Should our law be made by judges?

by D.J. Webb

Libertarians have generally been concerned about the development of a police state. While I am concerned over the behaviour of the police—and in particular, what Sam Francis in the US called anarcho-tyranny [“we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny)”; see here]—there is a good deal of evidence that it is the courts that are driving the creation in our society of the miasma of state control. So I am more worried about living in a judicial state. A police state could be a state where laws passed by Parliament are enforced in an overbearing manner; a judicial state is one where the laws aren’t even drawn up by Parliament in the first place. There is a connection between the two, of course, because in the absence of judicial tyranny, high-handed actions by the police and other officials could be combated. Once the judges are committed to unaccountable rule, it is harder to discern a path out of the maze we’re in.

Judges v. politicians

It is quite clear that our senior judges view themselves as the key legislators in Britain today. Politicians have been left bewildered by the confrontational judgements passed down by judges, who seem to be trying to establish the judiciary, rather than Parliament, as the senior branch of the constitution. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, recently lamented the supremacy of the judiciary in the pages of the Daily Mail:

Some of our judges appear to have got it into their heads that Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ‘right to family life’, is an absolute, unqualified right. This means that if a foreign criminal can show that he has a family in this country, they take the view he has a right to remain here, regardless of the gravity of the offences. That interpretation is wrong. The Convention is quite plain: the right to family life is not an absolute right, like the right not to be tortured. It is a qualified right, and it can be restricted when that is required, for example, to protect public safety, or for the prevention of crime. [Read more here]

Judges have ignored a recent unanimous vote in Parliament on the deportation of foreign criminals, leaving Mrs May floundering:

I find it difficult to see how that can be squared with the central idea of our constitution, which is that Parliament makes the law, and judges interpret what that law is and make sure the executive complies with it. For almost all of the long history of disputes between judges and Parliament, it has been common ground that Parliament is the ultimate law-maker, and that it is not for the judges to be legislators. It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country—and not the judges.

Yet Mrs May has not advanced a programme of legislative reform to bring the judiciary into line; neither does she argue that errant judges should be cashiered The logic of her position is that the government should persuade the judiciary to hand down more reasonable judgements, but in no case will judges be held to account for their decisions. It seems clear, therefore, that Parliament stands no chance of resuming effective control over the administration of justice in this country, and as judicial review can call into question all decisions made by the executive, both legislative and executive functions are being taken over by the judiciary.

The EU and the Human Rights Act

Immigration is a key battleground, because once our porous borders are surrendered, this country is no longer ours, and decisions on the future of our society and economy will increasingly be taken by people who don’t share our traditions. Yet immigration is far from being the only arena of judicial overstepping of the bounds. Britain’s purported membership of the European Union and the bringing in of the Human Rights Act now allow wide latitude to legislation from the judicial bench.

The European Communities Act 1972 claimed to allow the EU (or the then “Common Market”) to legislate for the UK, with such legislation overriding domestic laws. No attempt has ever been made to show that the Crown in Parliament had the right to pass any such statute subjecting us to foreign control. The Human Rights Act 1998 is a further accretion to the powers of the judiciary, in that judges now regularly interpret statutes in novel ways deemed to be more in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Both of these Acts have imported new sources of law other than laws passed by the Westminster Parliament into the constitution, and both allow considerable latitude to foreign and domestic judges in their implementation.

An example of the sort of ‘legislation’ that can be pushed through by the judiciary is the recent case on the pension rights of part-time judges. Ignoring the obvious conflict of interest in the judiciary deciding to expand judicial pension entitlements, what we are confronted with here is a public spending commitment ordered by the courts:

The ruling arises from a claim begun in the employment tribunal in 2005 by former part-time recorder Dermod O’Brien, who upon retirement was told that he was not entitled to a pension.

The case has since worked its way through the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice and back to the Supreme Court for today’s judgment.

The case depended on whether the 1997 EU directive on part-time workers applied to judges and, if it did, whether excluding part-time judges from judicial pensions contravened both it and the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 that implemented it into UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that judges are ‘workers’ for the purposes of the 2000 regulations. [Link here]

Whatever the merits of the part-time judges’ case—and I would argue that all public-sector pensions are a form of fraud—it seems totally wrong for a major spending commitment to be ordered by the judges.

The case of the Jordanian extremist, Abu Qatada, is a clear case of the usurpation of the executive function of government by the judiciary. This man was first detained under anti-terrorism legislation in the UK in 2002, but 11 years later he is still in the country, living it up on welfare. The Law Lords have ruled that he cannot be deported to Jordan in case he is tortured, as this would breach human-rights provisions of the European Convention. A constant to-and-fro with the judiciary on this subject has run up huge legal bills, and he is no closer to leaving the country. I can’t quite understand why the government does not use the Crown’s Reserve Powers to deport him overnight.

These are just two examples of the overbearing behaviour of the judiciary in England today. Legislative and executive decisions made by judges are so numerous that they are reported on on a daily basis in the newspapers, running the whole gamut from anti-discrimination legislation, workers’ rights to absurd compensation suits and many other branches of law.

The Common Law and the rights of Crown and Parliament

It is often argued that English law is “judge-made law”. If that is the case, then it seems English law only really got into its stride in 1972 when the UK joined the European Union, or what was then the Common Market, because greater latitude has since been given to judicial legislation. To get behind the concept of “judge-made law”, we have to look at the origins of the constitution.

First of all, if judges have any rights or powers, where did they get them from? And since when have they had them? Who gave them to them? Most countries have experienced numerous wars and revolutions, constantly overturning the constitutional history of those lands. England is almost unique in the antiquity of its law and constitution. Unlike countries where the constitution is a piece of paper introduced after a violent revolution and possibly ratified by a plebiscite, in England the origins of the constitution are lost in the mists of time—our law dates back to “time immemorial”. There is a circularity in most constitutional setups: after a revolution, a group seizes power, convenes a constitutional congress, passes laws and finalises a constitutional document, submitted to plebiscite. From then on, that is “law”. However, there is no attempt to show that such constitutional congresses had a prior right to be convened, or that a majority plebiscite conducted under intense state propaganda is legitimate. For a start, protection of minority rights would not necessarily be guaranteed under a plebiscite, and so the right of a majority to walk roughshod over the minority is simply asserted, but not proven. The law is what the state says it is, and the reason why the state setup is as it is is because the state says it should be: such circular reasoning chases its own tail.

In England, there is no constitutional document—I would argue the attempt to introduce one would be unlawful, almost certainly amounting to an attempt to abolish key aspects of English Common Law, as our law should not depend on a piece of paper, but on natural principles accepted for well over 1,000 years—and so there is no circularity in our Constitution. Parliament’s right to pass laws does not derive from any proclamation by Parliament of those rights—that would be no more legitimate than my announcing my right to rule the country as dictator—the Queen’s right to reign does not derive from any Royal proclamation to that effect; and the authority of the judges does not derive from their own assertion of their powers. If any of these branches of the Constitution derived their powers from self-proclamation of them, the circular reasoning would be clear.

Let us start with the Monarchy. The Queen does not have an absolute right to accede to the throne and reign over us. Had such an absolute right existed, it would be the heir to the Jacobite throne who would hold it, and the Queen would be a usurper. The fact that Matilda was prevented from inheriting the throne in the 12th century; that King John acceded to the throne in defiance of the rights of Arthur of Brittany; that Edward II was deposed; that Richard II was deposed; that Henry IV took the throne in defiance of the rights of the House of York; that Henry VI was deposed by Edward IV of the House of York; that Henry VII inaugurated the House of Tudor despite having no substantial claim to it; that Charles I was executed; that James II was effectively deposed; that William III and Mary II took the throne in defiance of the rights of the James II and the Old Pretender; and that the line of succession was altered to the House of Hanover by parliamentary statute: these all show there is no absolute right of a Monarch to inherit the throne.

As I showed in another essay, the Coronation of the Monarch includes an ancient elective ceremony which in the Queen’s Coronation Service was known as “the Recognition”, where those present, largely prelates of the Church of England and nobles, were invited to recognise or hail the monarch as “their undoubted queen”. The origin of this is that a monarch was originally not accorded the title of king until after the coronation service, and the Church of England, representing the people of England, ultimately has the right to refuse to crown an inappropriate monarch. It is claimed today that this is just mere ceremony, but the Coronation Oath places clear obligations on the monarch, to uphold our laws and the rights of the church.

When William I conquered England, he did so by adhering to the pre-existing constitutional norms: he had himself crowned by the Church of England and took the Coronation Oath of the Anglo-Saxon kings. It is clear therefore that the position in English law of the monarchy can be traced back to pre-Conquest times when kings were required to take an oath to behave in a certain manner as they governed the country. To view the Queen herself as a freestanding source of constitutional law is to get things backwards: the Queen’s right to be queen in itself depends on the Common Law and her oath, and the oaths of a long line of ancestors, to uphold “the law of the land”.

The rights of Parliament are not based, as in other countries, on some kind of majoritarian plebiscite. Neither are they based on Parliament’s own assertion of those rights. In the final analysis they are also based on English Common Law, dating back to the rights of the Anglo-Saxon Witan, the Norman Curia Regis and the rights of the lords acknowledged by King John. This is because Parliament’s right to sit and pass laws in the first place is a common-law right. This means that the Common Law is the fundamental law of the land in this country, and the Crown in Parliament is sovereign insofar as the monarch and the two houses of the legislature are there by dint of the provisions of the Common Law.

