, if any, offences have been committed.’‘

 

H/T:  The Religion of Peace

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read this is:

  • Somebody complained about the videos these guys posted
  • the cops arrested them and took their stuff
  • only now will they try to look at the evidence to see IF a crime had been committed

Where to start…

Well, perhaps with my yesterday’s post – where, in his speech, John Robson explains the meaning of English common law and how it had been affirmed by the Magna Carta.  It looks like the proud Englishmen have turned their back on their heritage…

How corrupt has the system of common law and the liberties it is supposed to guarantee become that something a person says causes him to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty and property?

But, this is even worse…

What about the police officers – how come they are obeying this obviously illegal order?

Because arresting a person and siezing their property first, and only then trying to figure out IF there has even been a crime commited, is contrary to everything the English common law stands for!

What to do?

 

I don’t know.

Sure, we can all work to post on other people’s behalf and mirror videos and all that, but that is just trying to stick a band-aid over a severed jugular.

But, I have been giving this a lot of thought.

What we need to do, in my never-humble-opinion, is to hold each and every individual police officer criminally and civilly responsible for carrying out orders which are obviously contrary to English common law.  And not just in Joly old England, or even the whole Commonwealth:  we must do this everywhere where the heritage of English Common Law exists.

Because it is only by making individuals within ‘the system’ accountable can we affect change of the system as a whole!

No, it is not easy.

But is just may be doable.

Let’s try!

 

 

6 Responses to “Two Englishmen arrested – for posting videos on the internet”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    I agree that English Common Law is a powerful weapon on the side of freedom.

    But, procedurally, I don’t see anything wrong with what the police did in this case. They arrested the men, charged them with a crime, and then released them. Apparently, all this all occurred within 24 hours, so it does not contradict my understanding of due process.

    However, that doesn’t mean there is no problem here. On the contrary, the very idea that “publishing a catalogue of vile and racially inflammatory material” should be treated as a crime is an outrage that dwarfs anything those men could have done. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, if we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people we despise, then we don’t believe in it at all.

    It is on this basis that we should prosecute legislators who enact laws that infringe on rights which have been enshrined in English Common Law for over a thousand years. And, on the principles firmly established at least since Nuremberg, following such a law is itself an offence, so this is the proper basis upon which to prosecute police, military or other agents of the state who enforce such contemptible pseudo-laws.

    And you are right that we should do this everywhere in the anglosphere. In Canada, for example, we have a charter of privileges and indulgences – er, rights and freedoms – which contains the following clause:

    “26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”

    What can this mean? These “other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada” can only be those that predate the Charter. Namely, those that were already acknowledged by English Common Law and reaffirmed by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and so on.

    Most importantly, I refer to the right to bear arms, specifically for the purpose of self defence. Current Canadian statutes infringe this right, and have done so to an increasing degree for at least half a century.

    I am absolutely amazed that, in all that time, no one has mounted a constitutional challenge against these oppressive non-laws.

    It is long past due.

    Xanthippa says:

    “You can never put too much water into the nuclear reactor!”

    What does this mean?

    It just happens to be one of my hubby’s favourite sayings – and it can be understood in a number of ways, some of which are exact opposites of others…

    “You can NEVER put too much water into a nuclear reactor!” means that you should keep adding that water, because no matter how much water you put in, it will NEVER be too much.

    “You can never put TOO MUCH water into a nuclear reactor!’ means that if you DO put too much water in, the thing will blow up…

    There are more, but, these are the most important ones in that they are ech other’s opposite – without any alteration in the way the sentence is written down, not even in punctuation.

    (If you listen to the John Robzon speech to th libertarians, which I posted yesterday, it comes up towards the end, in the QA bit…)

    The Magna Carta says that (and I am paraphrasing, just as the Magna Carta is) everyone (the citizens) has the right to bear arms, according to the law.

    When this was first written down in the Magna Carta, it meant that the English common law has always meant that all the citizens have the inalienable right to bear arms (if not a downright duty to do so). Therefore, “according to the law”, it is OBVIOUS that everyone DOES have the right to carry arms.

    The way this same sentence has been interpreted by our current jurists, however, is as opposite to this meaning as the two interpretations of the water and nuclear reactor saying….

    As in, the current jurists say that the ‘according to the law’ means that the State is clearly accorded the authority to” pass laws which “regulate” (meaning, severely restrict and/or ban completely) how and when citizens might perhaps be permitted to carry arms!

    It would be funny, if it were not so deadly…

    Oh, and as for the other point you raise: English common law says that you cannot be arrested, nor your property siezed, without evidence that you had committed a crime. The police officers said that they had arrested the people and siezed their property SO THAT they could determine IF ANY CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED!!!

    That is the WRONG order of things!

    English common law is clear that the order the police did things in – first arrest and/or sieze property, then look for evidence IF a crime had been committed is illegal! It is ‘arbitrary arresrt’ to toss people in jail BEFORE you even know IF a crime had been committed! I believe it is coloquially referred to as ‘a fishing expedition’ – and it is illegal in all countries where there is even a trace of the tradition of English common law!!!

