We should know what they are. Otherwise we might be infringing them, and making ourselves terrorists.
 |
| The expression says: Ughh Ordinary people! |
I just read this comment on Wings from “Heedtracker” (to whom my thanks):
‘The Home Office defines extremism as “vocal or active
opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law,
individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and
beliefs.” '
I always get a bit annoyed when I read about “British Values”.
We often hear about how “fair play” and “decency”, “cricket” and all that sort
of stuff, forms the very backbone of our society, and somehow is exclusive to people
from these islands.
I get even more cross when I hear British values defined
as “democracy”, “the rule of law”, “individual liberty”, etc. What rubbish. Britain is a chancer nation. A SPIV.
We've talked about this alleged "democracy" so many times on
Munguin’s Republic. What democracy, we've asked!
We have no constitution. I know that they say we do, and that it’s simply
unwritten. But in reality they make it up as they go along, citing tradition or
discarding it, as and when it suits their purposes.
We have an unelected head of state whom we were brought up to believe had no real powers (the real powers having been ceded by custom and practice by Victoria when she took VERY extended bereavement leave after the death of her husband). But we've found out recently that she actually has authority to interfere with law making and that she uses it.
 |
| We are not amused! |
A person above the law because she IS the law.
Additionally
she has an heir who has powers to alter laws, in particular over the Duchy of Cornwall.
Furthermore the entire royal family has
vast privilege and huge influence over affairs of state with the authority, or influence, to summon ministers and to be listened to. These powers are frequently accompanied by
an astounding lack of skills.
We have a chamber of parliament populated by:
two hereditary
aristocrats;
90+ aristocrats self selected from within their own class of a
thousand or so dukes, viscounts, earls and marquises;
26 senior churchmen from only
one religion, and at that, only one sect of that religion (where is the
tolerance of different faiths there?),
and hundreds and hundreds of placemen of political parties.
These
placemen are appointed by political leaders to sit in the upper house, for life,
with aristocratic titles (with their children being granted junior titles).
Some are ex politicians, in certain cases high ranking, but in other cases, dead-weights
who have been bought with aristocratic titles because their seat has been
needed for someone better connected, and sometimes people who were rejected at
the ballot box and rewarded with a job in politics anyway. "To hell with what the public thought of you... have a Barony!" Sometimes of course the seat os bought by enormous donations.
Then there’s a Privy Council, a convenient way for a few
selected faithful (it has a quorum of 3), in the presence of the queen, to pass laws as ‘Orders in
Council’ without any discussion in parliament.
 |
| ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...£300 and bubbly ZZZZZZZZZ |
There is a House of Commons elected on a first past the post
system, capable of producing massive majorities, or elected dictatorships, on as little as 35% of the
vote. Seventy-five percent of seats never change hands and many members have a seat for life. (Some even pass it down to their offspring, eh Anas?).
There is a whipping system within the chamber which guarantees party loyalty
on pain of career collapse, or personal embarrassment (we'll tell your wife!), and there are a
variety “lost in the mists of time” procedures which can stop a bill in its
tracks.
The “I spy Strangers” ploy!
As Jim and John pointed out below, there's the Remembrancer. Now there's something from the middle ages!
As Jim and John pointed out below, there's the Remembrancer. Now there's something from the middle ages!
As for the “rule of law”. Oh please, this cracks me up!!
Would that be the rule of law that allowed the Hillsborough
disaster to be relayed to the public in the way that it was, with backing from the very top, so as
not to damage the incompetent police management, but happily destroy the reputations of football
fans… because they could?
Would that be the rule of law that, time after time, saw
child abuse investigations being closed down by the secret police, by senior
police officers or by MPs themselves?
Would that be the rule of law that saw the BBC cover up
Savile’s (and others) behaviour for decades; that saw the Civil Service lie and
cheat for the UK government during the Scottish referendum (and how many other
times) and have the Queen voice an
opinion against all her supposed constitutional responsibilities?
Would it be the rule of law that saw police colluding with the
press in return for pay-offs to get red tops sensational stories and make HSBC quantities of money?
 |
| Now, here's the plan LOL |
Or the rule
of law that found the senior management of these papers to be blameless, utterly unaware of where the sensational stories came from, or where all the money was going?
Is it the rule of law that saw Blair and his ministers lie to parliament and to the people so that he could go to war in Iraq, against the United nations advice, to support his friend, George Bush? (How did that work out Tony?)
There’s the rule of law for some, and a very different rule
of law for others.
The much vaunted respect for people of other faiths, of
course, as well as favouring bishops and archbishops of the English church by
giving them titles and a seat in parliament, excludes anyone who is not a
member of the Church of England, from being in line to the throne. Not that that affects many of us, but it
remains incredibly disrespectful to other Christian sects, and and other faiths not considered good enough.
What about the rule that in state schools (depending on
the country) an act of Christian worship is obligatory on a regular basis (once
a day in England).
So what democracy? What rule of Law? What respect?
British values…?
Stop and ask yourself: Who do you trust in the British establishment?
 |
| You're the most wonderful man in the world Sir Jimmy |
The members of the House of Commons who as recently as 2009
were shown by the Telegraph to have an inordinate number of cheats in their
midst? And who, despite being shown up for what they were, continue to be found
out by sting operations from Channel Four’s “Despatches” on a weekly basis?
The members of the House of Lords who were similarly shown
up by the Times? The Noble Lord Hanningfield who, having gone to prison for
fiddling, and managing to get out within days by having a nervous breakdown,
went straight back to his old ploy of signing in for his £300 and buggering off
home?
The police who took bribes from the newspapers or who
demonised Liverpool fans, or who were described as “institutionally racist” by the Lawrence inquiry?
The newspapers themselves who would sell their granny into
slavery for a story?
The BBC which, when it wasn't paying executives massive salaries
to travel around the world in first class, like royalty, was turning a blind
eye to depravity in its dressing rooms?
The City of London and the hallowed banking and insurance industry??
Do you… could you, actually trust anyone at all?
I sometimes wonder if people in the Home Office, and indeed other
government departments, have ever stopped and listened to themselves, or if, living in cloud cuckoo land, they really actually believe the rubbish they spout.