It cannot be any other way. If you showed me a statute of Parliament that purported to be the original of Parliament’s rights, I would immediately ask you for a prior document showing that Parliament had the right to pass such a law. That is why constitutions born of revolutions and plebiscites can only be circular when it comes to establishing the foundations of those constitutions. Consequently, unlike the situation in other countries, England has a framework of law that predates the current evolution of the institutions of state. This is why in the case, conducted in 1610, of Thomas Bonham v. the College of Physicians, known as Dr. Bonham’s Case, the chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, made the following statement in his ruling in the Court of Common Pleas:

And it appears in our books that, in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void. [Thomas, John Henry, and Fraser, John Farquhar (eds). The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knt, in Thirteen Parts, Volume IV, Part VIII, London: Joseph Butterworth & Son, 1826, folio 118b, p375.]

Here we have clear proof that traditionally the legislature too was bound by the Common Law. The presumption that Parliament can do whatever it likes derives from the constitutional theories of William Blackstone and Walter Bagehot, writing in the 18th and 19th centuries, but these men were not constitutional sovereigns whose thoughts became law once the ink dried on their writings. Their views were either in accord with the English Constitution or not, and to be analysed accordingly. It should be pointed out that I am not here asserting any doctrine of judicial supremacy, allowing judges to strike down all Acts of Parliament that do not accord with their views—but rather a view that judges themselves are bound by the Common Law. (I should add here that the Erskine May parliamentary rulebook that gives the Crown the right to enter a reservation against a proposed law before it is discussed in Parliament is as wrongheaded as the writings of Blackstone and Bagehot: Erskine May’s views are only relevant insofar as they were a correct statement of the constitution, and parliamentary law drafters who claim a law must be withdrawn because of a Royal objection should be dismissed forthwith for attempting to undermine our democracy. The legislature is bound by the Common Law; but so is the Crown, and any doctrine that this is not the case has to be rejected as a proposed innovation that removes the kernel of our constitution.) I therefore cannot agree that the constitutional theories of 18th- and 19th-century writers or parliamentary clerks should be held to successfully overturn our Common Law. The Crown and Parliament are bound in by the Common Law, as without it they have no right to be there at all.

Clearly, it is a great convenience to the Establishment if Parliament be untrammelled: on all sides, the political class agree with the way the Constitution was set out by Blackstone and Bagehot and the parliamentary rulebook of Erskine May is wielded in defence of the Establishment to prevent unpalatable laws from ever getting off the ground in the first place. It seems that between Sir Edward Coke’s presentation and that of William Blackstone, a fundamental shift had taken place, and that shift was in the views of the political class. Now, formally, the rulings of the higher courts bind those of lower courts, and if the higher courts state that Parliament or the courts are not bound by the Common Law, then lower courts must implement that view. However, judges themselves are also meant to be accountable: our Common Law provides for the impeachment of judges at the bar of the House of Lords. That such a state trial has not been attempted for centuries does not change the fact that impeachment is possible. The Act of Settlement 1700 also provided for the removal of judges by the presentation of a petition to the Queen from the Houses of Parliament.

Holding judges accountable

Clearly, those who claim our law is “judge-made” are relying on the fact that no English judge has been held to account under the Act of Settlement, and the last attempt to impeach a judge was in the reign of Charles II. Impeachment is effectively a political process: unless the House of Commons is determined to uphold the constitution, there will be no impeachment. Ultimately, therefore, the dissolution of our constitution comes because too many of us are willing to allow it to happen. We vote for our representatives in Parliament, and if we don’t ensure they impeach errant judges, our slide into unfreedom is what we have, at least passively, “chosen”. Those who assert that law is just the arithmetical sum of the judgements handed down in courts ignore the fact that Parliament could petition the Queen to remove the Law Lords, and then appoint new judges, and those judges would be members of the final court, and could hand down ruling more in line with traditional views on the constitution and bind all lower courts in doing so. In the end, therefore, the fact that judges are permitted to make law, and make new constitutional norms, is a product of our political willingness to do nothing to stop them.

The greater authority of judges nowadays is reflected in the fact that the House of Lords now claims to be a Supreme Court. Traditionally, we referred to “the high court of Parliament”, and the twelve Law Lords were a subcommittee of the House of Lords, composed of hereditary peers and the bishops of the Church of England. Consequently, the judicial chamber known as the House of Lords was not supreme, but rather subordinate to the parliamentary chamber known as the House of Lords. The Queen in Parliament was by definite supreme—although with powers hedged in by the Coronation Oath and the compact between Crown and people stipulated in the Common Law—and so the statement that the “justices of the Supreme Court” as they like to be known nowadays are “supreme” is a considerable overturning of the constitution.

It is worth pointing out that the passage of statutes traditionally required threefold consent of Crown, Lords and Commons. By allowing life peers to grow inordinately in number, the trifold consent was undermined. Life peers are by definition commoners, and so the setup has become threefold consent by Crown, well-connected commoners, and commoners who are voted for. Why the Common Law would stipulate that Lords have a role in the constitution is an interesting question. I have argued in another place that there should not be taxes on labour and capital, but taxes on land ownership and natural resources only, and, to that extent, those who control the social resources of land ought to submit to a levy to pay for what few services the government needs to provide, and their presence in the legislature reflected the fact that they were a source of public income (or controlled the land, which is the real source thereof). To move the burden of taxation from land and natural resources to labour and capital, and then to allow “life peers” who are not substantial payers of a land tax to sit in the House of Lords is to subvert our constitutional order. Any life peers created should be people with substantial holdings of land only, but the land value tax is the subject of another article. It is enough here to state that the House of Lords, the legislature chamber as currently constituted, is not the House of Lords required in our Common Law.

Just as the House of Lords needs to be restored, so the right of the House of Lords to dismiss the Law Lords and take judgements over into the whole chamber of peers needs to be reestablished. Such judgements would bind all lower courts. Consequently, it can be seen that turning the House of Lords, the senior court, into an allegedly Supreme Court, is designed to remove the law lords from parliamentary oversight. The Houses of Parliament technically still have the right to cashier the “justices of the Supreme Court”, but the creation of a “Supreme Court” is intended to reverse the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary.

I would argue the statement that the House of Lords is a “supreme” court is ipso facto treason, usurping as it does the Crown’s sovereignty. Condign punishment of all present and future judges who claim to be supreme is vital as part of a programme of judicial reform. Other grounds on which the judges may be held to account include judicial perjury. The judicial oath of office, discussed by me elsewhere, requires the judges to uphold the law of the land—the Common Law—and yet we frequently find judges happily refusing to implement laws, whether of the statute or of the Common-Law variety.

Judges and the Bill of Rights

One key example is the right to bear arms. This is explicitly provided for in the 1689 Bill of Rights, a statute that has never been repealed, and no part of which has been repealed. The interplay between statutes and the Common Law may be discussed here. The Common Law gives us the right of self-defence—this right is actually ours according to natural justice, and cannot be taken away, and the Common Law is simply a codification of the rules of natural justice—and yet judges have refused to allow us to bear arms without the permission of a Chief Constable. Statute law may update the Common Law for new circumstances—but not substantially remove longheld rights—and so a law designed to prevent only those with criminal records from obtaining arms might be legitimate, but a law preventing any of us from doing so is unlawful, and so the fact that all police forces in England have implemented regulations denying firearms licences to those who state they are seeking them for self-defence amounts to a surreptitious overturning of the Bill of Rights. It is the substantial nature of the overriding of Common-Law rights that is the problem here. Of course, there will be those who claim that the judgements of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal lay down new judge-made law, and so their views on firearms have become part of the Common Law, but then there is no reason why the judges of those courts should not be impeached—and so ultimately, the shift in our constitution flows from our refusal to impeach the judges, and not from the judges’ attempt to unpick the constitution.

Weights and measures are another example. It was well-understood until recently that no statute could bind the hand of future Parliaments, and so the later statue overrode the former. Media reports of the court case on weights and measures decided by Lord Justice Laws in 2002 indicated that the judge repeatedly acknowledged this fact in court, before changing his mind in his judgement, and, conveniently, refusing to allow a transcript of the case to be released. The only way judges of this ilk can be dealt with is by impeachment, but Lord Justice Laws has clearly calculated that, as there has been no judicial impeachment since the English Civil War, he may substitute his personal preferred constitutional reading for the law as previously understood.

The weights and measures case rested on the 1985 Act allowing use of British weights. If this later law had been allowed to stand, it would have overriden a consequence of the 1972 European Communities Act. A bit of casuistical thinking on the part of the judge allowed him to rule that as the 1972 Act was a major piece of constitutional legislation, it could not be impliedly repealed by a later Act. Any Act repealing it or any of its provisions would have to expressly say so. Phew! So our membership of the European Union trundles on! The judge did state that there were other key constitutional acts, which he listed as including the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union with Scotland and others, but he did not waste any time on considering whether the 1972 Act had in itself “impliedly” overriden longstanding constitutional legislation. (These judges are either dense or devious, and my money is on the latter.)

Interestingly, there are consequences that flow from Lord Justice Laws’ decision, including the fact the 1689 Bill of Rights expressly forbids the levying of fines without a court case. It should be understood I am not stating that the 1689 Bill of Rights overrides later statutes; what I am saying is that the provisions of the Bill of Rights, insofar as they were correct statements of the Common Law, cannot be overridden. It is the Common Law that is our fundamental law, not some 1689 piece of paper. (So the provision of that Act that only Protestants be allowed to bear arms could be validly struck down as inconsonant with our age-old constitution, which drew no distinction on the grounds of fait; there is no reason, therefore, why the IRA should disarm.) However, the prohibition of the administrative levying of fines expresses a longstanding principle of the Common Law. Consequently, Acts granting tax authorities, local governments and others the right to impose fines without a court case are unlawful.