  2. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    By focusing too much on legalities, we are in danger of letting the collectivists win their main point without contest. Namely, that rights are defined by what is written down in some declaration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    “A right is not what someone gives you, it’s what no one can take away from you.”

    — Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General, 1967-1969

    Let me be more precise. A right is a freedom, entitlement, or immunity, which is so fundamental to human nature that it cannot justly be taken away or given up.

    A human being has certain intrinsic needs and capacities, simply by virtue of being human. Harm and suffering result when these needs are not met, and they cannot be met except by exercising these capacities. Therefore, it is every person’s natural right to act for his own benefit and to benefit from his own actions.

    All other rights follow from this one essential principle. Not as a matter of opinion, convention, or decree, but as inescapable rational consequences of the known facts of human nature and the human condition.

    The natural right to self defence is one the most fundamental forms of every person’s natural right to act for his own benefit and to benefit from his own actions. Equally fundamental is the right to use his ingenuity to fabricate tools to augment his innate capabilities, which obviously includes weapons to amplify his inherent capacity for self defence. And this necessarily extends to the right to exchange the fruits of our labours for weapons fabricated by someone else, just as our right to feed ourselves extends to our right to exchange the fruits of our labours for food.

    This is why the law, be it English Common Law or any other, can only acknowledge and affirm the rights of the individual.

    The rights came first.

    Xan says:

    YES!!!

    Which is why it is important, as John Robson says, to assert that constitutions of all kinds – from the Magna Carta on – are simply assertions of what our rights are and have always been…and that whereever the written down bits contradict the minimum codified in the Magna Carta, they are illegal.

  3. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Now, regarding the legalistic details…

    (Perhaps this should really go in this thread, but I’ll keep it here for the sake of continuity.)

    Most of the Magna Carta is now explicitly repealed. Only three sections remain in force, one guaranteeing freedom to the Church of England, one guaranteeing autonomy to the City of London, and one guaranteeing free men immunity against imprisonment without due process of law. In any case, very little in the Magna Carta resembles what we would consider a bill of rights today. Neither the right to free speech nor the right to bear arms appear anywhere in the Magna Carta.

    However, 34 years before the Magna Carta, the Assize of Arms was proclaimed by Henry II in 1181. It actually required all free men to be armed. But the right to bear arms was not mentioned explicitly, because no one had ever thought to question it, any more than anyone thought to question the right to breathe. It simply went without saying.

    Until Charles II began to build up the standing army, created by his predecessor Charles I, and limit the armaments permitted to free men, after which his successor James II proceeded to disarm people completely. And that lead to the Glorious Revolution, which forced James II to abdicate, drafted the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and made William of Orange and his wife Mary both sign it as a condition of becoming King and Queen of England.

    This is the document which your remarks about bearing arms “according to the law” actually apply to. And your point is well taken, but it gets a little more complicated than that. You see, James II was a Papist, so it was only Protestants he was disarming. Thus the seventh of thirteen rights itemized in the bill sought to rectify this.

    The original wording of the clause (as quoted by Cliff Stearns in The Heritage of Our Right to Bear Arms ) is as follows:

    “It is necessary for the publick Safety, that the Subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep Arms for their common Defence: And that the Arms which have been seized, and taken from them, be restored.”

    But in the version of the bill which was actually ratified, this clause had been reworded to read,

    “That the Subjects, which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

    The whole point of the change being to emphasise that Protestants may not be excluded from the right to bear arms, which is acknowledged by the law of the land.

    We must remember that language usage changes with time. Today, we mostly use the word “to allow” to mean “to permit.” However, it can also mean “to admit” or “to acknowledge.” Nowadays, this meaning is a bit archaic, but in 1689 it was common usage.

    Similarly, the ninth right itemized by this same Bill of Rights is freedom of speech. The clause reads

    “That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.”

    Next thing you know, some mealy-mouthed pharisee will contrive a cunningly slanted interpretation of this wording and try to claim that it gives the government the right to limit freedom of speech.

    Oh, wait… they already have…

    I can only reiterate: the way to take the wind out of the sails of these legalistic hair-splitters is to return to first principles.

    A right is a freedom, entitlement, or immunity, which is so fundamental to human nature that it cannot justly be taken away or given up.

    The law can do no better than to acknowledge and affirm the rights of the individual.

    Any law that fails to do so is unjust.

    And an unjust law is no law at all.

    Xan says:

    100% agreed.

  4. Steynian 438 « Free Canuckistan! Says:

    […] TWO ENGLISHMEN arrested – for posting videos on the internet …. […]

  5. Steynian 438 | craigx4mayor.org Says:

    […] TWO ENGLISHMEN arrested – for posting videos on the internet …. […]

  6. Adolf Hitler Says:

    If i had lived during WW2 i would have joined the luftwaffe and reduced london to a heap of burning rubble.

    Now would someone please detonate a nuclear device in london? Do it ! I DOUBLE URGE YOU! DO IT NOW!!

    Xanthippa says:

    Please, stop trolling.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: