English Constitutionalist.
The English are freeborn and self-governing by consent.
'Whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof ...'
Have a look at the Highlights tab in my profile. All the posts have links to source materials, books, legislation, etc.
Book wise; to understand our fundamental Common Law Rights I think Blackstone explains it clearly. The Chapter on 'Absolute Rights'.
And for the principles of our Constitution I choose one of the framers of the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights, John Somers. Well, he should know, right? 'The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People'
Links to both of these can be found in my posts mentioned above.
There is also my website, link in profile.
Also, I've a few books stored online. Link on the Library tab on my website.
John Holt (now Lord Chief Justice) again, on our Common Law Right to take part in the legislative process.
It is meant to be OUR decision as to whether we are to be bound to legislation, or not. The reason being that we are not to be slaves to the arbitrary Will of a governing tyrant.
The presumption is that we (the Commoners) are ALL meant to be there in Parliament to give our CONSENT to legislation; but there are just too many of us, so we carefully choose a like-minded representative to whom we entrust that consent.
@W4Restore You asked Graham of infographics, ... I have many. 😊
The only authority for the governance of our English People is comes from what is termed the 'original contract' or compact between the Monarchy and our People. Everything flows from this arrangement.
John Somers, member of the convention parliament and along with John Holt persuaded the House of Lords that King James had not 'abandoned' the throne of England but his actions were a renunciation of the Trust of our People and an abdication of government.
Here he talks of the importance of our English Constitution.
@W4Restore The 1688 convention parliament define what it is to abdicate the government of our nation. Breaching the original contract IS an abdication.
Enoch Powell was one of the most remarkable Englishmen of the twentieth century.
A patriot, a scholar and a soldier, he served his country in uniform during the Second World War, rising from private soldier to brigadier. Long before politics became his main calling, he had already distinguished himself through military service and an extraordinary intellect. Powell was a classical scholar who could read and speak numerous languages, including Greek, Latin, Welsh, German, French, Italian and others. He became a professor of Greek at just 25 years old, one of the youngest in the country.
He loved England, its people, its history and its traditions. Many of the concerns he raised about national identity, sovereignty, immigration and social cohesion decades ago remain central political issues today.
Powell's life was a reminder that public service once meant something more than chasing popularity. He combined intellectual brilliance, military service and a deep sense of duty to his nation.
Enoch Powell was no ordinary politician. He was a man of conviction, and history has ensured that he will not be forgotten and the present has proven that he was right. 🏴
As a Japanese watching the UK right now, I have one simple question.
A Sudanese asylum seeker just tried to behead a local man in Belfast. The victim lost an eye.
This comes after years of grooming gangs raping thousands of British girls — gangs that police and councils deliberately ignored because they were afraid of being called racist.
In Japan, even one case like this would have triggered national outrage and immediate policy reversal.
But in Britain, the conversation is still about “not being far-right.”
British people, at what point does protecting your own children become more important than protecting your reputation?
We genuinely do not understand this.
Vickrum Digwa’s brother, Gurpreet Digwa, 27, lied to police that Henry Nowak hadn’t been stabbed and had racially attacked his brother, perverting the course of justice.
Police also recorded him conspiring with Vickrum in a police car.
Six months later, he was arrested on multiple weapons charges and is currently on bail.
Meanwhile, Reece Robinson, 21, threw two stones at the Southampton police protest, hitting no one, and was jailed for 2 years and 1 month within 7 days.
Link to article Graham reads here is in the first comment. It is important and directly related by linage to the current British Nationality Act and the damage it has caused our native Peoples.
This short quote from the year 1690 is quite interesting. It shows who the English are, ergo we exist as a distinct People; it shows who built our Nation, secured our freedoms and at what cost; and who the intended recipients of such a great treasure are to be.
'for this Bill doth enfranchize all Strangers that will swear and protest against Popery, with the Liberties of every English Man, after the vast Expence of Treasure and English Blood, it hath cost this Kingdom in all Times and Ages of our Fore-fathers, to secure them to themselves, and their Posterity.'
Our problem has been solved before and it can be again.
What you need to know about the new Social Media Ban in the UK:
1. All persons under 16 are prohibited from accessing social media platforms without verified parental supervision.
2. Parental supervision must be logged digitally through the UK. gov app.
3. Parents must approve each post, comment, like, or share in real-time.
4. Failure to supervise constitutes negligent digital guardianship.
5. Penalties for negligent digital guardianship include fines up to £10,000 and potential removal of devices from the household.
6. Educational use is not exempt.
7. Mental health considerations are not exempt.
8. Checking the weather on a browser that could access social media counts as attempted access.
9. Screenshots of banned platforms are treated as contraband.
10. Discussing banned platforms in school counts as conspiracy to access.
11. Parents who express disagreement with these rules online will have their supervision privileges revoked.
12. Any family member can report violations anonymously (encouraged).
Compliance is mandatory.
Britain is safer for it.
Absolutely NOTHING, and that's my point. 😊
But what she did was preceded her true comment about consent and our English Common Law with FMOTL 'bullshit', which to some, will rubbish the truth about consent and Law by association.
'Maritime and Admiral law is laws of the sea. We are not lost at sea, we are living breathing men and women under common law, which is the true law of the land. Their acts, legislations and laws signed under admiral and maritime law are fictional, unlawful and illegal'
He just doesn't get that if we're putting foreigners first, to our detriment we are putting ourselves second in our own country. What he seems to believe is that legal mistakes cannot be undone.
Iain Dale left stunned by calm caller on LBC
A composed caller named Mike told Iain Dale on LBC that Britain “will remain almost ungovernable until we have mass deportations”.
The exchange was striking because the caller spoke in measured tones, clearly articulating a view held by millions of people across the country. Yet Iain struggled to process it, repeatedly falling back on “you can’t do that”.
Mike highlighted the obvious disconnect: the British public have consistently voted for lower immigration, only for politicians to deliver record levels instead.
“There’s a massive disconnect between the political class and the people of this country,” he said. “We never gave any consent to this and there’s certainly no mandate for the scale of immigration we’ve seen.”
When Iain pushed back, saying you can’t deport people here perfectly legally, the caller was unflinching:
Caller: “You mean end indefinite leave to remain?”
Iain: “You can do that for future people but you can’t do that for people who have already got it. That would be outrageous.”
Caller: “Yeah you can. Of course you can.”
Iain: “From a fairness point of view, you can’t suddenly tell people who’ve got a perfect legal right to be here that we’re changing the rules now…”
Caller: “You can, Iain.”
Iain: “Well you can do that but is that really the kind of country you want to live in?”
Caller: “Yes!”
Iain continued to argue that you can’t “take it out on perfectly legal, law-abiding people”, clearly unable to grasp how widespread this frustration has become.
The public didn’t always feel this way. Years of politicians ignoring the public on immigration have shifted attitudes dramatically. As the caller made clear, people never voted for this transformation and the consequences of fixing it now rest with those who created the problem.
Well worth a listen. The gap between Westminster and the rest of the country has rarely been clearer.