Yet clearly, this is quite inconvenient to the judges. Lord Justice Laws’ “ruling”—an unlawful ruling—logically meant that Acts claiming to grant the authority to levy administrative fines would only be acceptable if they expressly repealed the Bill of Rights. Yet when the parking fine scam was appealed against in court, the judges decided that parking fines are not “fines”, but in fact “civil responsibilities”. This kind of playing with words is clear evidence of malice aforethought in the act of judicial perjury. This is because all punishments—including submitting to imprisonment—are civil responsibilities for those guilty of crimes or misdemeanours, but the issue that the courts needed to focus on was whether a punishment ought to be imposed without judicial proceedings. The fact that millions of such fines, including for parking, speeding, putting bins out in the wrong fashion, are imposed and that the courts would be clogged up by millions of cases if a court case were required in each case is not relevant: if so many fines are being handed out, it shows that serious offences are not being committed and that law-abiding people are being wrongly punished by administrative means.

A final aspect of the Bill of Rights that is being called into question is the right of MPs in Parliament to unrestricted speech. Judges handing down outrageous speech bans and injunctions on people visiting their children have been dismayed that the details of such cases are being discussed in Parliament and consequently reported on in the press in defiance of court injuncations. And yet the Bill of Rights states that parliamentary proceedings “ought not” to be questioned in court. It is therefore a serious assault on the constitution for senior judges to suggest (see link) they might hold newspapers in contempt of court for reporting what is said in Parliament. The striking down of Acts of Parliament for incompatibility with the Human Rights Act and European “law” is also an unlawful questioning of Parliamentary proceedings. The only grounds on which an Act may be lawfully defeated is by upholding the pre-eminent status of our ancient rights under the Common Law.

Judges and Magna Carta and Common-Law rights

A similar dismissive attitude is taken by our judiciary to Magna Carta, which it is claimed has been repealed, or most of the provisions of which have been repealed. Such statements betray gross ignorance, because Magna Carta was not a statute, and so cannot have been repealed. There was no Parliament in 1215. What the statement that Magna Carta has been repealed seems to mean is that the later 1297 Confirmation of the Charter Act has been substantially repealed: that Act gave statute acknowledgement to most of the provisions of Magna Carta, but even if the 1297 Act has been repealed (or allegedly repealed, as I am arguing here Common Law provisions cannot be substantially repealed), that does not alter the status of Magna Carta, the provisions of which remain in force to the extent that they were correct statements of the Common Law.

This is important because the right of rebellion against the Crown, given in Article 61 of the original text of Magna Carta—and not included in the 1297 Act—forms the basis for the refusal of Freeman on the Land to cooperate with the Queen’s riding roughshod, or her government’s riding roughshod, over our rights. The requirement under Magna Carta that the Crown restore the constitution where required to by a committee of barons was used in a petition to the Queen in 2001 (link here), but the petition was not acted upon, and yet the Crown’s reply came within the required 40 days, providing some kind of acknowledgement of the terms of Magna Carta. With the Crown claiming the right to take us into a supra-sovereign body, the European Union, and with government leaders virtually to a man guilty of treason, there seems little doubt that the right of rebellion is well-founded in England today.

It seems curious that the serious political crimes of treason and praemunire—the attempt to place England under foreign authority, a longstanding crime on the statute books purportedly repealed shortly before our entry into the European Union—have been replaced by a series of political crimes that overturn our fundamental Common Law liberties. One may mention here the race relations farrago. There is no way, under the Common Law, the Crown may compel any Englishman to adopt any particular views on black people, women, homosexuals, gypsies, or anyone else. One could argue that “racism”—extremely loosely defined in order to give the powers that be control of the agenda—is the new “treason”. Laws against “discrimination” overturn the entire basis of English Common Law by abolishing freedom of speech and freedom of association. The state intervenes directly in the attitudes, beliefs and assumptions of every individual in this way.

Similarly, the failure to institute a poll tax in the 14th century gave English people a longstanding Common-Law right not to be subjected to personal taxation. As pointed out above, statutes may update the Common Law, but not in such a way as to substantially alter longheld rights. A temporary income tax, under necessity, during the Napoleonic Wars, could be classed as something forced on the government by circumstances, and not contrary to the Common Law if indeed temporary to address an extreme situation. The annual renewal of such a temporary provision every year for nearly 200 years does, however, substantially alter the balance of power between the state and the individual in a way that is contrary to Common Law. The judges are, by their judicial oaths, required to strike down such unlawful impositions, and the even more egregious attempts to levy “fines” on those not playing this game. All fines levied by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are unlawful, because they are administrative fines, without any judicial process.

An example of a breach of the constitutional that straddles the divide between breaches of the Bill of Rights and breaches of the Common Law is the way in which the Council Tax is enforced today. Traditionally, a tax was levied on land title—a tax on the landowners, and not on the residents—but the Council Tax is an unlawful poll tax, levied on all residents, save for the privileged millions on “welfare”, who nevertheless retain the vote in local council elections. This overturns the prohibition of personal taxation in English Common Law, but the way it is enforced also manages to contravene the Bill of Rights, in that collection is dealt with by local council computer systems (without human intervention), which have been given the right to issue “court summons” to proceedings that do not have magistrates present, during which large fines are imposed on non-payers. Lord Chief Justice Widgery stated in the R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin case in 1975 that “a decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.” (See All England Law Reports [1975] 2 All ER QBD p206-207.) Consequently, the overtaking of a judicial function by local government computer systems is a significant breach of the constitution, as only magistrates and their clerks may issue summons and impose fines. Yet the law on council tax non-payment is bedevilled by a plethora of “regulations” handed down by government departments without passage through Parliament, which the courts may deem to permit the administrative levying of fines on millions of people every year. It is entirely wrong for regulations that have not even been discussed in Parliament to be held to remove longstanding constitutional rights.

Parliamentary sovereignty

While we have a notably useless political class, and I therefore note Sean Gabb’s comments on the holding of Parliament to account by judges, there is no way back to a free country without a restoration of the Crown in Parliament to full sovereignty on the basis of English Common Law. This means that the House of Lords must be re-established, and judges who overstep the law impeached. It also means that all laws should go through Parliament. There may be a place for statutory instruments of the most technical kind—a detailed listing of food product safety requirements and the like—but other than detailed scientific and technical regulations, everything else should go through Parliament. Ministers should therefore, other than on wholly technical matters, not have the right to issue regulations. The right to bear arms and the right to a court case before facing punishment should be re-established. A ten-year programme of reduction, leaving to abolition, of personal taxation should be instituted in order to re-establish the correct relationship between the individual and the state.

Our difficulty is that all judges have accepted the violation of our constitution, and so the passage of a law or two would be insufficient to restore our Common Law. We need, at a minimum, to sack the entire judicial bench, and replace them. The most senior judges, those in the self-proclaimed Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, should serve long prison sentences for taking part in a conspiracy against the law. All judicial pensions should be abolished. Ex-magistrates should be prevented from standing for local government elections, because those with a history of collusion in fraud, which is what implementation of fine-by-computer-system to enforce the council tax amounts to, are not fit and proper people to serve in government. We must take on the judiciary, or else we don’t deserve to be free people at all.

177 responses to “Should our law be made by judges?

  1. I think the justice system and the judiciary as it stands at the moment has to go, having many dealings with these judges they are class predudice, anit working class, arrogant, pro-police, none impartial nasties, they are corrupt allowing police to get away with breaking the law by abuse of legal process, constantly covering up for the police in lower and crown courts, the system stinks of the old boy network, and in reality serves no one, especially the people of the UK, these kind of people should not be allowed to make laws, they should not be allowed to judge us, they come from an outdated backward minority, I will be so glad to see the back of the lot of them, quite simpy they are no good and completely out of touch, manly due to the victorian isolated world they live in, I for one will be glad to see the back of the lot of them and the fleecing lawyers and bent police force we have in control of justice in UK. Frankly they are nothing but bastards, when you’ve lost you’re liberty or life because of them you will understand why, I wouldn’t care if they got shipped off to the north pole and it sunk on the way. they are disgusting people in my book, justice, don’t make me laugh, nothing but dictorial instrument of none democratic control over democracy. I don’t even want to write about them they make me puke.

  2. Victoria Sharkey

    Your assessment of the role of Article 8 of the ECHR within British law, along with Theresa May’s interpretation, is flawed.

    Article 8, as with the rest of the ECHR, is enshrined into UK law as part of the Human Rights Act. This law was passed by parliament. All the judges are therefore doing is upholding the law as passed by Parliament, which I believe is their job.

    TM has a particular problem with article 8 (right to a family and private life) which is not an absolute right but must be assessed in balance against the negative points of keeping the relevant person in the UK. So if he has a negative immigration history or a criminal record, a judge needs to decide whether his past and his future risk of offending is so bad that the need for him to be removed outweighs the fact that his treaty rights will be breached by doing so. The relevant case law, if you are interested, is ‘Razgar’ (2004) and the judge who formulated the test on proportionality is the late great Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Winning an immigration case on article 8 when the appellant has a serious criminal record is not an easy matter, I assure you.

    So TM’s real problem is that she doesn’t like the judges interpretation of the law. If she didn’t like the law itself then she could force through a repeal of the HRA, though I doubt she or the government would actually have the balls to do this, or that they have the ability to create a comprehensive Bill of Rights to replace it, despite their previous claims that this is what they would do.

    With regards to Abu Qatada, this is not an Article 8 case. This is an article 3 case. This prohibits torture, and is an absolute. The UK, as per the ECHR and the HRA, cannot torture people or subject them to any inhumane or degrading treatment, and therefore we can also not knowing remove or deport people to countries where we know they will be subject to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.

    So, it’s pretty clear cut. We can’t remove Qatada to Jordan long as he is likely to be tortured by the Jordanian government. Not permitted as per a law made by the UK parliament and not repealed by any of the successive Home Secretaries who have whinged about how this law has tied their hands and how they want to repeal it. TM certainly isn’t the first to make this complaint, and she isn’t the first to blame the judges for simply doing their job well.

    I am quite surprised that an article such as this has appeared in the pages of the LA. While no one wants to see state money spent supporting terrorists, I’d have thought that a libertarian perspective would have been to congratulate the judges for upholding universal rights which the government seem all too keen to ignore. A libertarian perspective would be to tell the government that, if they don’t like the ECHR then they should repeal the HRA, so that judges don’t have the obligation to uphold Articles 8 and 3. And, most importantly, I would have thought that the libertarian position would be that, if Abu Qatada is a dangerous terrorist, that he should be arrested, tried, and be subject to the rule of law that we have in the UK.

  3. You raise serious questions about the Abu Qatada case, which is proving to be one of the most expensive cases in legal history, firstly under normal circumstances if the crown wants people behin bars they normaly forge evidence against to acheive this object, I know in my own cases I have a number of findings against them in this respect, it may be that due to the case comming to the attention of the ECHR TH has released that any illegal behaviour would indeed damage the case chances, TH only tells the public what she wants them to know, we never get to see the thousands of pages of case papers involved in the proceeding process, anyway there are various other articles under the convention that comply to people held without charge, Article 6. Article 13 gives people the right to effective remedy, article 17 Prohibition of abuse of rights. I wonder what is special about Qatada’s case. there are clearly problems the government have not disclosed, and he certainly has access to the best lawyers something british subjects are denied, why have the US not requested his extradition they normally do if there is any evidence in international terrorism. His case appears to be given priority over the rights of british and irish citizens the government are holding republicans without charge, yet they have not had their human rights considered, people held in smiths ward have had not had their human rights considered apart from cover up’s and loss of evidence, in fact the ECHR has a backlogue of over 49 years and they do not alway’s like ruiling against the UK due to protocol even if they have breached human rights. However the case you raise is a serious issue, it cannot go on for ever and ever costing millions and millions there will have be closure at some point of the ECHR will end up breaching one it’s own articles you may note Rome 4.X1.1950.

  4. You metion the Zara case 2004, whilst this might be the case, where a person hold previous rulings the Crown has falsified police records or
    medical records to thier prdedudice, or been found not guilty on numerous
    occasions on account of police fabrictated evidence, the case is more complex, Article 13 allows in law the right to effective remedy, where a
    proven string of rulings against the courts and police are helld by way of
    public record, on the grounds of the
    fabriacation of evidence, you argument would not be allowed to apply
    in law, as the case background clearly indicates the Crown have been involved
    in serious criminal conduct, In this type of case the Crown does indeed have some serious
    difficulties. where the police have refered the case to a local MP and a false
    discription of the case background is fabriacted, and computor evidence detelted this creates an even more serious stituation, as well forgery of medical records and illegal sections with the motive and verbal threats to silnce victims to give the false impression the person is ill and deny the incidents never took place far more serious,, particularly where the file copies exist to prove the contrary.
    This of course Anna Dougdale found out it clear from all the witness statements legal advice and tribunal rulings that where an authority has fabricated a medical history that is proven beyond doubt,they break the law, where they continue to do so the matter becomes far more serious, the denial of a lawyer, again breaches Human Rights. It is important to note the ECHR does not have any criminal law powers where a public authority or justice authority hhas been involved in criminal behaviour, the court has no powers to deal with them, the same applies for the police, the court is there to deal with human rights violations nothing more than that, the text in advisory notes Convention for thr protection Of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms explains these facts in clear detail.

  5. The author of this post makes some interesting points. It seems to me that he put in a great effort with this and I’m grateful to him. Many of the points on Common Law surprise me and I’ve absolutely no idea if they’re correct or not. I do however look forward to finding out.

    Victoria commented that his statement regarding Article 8 is flawed. I’m not certain if that is the case or not but she reached a flawed opinion herself regarding Abu Qatada’s appeal. I recall quite clearly reading that the Jordanian government had stated that they would not torture him, or deny him any of his other human rights. Or accept evidence gained by torture.

    The Judge therefore used guesswork when deciding that they were being untruthful. Rather oddly, he also preferred to take the side of a man known to be a criminal and did so in spite of knowing that a very large number of UK citizens want Qatada gone from these shores forever. A political agenda does seem to be at work.

    D.J.Webb 1 Judges 0

  6. Victoria Sharkey

    John – Judges in immigration hearings don’t ‘guess’. They make a decision based on the evidence presented, based on the ‘balance of probabilities’. I expect that Qatada’s lawyers will have presented the judge with evidence that the Jordanian government have a track record of executing or torturing people who have committed similar crimes, and the judge decided that this evidence rendered their ‘promises’ as hollow.

  7. Well you say criminal, this I have difficulty with, there’s been no charges, why did the judges in europe not deport him before the case went to the ECHR the spanish judge could have ruled on the case in view of his alleged findings, in any event if the matter continues the case will clearly full under another article of the court for sure, the Home Secretary cannot hold people indefinately on the basis of allegations without trial this is a direct breach of anyones rights, why was he let in to the UK in the first place for instance, this home secretary is a joke, last nights TV documentary proved that, hundreds of illegals and no power to remove them from the UK, how much money is this case costing the tax payer, I heard millions. The criminal argument does not weigh up does it he’s free for god’s sake not yet even charged, regarding victorias comments she has not been to the court, she does not have cases running there, so I put little weight on what she say’s as the articles do not work that way and not subject to automatic guarantee, I took the lawyers to the court in my case for witholding defence evidence, and evidence that concluded the police had perverted the course of justice, they looked at evidence concluded it had been removed from files, and then decleared they had no powers to deal with them as they were in private practice and the court could only rule against a public authority, The articles can encounter clauses and difficulties in this respect. I have come to the conclusion a home secretary is no longer needed in the UK, they are powerless point of fact.

  8. Victoria Sharkey

    “regarding victorias comments she has not been to the court, she does not have cases running there”

    Ah. Well, actually, yes I do have cases running at the immigration tribunal, many of which rely on Article 8. I know exactly how they work.

  9. It seems to me that Victoria is a hanger-on who makes a living from the state and its immigration obsession. There is nothing significant in which article Abu Qatada is using to defeat his deportation – my argument is clearly that both Parliament and the courts are limited by English Common Law, so a “law” that gives judges the right to intervene in what is properly an executive matter is a complete departure from our system of justice – because government ministers may be held accountable for their decisions, but judges can’t. Victoria hasn’t understood my argument at all. As for torture – so what is Jordan tortures him? Why is it our business to sit in judgement on how Jordan deals with terrorists? I am all for trying Abu Qatada here and executing him in this country without further ado.

  10. So do I, and I know when tories hide files and evidence indicating a person
    is innocent that’s illegal, secondly the court is council of ministers that
    are subject to other influences seperate to Human Rights. Your comments
    have no bearing on IRA cases.

  11. Tell me what experience do you have in defending IRA suspects who are
    being detained on account of some corrupted tory f-ing criminal, do Sinn
    Fien use your services for instance.

  12. Victoria Sharkey

    Karl – I don’t understand your point about the IRA. I practice immigration law, I use article 8 to assist my clients, that’s all.

    DJ – you have misunderstood my points. Regardless of my personal opinion on whether the HRA is good or bad, my point is that the judges don’t make the law, Parliament do, and TM and her predecessors (and you?) fail to grasp this. I’m no ‘hanger-on’ and I make no money from the state (unlike Qatada’s legal team I don’t do legal aid). I make a living out of representing people who have had decisions against them which are contrary to law, be it the immigration laws or the HRA.

    But this isn’t about me. This is about the fact that, contrary to your blog, the human rights laws we have are the reason that people like Qatada are able to stay. If TM doesn’t like it she can get the HRA repealed, then deport him. That’s in her hands. If she did that, no judge in the country would be able to let him stay, and I suspect that none would want to.

    Personally, I still prefer that he is tried here if he has committed a crime.

  13. Secondly Victoria if the British lawyers and judges did the job they paid to do, you wouldn’t have to keep going off to strasbourg would you. who pays for these 50 grand a time cases the tax payer. If our legal system was regulated we would nver need a ECHR It’s because our own legal system is defunct and corrupt people have to go there in the first place. I see britain has the largest number of complaints upheld against them and the largest number of cases pending as alway’s the case. Why is the british tax payer paying billions for a legal system that does not work.

  14. Victoria Sharkey

    If the legal system is flawed then, again, it is governments who are to blame.

  15. I wish we could trust either judges or Parliament – I do not think that either can be trusted.

    The Parliament of old times (when an “Act of Parliament” was a rare thing indeed) is long gone – now Acts of Parliament (and, worse, “delegated legislation”) are whims of the state.

    However, the judges have a corrupted sense of jurisprudence. They were never perfect servants of the principle of law (there is no perfection in this life), but they did understand the basics (for example that justice is to-each-their-own and that a crime must be a violation of someone or their property), today this is not understood (on the contrary – the minds of the judges are filled with mad notions and absurd fancies, which the get from the universities and so on).

    As for the European Convention on Human Rights – like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is based on an effort to reconcile conceptions that can not be reconciled.

    The idea of natural law and getting natural right from it may, or may not, make sense – but trying to mix this with collectivist concepts of “positive rights” (i.e. “rights” to things AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS) does not work.

    Brian Tierney can say that “positive rights” and “compulsory charity” (dry water, square circle) were part of the tradtion from the start – but that does not alter the fact that it makes no sense (ius, right, can not be this – it falls apart if we tried to steatch it to cover “positive” stuff).

    Also there is the terrible VAGUENESS – things must be clear (or they are worse than useless).

    A document that talks in vague terms (“rights” to “family life” and ….. knows what else) is useless – other than as toilet paper.

  16. “If we can not trust Parliament” (and I hate the very sound of the concept of a “legislature”) “and we can not trust judges” , what is law to come from?

    The principle of justice is plain enough (to each their own – including their lives). But how to apply that principle in the specific circumstances of time and place is the task of positive law – and where is that positive (specific) law to come from?

    This is the question.

    And the truth is – I do not know the answer.

  17. Victoria Sharkey

    “A document that talks in vague terms (“rights” to “family life” and ….. knows what else) is useless – other than as toilet paper.”

    I agree entirely. The vagueness of the ECHR/HRA is precisely what has lead extremely learned judges to interpret in a way that the Home Secretary dislikes. But the judges cannot be to blame, as they didn’t draft the bloody thing or bring it into UK law.

  18. Victoria, are you being obtuse? The judges have sworn an oath to uphold the Common Law… our courts are common law courts.

  19. Victoria Sharkey

    I am not being obtuse at all. What makes you think that?

  20. Well I have been dealing with them for over a decade, these things have to
    be paid for one way or another, or course the judges and the lawyers are
    to blame, they earn to much money and they have some delusion they
    have that right by birth, I might say all protocols from 1, to 13 are bog
    roll, but there’s nothing else for the victims of this corrupted state and
    police force is there, I’m glad these new investigation units are catching
    them, who cares if criminals in uniform committ suicide not me.

  21. Victoria Sharkey

    Lawyers are to blame when we ensure that governments uphold their own laws?

    Without us (and the majority are not crooks and are not obscenely wealthy) the government would ride roughshod over the freedoms and liberties of citizens without giving a toss as to whether their actions were legal or not.

    Again…is this really a libertarian blog? I’m getting mighty confused here!

  22. Victoria, i now different, no doubt you are a young lawyer, I have fought many battles in the crown courts and magistrates courts and won, I now different from what you say and have the case files to prove, as for government I got my investigation papers through to day, I see after the police refered my case to smith they conducted a backdated 20 year investigation using intelligence and special operations units, it didn’t get them any where, they came unstuck again having to destory files and delete computor evidence, I’m refering that matter to the ECHR as well as Smith refuses to return my files and bank statements, I’ll establish what my rights are as I am being denied a lawyer in this respect. Victoria as lawyer never get confused, this is the time the sword strikes the armour does not impress juries in the slightest.

  23. Victoria, you are pro-immigration, which means you are pro-state and pro-our racial dispossession. Basically, real libertarians oppose mass immigration, and your support for Jamaican, Iranian, Pakistani immigration is totally unacceptable as you seem to be trying to destroy Britain as a free nation.

  24. Victoria – “uphold their own laws”, well then you will have no just complaint if Parliament REPEALS these vague “laws”.

  25. I just make one point here, I hold immigrants not responsible, it it the
    government who were responsible for this crisis, immigrants only did what
    the government wanted them to do. At the moment the health service are
    running recruitment campaigns in Europe, only last week they lanched a
    new drive for nurses, it is the government causing the problem in the first

  26. Victoria, why does the government not help these displaced people to return
    home and be patriotic to thier own countries where they can stand proud.

  27. Victoria where’s article 4. we have some working full time for £53.00
    per week in the UK.

  28. Specifically on immigration.

    We are told that being pro unlimited immigration is libertarian – so it might be IF a few conditions were met.

    First private property – no one in the country without the consent of the owner of the land upon which he or she is standing (not a small point – as American ranchers and farmers have been dragged into court for defending their property from illegals who cross it on the border).

    Also no “non discrimination” doctrine – if someone does not wish to employ, or trade with, someone else that is up to them (to “discriminate” is to CHOOSE and “libertarians” who do not believe in such freedom of nonviolent choice are not libertarians at all).

    And, of course, no taxpayer financed benefits for immigrants – no “free” education, or healthcare or……

    Should all these simple conditions be met – the we can talk about “free migration”,

    Although there would still be the point of politial loyality – “how can a libertarian talk about politcial loyality”.

    Quite simply actually – I do not want a growing population of people who want to murder or enslave me. If someone belongs to such a ideological group I would much rather they were outside the walls, rather than within the gates.

    For example, should the Irish have “welcomed” the Viking “immigrants” who created the biggest slave market in Europe in Dublin?

    The INTENTIONS of these Norse folk were bad (criminal) – so it would have been barking mad to welcome them.

  29. Paul Ireland has welcomed many immigrants, even many of the republicans
    are not as irish as they think, but we have a common bond we are the last
    of the western europeans for sure. The statist will enslave us, both the
    irish and english a like, they will kill us off.

  30. Karl – you are not hinting that the forefather of a certain Gerry Adams was Colonel John Adams of Lincolnshire are you?

    As for Martin M…. – that is a Scottish name (son-of), but then the Scots are an Irish tribe.

    Do not tell the Green warriors that though……

  31. No. I’ll just let them find that out out for themselves, it’s funny I met a man
    in London once swore he was irish, his family turned out to be jewish immigrants, there were a lot went there.

  32. Victoria Sharkey

    “Victoria, you are pro-immigration, which means you are pro-state and pro-our racial dispossession. Basically, real libertarians oppose mass immigration, and your support for Jamaican, Iranian, Pakistani immigration is totally unacceptable as you seem to be trying to destroy Britain as a free nation.”

    My, the Libertarian Alliance has changed since back in the day (definitely not a ‘young’ lawyer here, I assure you!). I wonder what Chris Tame would make of this comment?

    Colours nailed to the mast. I can’t have a sensible conversation with you people. Not once the words ‘racial dispossession’ are used.

  33. Victoria Sharkey

    Victoria – “uphold their own laws”, well then you will have no just complaint if Parliament REPEALS these vague “laws”.

    Paul – my personal opinion is not relevant here. That’s not the point of my contribution. I’m not trying to argue for or against immigration. I’m showin that laws are made by Parliament, not by judges as claimed. That judges are merely interpreters and administers of law, and that if Parliament don’t like certain laws, such as the HRA, they should seek to change them, instead of bitching and whining about it but failing to bring forward legislation.

    Your second point is a valid one. I wrote an article entitled ‘No welfare, no walls’ for Freedom Today back in about 2001, which looks at the issue. One of the main problems I have now relates to the fact that an employer is told by the state who he can or cannot employ, based purely on nationality, and that is surely against any libertarian philosophy?

  34. Victoria, regarding what you say, consider this, firstly the judges many basket cases are unable to interpret the law, this I know after sitting in on many cases at the court. Your second point, the article you wrote 2001, regarding employment, this is 2013, everywhere illegal immigrants are being employed do you not watch TV, the government might state who they cannot or can employ, but in reality they pay no attention to these facts and employ who they like, that’s why the minuim wage has gone out of the window, regarding being a Liberterian understand the meaning of the word it’s self, it will reveal answers. Victoria I’m not having a gig, but I get the impression that on immigration and the employment aspects, you are detached from what is happening on the ground, and what situation exists in that respect.

  35. Anyway, yesterday the government unleased it’s new weapon against the british public at whitehall, a new 45 million pound computor system that can trawl a billion pieces of paper within minutes, and can store more information on the british public that than the National library, with all data being held pemenantly. The system is being used to catch immigrants, businesses for tax fraud, last year the goverment snooped on 41,351 people obtaining their private information, with new systems they can do an estimated million a year, the police are also spying on the public using the act. TH new draft law “The Communications Draft Bill” where your privacy laws will simply no loner exist, the government has replied by saying access to peoples private data is vital. You will no doubt have a lot of work to do Victoria

  36. There seem to be some mixed up thoughts on here:

    D J Webb–as I have said before is not any sort of Libertarian. I think he posts here because our love of free speech stops him from getting banned as other, more statist sites would prob do. To suggest that Abu Quat should be executed for exercising what is his right to free speech (much as one might despite the shite he dispenses from that orifice) is disgraceful–how dare you talk such evil on this site.

    Victoria Sharkey: (not an ideal name for a lawyer)–agree with what you say–except your disagreement with Webb on the matter of racial displacement. Like a stopped clock, on that matter he is correct–by 2050/2060, if these shadows remain unaltered by the future, we–westerners, with at least some love of personal freedom–will be a minority in our own country. What to do about that and remain a Libertarian is a question. Smashing the left would be a start.

    Karl Fenn:The govt has a £45,000,000 computer that can spy on us all. No it does not. The scum of the state would look down their nose at spending a pathetic chump-change 45 mil. 4,500,000,000 that is more like it. Also Karl, could you try to make brevity one of your qualitys. I would like to get the point you are making while I am still (relatively) young.

  37. Mr Ecks did you not see the News, unvailed yesterday at Westminister, it’
    in the rags today, google new 45 million pound computor unvailed at
    westinister yesterday.

  38. I had a look at the G web sites 45 million it cost initially will be used to catch
    business tax cheats, all new systems being put in place at the CSA and
    other agencies as well such as JCP, Will also be used for alleged crime
    investigations. They have forgot how much all the extra staff will cost to
    arrest people of investigate them, and the appeals.

  39. I was just looking at the draft of the CB, if it gets trough government will store
    every email, phone call and message all computor transactions for every
    single person in the UK.

  40. Victoria Sharkey

    Karl: “Victoria I’m not having a gig, but I get the impression that on immigration and the employment aspects, you are detached from what is happening on the ground, and what situation exists in that respect.”

    I am very much NOT detached. I am on the front line. These people are my clients.

    Mr Ecks: Re: racial displacement. If you are talking about the growth of anti-liberal Islam then that is a concern, but the suggestion wasn’t limited to that. ‘racial displacement’ suggests that the problem is with colour.

  41. Victoria, you are a scurrilous troll – and think nothing of insinuating “racism” into people’s postings – maybe as a lawyer you will discuss the libel laws with the partners of your firm before posting? I reserve the right to sue MediVisas (your firm) if accusations are hurled my way. (

    Racial displacement does not express any contempt for other people – but does say this is our country – I feel as concerned, eg for the Tibetans facing an influx of Chinese. Do you not think that the Tibetans would like their culture to remain in Tibet? Are the Tibetans “racist” for wanting this?

    Do you allow your home to be invaded by all an sundry? Or if you do not permit that, is it because you are expressing a view on human equality? Or is it just because your home is your own and you like your own space and domain?

    Whoever said the problem was colour – I take that as a near-libel – the problem is that this is our country. People of other races belong in their own countries. Their colour is not a problem – but their lack of UK ancestry shows they don’t belong here in large numbers.

  42. Victoria Sharkey

    If you wish to sue me in a personal capacity then you are free to attempt to do so. My company have nothing to do with it.

    I am not a troll by any means. I thought, incorrectly, that the pages of the LA blog would be a place to have an adult discussion about the Human Rights Act and the role of the judiciary. I was sadly mistaken. I shall not be making this mistake again.

  43. Victoria, it seems to me you are a hanger-on who is seeking to make money out of the dispossession of the people of this country. There can be no concept of democracy once the demos is destroyed – and I think that is your real ultimate goal. The whole edifice of multiculturalism, including controls on speech, enforced high crime, and the encouragement of cultural conflict among the population defeats any possibliity of libertarianism. So you are quite wrong – libertarians don’t support free immigration at all – read chapter 16 of John Stuart Mill’s On Representative Government to be sure on this point – quoted by Sean Gabb at

    You are determinedly working against a free society – and making a living by doing so!

  44. Does multiculturalism work?

    According to the research of Putnam (the Harvard “Bowling Alone” person) it does not – he kept his research unpublished for many years (because he was so shocked by his own findings).

    Community is undermined and people in all ethnic groups (not just the native one – but the incommers also) live distrustful and unhappy lives.

    Now a libertarian may just have to accept that unhappiness (lack of community, high crime and so on) – IF it is the result of voluntary human choices. But NOT if it is the result of government “anti discrimination” regulations and “free public services” (nothing libertarian about those two things).

    If the “free migration” position was based on “let us get rid of all anti discrimination regualtions (i.e. restore the rights of private property in such things as housing, trading, and employment) and get rid of all free public services for immigrants and their children” then a libertarian would have to seriously consider the “free migration”position (after all the United Kingdom basically had free migration in the Victorian Age). But it never is based on this.

  45. Firstly Victoria, I don’t think anyone would sue you on a over a liberterian point of view, we are not F-ing police. Point is Victoria, we have to look at the mathmatical formulars to see how mass immigration is effecting the county, this is not racism, realistically, we simply do not have the capacity or resources to allow the figures to continue to swell. It’s more about survival, and as to the countries abilities to function with high levels of immigration, surely you must agree, this is not racism, protecting your people, what of
    the economic arguements at least. Reasonable point, if a person has entered your country ilegally, should he not be removed, if a burglar entered your house, would you go to the ECHR and fight for his right to security of the person article 5. and allow him to continue residence, it’s the same priciple in respect of immigration, do you not think lawyers also have a responsibility to the British people, in perhaps bringing cases to remove people who have made illegal entry and are attacking the economic struture and fabric of our economy, for instance.illegal entry to a country is a cime in law is it not. Do the native people not have human rights under their security of the person as well.

  46. Victoria no one’s saying you’re a troll. I’d now straight away if you were, they
    get them on those republican blogs, everyone one’s knows a troll when they
    see one. Anyway you opinions are intersting, you must tell us more.

  47. Victoria – I certainly hope I have not said anything nasty about you. I certainly have not intended to. As for the Freedom Association – I have fond memories of meetings in the New Cumberland Club with friends who are now dead.

    My point was that such things as the “European Convention on Human Rights” are so vague as to be usless as positive law. They basically thrust power into the hands of judges (whether they want this power or not) – as judges have to create some sort of SPECIFIC meaning out of the mess of words.

    And I fully accept that Parliament (by passing the Human Rights Act) has some of the blame – but I would point out that even if the Human Rights Act was repealed the European Convention on Human Rights would (as you know) still be binding.

    The British govenrment (the Executive backed by Parliament) must formally renounce the Convention.

    As it must also denounce all other such vague documents – including the various United Nations treaties (such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights – written, in part, by Harold Laski, E.H. Carr and other fanatical collectivists).

  48. Karl – I can play both the Jewish and the Irish cards.

    But the most weird example of “a Jew who pretended to be an Irishman” is John Kerry (now American Sec of State – and the man who introduced Comrade Barack Obama to the world in his Convention of 2004, dear old Kerry still working for the Red cause all these years after his treason during the Vietnam war).

    Anyway….. John Kerry told (again and again) a story of how his Irish grandfather came to Boston after World War One and was discriminated against (the media lapped it up – poor John Kerry you must all vote for him…..) “no Irish need apply” were the hurtful signs that poor Mr Kerry had to suffer.

    Errrr – accept there were a few problems with the story.

    No such signs existed in Boston at the time.

    The Irish ran the city in the period (see the “Curly Effect” for how Mayor Curly’s policies were designed to drive out the nonIrish).

    Also Mr Kerry’s grandfather was not Irish anyway – he was an Austrian Jew (who changed his name to “Kerry” to fit in). John Kerry then denied he knew of the Jewish origins of his family (which must have come as a shock to his brother who is a practicing Jew).

    Still one must not hold his pack-of-lies story against Mr Kerry (after all the pressure of marrying Mrs Heinz, for all those zillions of Dollars, must be a great strain) – after all the media never held his treason during the Vietnam war against him.

    Going before Congress (in uniform) and lying his head off – and then going to enemy conferences (such as the one in Paris) and giving all the aid-and-comfort to the enemy that he could.

    On the contrary – Mr Kerry is a VICTIM , He was “Swiftboated” by those evil ex military people – i.e. the people who served with him and pointed out that he was a liar (telling stories about places he had never even been to) and a traitor.

    An ideal person to be Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and (now) Sec of State.

    The West is doomed.

  49. Victoria Sharkey

    No, Paul, you have not have made reasonable and intelligent points.

    I think there is a lot of intentional misunderstanding of what Human Rights / Immigration lawyers do. It’s very simple. A) A person makes an application to enter or remain in the UK, and that application is made according to UK law, be it the immigration rules or the Human Rights Act. B) State agents then refuse that application, claiming that it fails under the respective law C) the lawyer appeals the decision, trying to prove that the application does meet the law D) a judge decides who is right, the appellant and his lawyer, or the State.

    Trying to ensure that the State treat my clients fairly within the laws they have passed doesn’t make me a hanger-on, or a troll, or anything else I am being accused of. I am simply trying to make the State act according to the law. And if that law is vague, and they don’t like the judges’ interpretation, then that is the fault of the State for making a bad law.

    I haven’t given my personal opinion at all in this thread. I have simply shown how the premise of the blog, that the judiciary make the law and not the government, is wrong. And I didn’t expect to be personally attacked for it.

  50. Victoria Sharkey

    (sorry, first line should read: “No, Paul, you have not, you have made reasonable and intelligent points”)

  51. Well yes Vicoria, of course the legal process is ment to work A,B,C,D,
    but they do have a problem it seems to XVUI, bad law indeed, The Judges
    are the main problem and their demented rulings.

  52. Victoria Sharkey

    That’s not the problem in my field of law.

  53. Well expian what the problem is we might be able to save the tax payer
    a few billion, a problem is identified by the fact you have so many cases
    going to ECHR

  54. Victoria Sharkey

    Already said. If TM doesn’t like the ECHR, she should repeal the HRA.

  55. First of all in your previous article you seem to indicate it is indeed the judges
    who are the problem and indicate bad decisions, are you know saying something totally contrary to that.

  56. Victoria Sharkey

    You are the one who said the judges are bad, not me.

  57. Firstly you say if TM does not like the ECHR and the HR acts she can leave, on the basis of what democratic mandate, she’s not a god, none of them at Westminister are, or the judges in the corrupted criminal courts, what right does she have to make a single decision that effects 69 million people, what right does any MP or the judicary have to do this. At the moment it appears to be birth right, this is a result of still dragging the Victorian “Ball and Chain” of colonial middle class goverment and law, these institutions do not represent ordinary people, you only have to look at the civil courts and the way damages are allocated for identical matters amongst the class structure, despite these facts we all pay the same insurance, the british justice system is a “Shit Pit” run by a middle class dictatorship, who are brought up on the false delusions they are born superior to the better educated man, It sickning to hear references of commonor still being used in our courts, by fat overweight arrogant middle class pratts.

  58. Victoria Sharkey

    By ‘she can change it’ I clearly mean that she can introduce legislation to the Commons which will repeal it.

  59. Do not worry Victoria – it is simply being so close to me on the internet, my word blindness (or dyslexia – or whatever this condition is, if it even exists) may well be catching.

    As for the legal system – it is what it is.

    And, as I have said, I think the judges have power thrust upon them (by vague Conventions and what not). They are presented with a vague mist of words – and have, somehow, to make specific positive law out of it.

    Although, in my bigoted way, I still think a lot of them are Guardian readers…..

  60. In my home town Leicester, a single person living in Band A on JSA (or even ZERO income) is now expected to pay about £150.00 of their council tax bill yearly – I’ve seen a council tax request sent to a person who has not earned a penny in 4 months! But imaginary taxes like ‘bedroom tax’ get more publicity than real ones.

  61. she can’t change anything, no one can, it was in fact Britain who put forward
    the idear of the ECHR anything it looks as if the electorate will change her at the election one way or the other, I remind you of the signatory governments 1950, insofar as these facts are concerned it may not be so easy as one thnks, firstly again she is the centre of the TV news again tonight, regarding the Qatada case, this incompetence cannot contiune it is becomming an international embarrassment for the country, and the British people, making us look like idiots in the eye’s of the world. Of course looking at what she is doing, serious questions must be raised about her policy, she has now set up new investigation units to deal with police, however retains the corrupted IPCC despite the fact she states it’s no good, does the tax payer have to pay double for investigation of police crime, I though when you set up a new body you disband the old one, logical thought process of course. Mind you at least it seems to working the police criminals are committing suicide now, rather than thier victims, some redress and reversal of the situation at least

  62. Victoria Sharkey

    The decisions of the Strasbourg court when ruling on ECHR cases only became binding when the convention was brought into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. The HRA can be repealed.

  63. Well I have to pay 50% of the 1350 pound bill, then there’s over 500 water, The gas and electric bills have all gone up,
    . They have two councils here now the Tory council and the
    parish we have to pay for two, they have rasied the PC by nearly 2% and
    the police budget by about the same, so they can sit on their arses at the local SB, all day, If you don’t
    pay, you can end up in prison, they are
    now putting people in the dock for being absolutely broke, our court system would take
    the bread from a dead mans stomach

  64. Don’t think so you lot don’t seem to be doing a very good job of it, I think
    you’ll find out it will be a bit more difficult than you think, I suggest as you
    claim to be a lawyer, look at the comments of Von Rompuy in relation to
    camerons proposed exit from Europe my dear.

  65. Anyway, Nick, there’s big trouble in Norfolk, people driving cars through the wall of the Job Centre, violence, the place is like an army garison, with security guards throwing people out, they are deleting all the claimants past details from the computors to stop benefits, I have been there, some real ugly scenes going on, they are taking new claims and not paying out deleting details from the system and making them claim again, keeping them for months with mo money, directing them to soup kitchens that do not exist, there’s loads of cases going through the court, the police are being called to the JCP all the time now, with people being charged or cautioned, the JCP are also making dossiers on claimants now, putting in information regarding abusive personality types, or details of threatening behaviour at the JCP making it impossible for them to get jobs.The appeals situation has gone through the roof as a result of maladministration with a 2 year backlogue.People just don’t know what to do, everyone is complaining about what’s going on with the computors and abuse if data to stop benefits.

  66. Anyway, Victoria as you appear to suggest that TH can leave the ECHR act
    that easy, then why won’t she do it then, simple choice is it not.

  67. Anyway, Nick, soon there’s going to be real trouble there’s small groups
    of people on Norwich market who are sick of it, they expelled one person
    from the JCP last week as he kicked off about loss of his computor file, they
    have now made him go the North walsham 20 miles away to get any money,
    they are doing it to everyone, I found out my records have been destroyed
    every one of them, and my medical files.

  68. Victoria, I don’t like to lecture lawyers, but I think as a lawyer you should be aware of the following points, on the issue leaving the ECHR, The EU are now becomming party to the ECHR, so applicants will be able to bypass the ECHR anyway and have complaints heard by Luxemburg in any event, TH will not be able to opt out as you suggest. secondly the ECHR gives states tenet membership of the UN and EU so it would effect britian in this respect, withdrawal would not make it easier to deport people as other remedies would be put in place, I presume this is why the EU has took the decision to become part of the ECHR. and create a bypass to Luxemburg ruilings.

  69. Victoria Sharkey

    I am not your ‘dear’.

    A quick Google search will show that TM, DC and various other politicians have been talking about and threatening to repeal the HRA for a long time now. Why they haven’t is a question for them.

  70. Interesting discussion. Methinks Victoria wins on points!

    Of course, the true disgrace is that in the UK a man can be deprived of his liberty without a trial. That such should come to pass in my lifetime would, at one time, have been truly incredible.

  71. You didn’t answer my question, you said TM can get out, she can’t Luxumburg will be able to deal complaints via the EU you are wrong on
    that point. People will still have right to remedies over the UK courts. This
    is the reason they have not and the EU have implimented changes if they
    do, to make it in effective, I thought you said you knew about EU and
    HR law.

  72. Firstly Nick, I care little about points, only the application of the law, when people understand how many of these people are being held there will be an outcry, the way these conservatives are being allowed to use tax payers resources against innocent republicans in the form of command and control centres to commit disgusting abuses of liberty and human rights, MH and CS shoould be brought before a court they are using the legal system for political reasons as opposed to legal ones, Firstly, they are holding mumerous suspects not just Qatada, including many innocent Irish republicans forging all the evidence to do so, they just transfer inestigations from one department to another, so they are effectively hold them for decades, you find when one inestigation finishes they go to another department, like that of Carol Evans or Simom Tse, and start forging data on computors to hold suspects, they should take a trip to Europe as well. This is why we need the European Court, and the other agreements such as the GF agreement, to get the right people in the dock, and stop the likes of TM and CS who thinks she has powers by birth right to hold and sanction disgusting abuses such as torture over suspect republicans outside of rule of law.

  73. Fact is, the law is what the guys with guns say it is. Take a look a the pictures from Boston.

  74. I think DJW’s analysis is briliiant, and I have (as President Benes of Czechoslovakia famously said after Munich in 1938) “nothing to add”.

    However, Victoria is a lawyer and sees the position from the point of view of what the law actually says, such as about this Abu-fella.

    The problem faced by the English People is that the Abu-fella is clearly seen to be being allowed to take the piss.

    (That’s what I said: he’s “allowed to be” … “taking the piss”, “taking the Michael”, “getting up our noses” on purpose…use what phrase you prefer.)

    And he seems to be being allowed, by Judges in especial particular, to take this affore-mentioned piss.

    The problem with taking the piss, when it is officially-sanctioned (and enforced upon those on whom piss is rained – not reigned -) by an occuping power such as the British-PoliticalEnemyClass, is that people get angry, their knuckles start to work back and fro, while red mist begins to emerge from their ears, and ICE FORMS ON their Upper Slopes.

    The official allowment of some favoured fellow that is taking the piss, is often, eventually, followed by a “Piers Gaveston Moment”.

    If anyone is not clear what that is, they’d better look the bugger up.

  75. DD, I am clearly saying that Parliament has no right to pass laws that give judges an executive function. Of course, Victoria is right to say that the politicians have decided to pass these laws – as mentioned in my article. The Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act are designed substantially to remove accountability from the constitution. Laws should be drawn up by our own Parliament, within the bounds of the Common Law (and struck down by the judges where our ancient Common Law is being overstepped by such statutes) and the executive function should be wielded by the Cabinet or Privy Council, and liable to be questioned on in Parliament, and no within the purview of the courts at all.

    Clearly, TM is just pretending that she wants to restore accountability to the Constitution – as I said, she has not advanced a programme of legislative reform to remove the excessive power of the judges. She might want one or two very high-profile cases to be determined more reasonably by the judges, but probably doesn’t want to get rid of technocratic and judicial oversight of the elected government entirely, as this is what guarantees the Establishment will get its way on everything – including immigration. The politicians and judges are both at fault – they clearly do want the political agenda to be decided behind closed doors – which is why we don’t have a proper choice at the polls, and why the judges can overrule decisions the Establishment doesn’t like.

    An example came up in the papers yesterday: the Telegraph was talking about whether the Catholic church could continue to hold weddings or not in view of the gay marriage farrago. The paper said “case law” had recently decided that Catholic priests conducting marriages are public officials, as they are officiating on behalf of the registry offices!!!!!! Such case law is handed down by judges deliberately misinterpreting 1000 years of judicial history – priests are not public officials, as the state only came late to the marriage party any way, and so the decision of a priest not to conduct a mock marriage ceremony involving two men (or a man and his budgerigar) ought not be overturned in court – and in fact the Queen’s Coronation Oath binds here to support the traditional interpretation of the Christian religion. True, it talks of the Established church, but the principle is the same. Priests are employees of the Almighty, if of anyone, and are not public officials! So much of this case law is an overt attempt to “move the law on” by activist judges, and not every single case is appealed up to the House of Lords for a final ruling by more experienced judges – and even then the Law Lords are committing treason by pretending to be a supersovereign Supreme Court….

    Victoria may point out the politicians allow this all to happen – true – but I would hang the politicians along with the judges… after convicting Abu Qatada for terrorist offences and hanging him of course. I see the death penalty as a vital part of our constitution, and one that should be regularly employed. Public execution is always better, I think you’ll find libertarians agree…

  76. But of course, just how do propose to convict someone when there is no
    evidence available for trial, fabricated it for instance, like the F CH.

  77. I’d only agree with the State bein allowed to do executions, on condition that we can do them ourselves if aggrieved by a scumbag who’d worsted us: and it therefore is a right that we could delegate, to a state perhaps, because we possess that right and so we can therefore delegate it if we give that permission.

  78. Karl, a trial would lead to conviction if guilty; hopefully, if not guilty, the man would be found innocent. But I don’t assume the government is keeping him under observation for no reason. The US ignored the Russian warning over the Chechen terrorists – and look what happened.

    If there is a right to a family life – that’s fine – let his family come and watch the hanging!

  79. For a start it’s the lawyers who are taking the Piss on this case, seen how much they claimed in legal aid for instance, the total cost of the case thus far. Qatada is worth more than a gold mine. I say again how do you propose to convict someone when no evidence exists he committed any crime. As far as the judges are concerned do what you like with them, I won’t stand in your way, who cares if they strung up on piano wire. We won’t have that problem with the police if these new investigation units get moving faster, they’ll just top themselves anyway, who cares if 2, 4, 400, or 4,0000 police criminals kill themselves, the rate payers will be pleased to say the least.

  80. I think also as Victoria is a lawyer, she should look at the forthcomming
    changes to the EU, it will not be that simple to get out of the HR acts, or effectively suspend
    them in certain cases, where the government has in fact broken the law. The law does not work as in what David Cameron wants to happen, look
    what he proposed in the paper today. You can have HR laws
    for people you like, and then suspend them for people you don’t like. That’s
    not justice, get rid of the lawyers and just have a proper legal framework
    that is applied to, fully in law, with no arguments.

  81. Quote from David Cameron 24 April, we are considering temporary withdrawl
    from The ECHR so judges at starasbourg can’t block our laws. The judges
    in Norfolk are already doing that regarding IRA cases, and quite openly stating in verbal format these
    facts to thier victims. What has happened to the US body overseeing
    the Good Friday agreement. Republican IRA what have they done to your
    right to a lawyer and applications of the law. Hang the bastards at the
    Norwich Court if you like, I won’t block the road.

  82. Nick diPerna, you are quite right – the council tax is an utterly unjust levy – imposed on people with no assets and no income. The land value tax supported by John Stuart Mill was imposed on landowners – not their tenants – and so the levying of a tax on all residents, including those on the JSA is a nonsense. It makes matters worse that Leicester is a city under occupation – and that the level of the tax will be decided by the leading lights of the Indian community there.

  83. Well the US is another classic example, there’re letting anyone into the
    country,good point, trial is the only option, guilty or not guilty, it’s the right
    and correct path to take. I agree 100%, that will conclude it once and for

  84. I’ve had a little thought on the matter, that’s the answer! Put him trial, transfer the evidence from Jordan to the UK, try him in a UK court, removing the alleged element of torture, the case can’t go on for eternity, the lawyers are making millions, it’s costing millions in policing, the rags are making millions selling papers, the trial option is the only answer for closure of the case. The continuation of TH’s handling of the case is bad for britian, it’s making the government look like pathetic idiots.

  85. Victoria Sharkey

    Yes! A very good idea!

  86. I think the only solution to a long running unsolvable problem.

  87. The point I made in the article, which has been studiously avoided in this debate, is that the Common Law is our fundamental law, and binds the Queen, Parliament and the courts. Even if Parliament purports to pass a law given the judges the ability to keep a terrorist in the country, the Crown in Parliament did not derive from the Common Law a right to pass such a purported statute.

    Ain’t it odd, that when the Establishment precious project of the EU is threatened, the judges suddenly find that the 1985 Weights and Measures Act was not valid after all – but haven’t managed to make a similarl ruling on the fatuous Human Rights pretended Act… I date our interregnum back to 1972 and the unlawful purported entry into the EU.

  88. It is a good point and probabaly you are write without doubt, but if you mention common law now you would probably get laughed out of court or silenced under the comtempt of court act, which they use on a frequent basis, your exampe poves they just do as they like, the mood of the day, The Magna carta was supposed to be enshrined and base principles of English law, it has all been melted away, if anything the law is becomming a political machine, a long way from it’s intentions, commoners apper to have very limited rights these day’s and no access to the letter of the law, some of the magistrates trials conclude this new reality, they pay no attention to time limits anymore, or changes or alterations to prosection evidence. I just say the system has become detached from what it’s intentions should be. It no longer serves the peope, but the police and the judicary Bank Accounts, and all the feeders, look at the Emma West case example.

  89. djWebb – as I have said before, I agree with you about the principles of the Common Law.

    But, as I have also said before, even in the Victorian period legal historians and so on, such as Maitland, were carefully defining “the Common Law” as just the “law common to the whole Realm” claiming that Royal judges had just made judgements on the basis of no PRINCIPLES (no need to examine natural law here people – nothing to see here, move along…..) – and these (random?) judgements had, somehow, made up a system of law.

    Demented? Yes of course it is demented.

    But that is what is taught – and has been taught for a very long time.

    That is why expecting the judges to uphold the principles is not “realistic” – as they have not been taught these principles (not even when they were young students), indeed they were taught that there are no principles.

    The same thing happened in the Civil (“Roman”) law systems.

    For example, the Austrian Civil Code of 1811 was based on natural principles (the people who wrote it – said so, and explained what they meant by it). But by the late 19th century people such as Hans Kelson (and people before him) has spread their “pure theory of law” that law is just the WILL (the whims) of the state. Thomas Hobbes (and co) had returned to take his revenge on “a student of the Common Laws of England” (and the students of the “Roman” systems also).

    Today there are academics who deny the Hobbesian (“Legal Positivist)position – but they are not good (quite the contrary), because the stuff they are interested in is not the traditional principles of the Common Law, they are interested in “welfare rights” and so on.

    So that is your choice Mr Webb.

    Statists who think the law is just the whims of the state.

    Or statists who think the state should provide “welfare rights” (“positive freedom”) even if it does not want to.

    Do not like the choices?

    Neither do I.

    But I do not know what to do about it.

  90. I think there should be law’s to protect the public the judges are failing people badly in regards to the health service, it’s seems the recent ambulance crisis cost many peope their lives, investgations have started this week, first it was 1, now 5, may be 25 next month, now they propose investigation after investigation, it this the true offerings of statisim, the whim of a none democratic minority who appear to beyond account, or rule of law.

  91. “Tax should only be imposed on big landowners” – well as long as only big landowners have the vote…….

    I do not remember these people who say they can not pay the tiny percentage of Council Tax they have to pay (benefits pay for most of it – for those on welfare) saying “well we would be happy to give up the vote if only we did not have to pay this money”.

    As for Ricardo “rent theory” in economics (in land and so on).

    Frank Fetter refuted these aspects of it over a century ago.

    By the way other things that Ricardo suggested (for example that taxes on imports would tend to inflate farm land prices, and also the Law of Comparitive Advantage – i.e. if you are better at everything you should still specialise and let someone else do stuff, even if they are not as good at is as you are) Frank Fetter did NOT refute – because he agreed with David Ricardo on these points.

  92. Paul Marks,

    I for one would be happy to give up the vote if the state stopped trying to tax me.

    As for the land value tax supposedly being something to do with Ricardo and any theories that he may or may not have had: there is no connection.

    Quite simply, unimproved land is the natural endowment – the gift of nature that is not the product of human labour. There was no original owner to acquire it from. To the extent that a site has value, its value is often the product of public expenditure, e.g. the construction of a Tube station nearby at public expense raises land values. The point is that the land (and minerals, fish in the sea etc) is a natural resource that belongs to us all in fact – and to argue, as you seem to be doing, that we should tax labour and capital to avoid the landowner sharing his windfall is contrary to what J S Mill wrote…

  93. Your willingness to give up the vote in return for an end to being taxed is noted. At least you have an honest position.

    As for the special land tax thing (of Mill and the later, and somewhat different, ideas of Henry George) not being dependent on the economics of David Ricardo – you are mistaken, this view of land is dependent on the economics of David Ricardo.

    And it was refuted (by Frank Fetter and others) more than a centuary ago.

  94. As for the older theological view (which we can find a ghost of in John Locke) – it comes from the interpretation of the Book of Genesis by Samual Pufendorf and others.

    Many other people dispute that interpretation (that the world was given to humanity IN COMMON) and the “as much and as good” (or compensate) consequences that come from this theological view.

  95. Paul, the LVT has nothing to do with any 19th century debates. Quite simply: the building of the Jubilee Line cost public money, and yet landowners all along the route saw an uplift in the valuations of the sites of their properties. They captured the increase in site valuation paid for by the taxpayer. It makes no different what Ricardo or Fetter or anyone had to say on the subject of land: it is clear that the public investment was positive for the land valuations, and yet the landowners were not required to contribute to it. You can perform pirouettes trying to claim a connection with some dodgy 19th century economists – but I have given you a concrete example. The site valuations in places like Southwark were lifted by public spending – how typical that claimed “libertarians” like you are left arguing that taxes on labour and capital should pay to allow those landowners to benefit without paying a penny!

  96. I was (and am) against government schemes such as J. line.

    However, even if there are none – as population goes up so land prices tend to go up. More people come to an area land becomes more expensive (supply and demand).

    Henry George seemed to have believe there was something wrong with this, And that “unearned” gains should be taxed away.

    He was wrong.

  97. “However, even if there are none – as population goes up so land prices tend to go up. More people come to an area land becomes more expensive (supply and demand).”

    Well, you have admitted my point! Pity you don’t realise you have conceded the argument!

  98. The landowners good fortune is no excuse for the envy filled to impose a tax upon them.

    I repeat that I am not in favour of the government projects you metion.

    Nor am I in favour of a tax being imposed upon me because someone next door plants flowers and improves my view.

  99. It is nothing to do with envy – I do not favour any taxes on labour or capital – no matter how rich those people or businesses are – and it would be envy to prevent those people from building their businesses etc. Land occupation – it is not real ownership, as land title does not derive from any original transaction from someone who owned the land in the year dot – is the occupation of a common resource, the value of which derives from social activity (eg thousands of people living and building businesses in the area, which makes the entire area attractive).

    It seems that anyone who is anyone is trying to use society as a way of conning or defrauding others – and libertarians are no different – if they own land, they then become vociferous defenders of the property-skewed economy. Anyone who is anyone becomes a social scrounger.

    Property is not an investment. The purpose of the land value tax – the only form of tax that is an unalloyed boon to the economy – and not a necessary evil – is to restrain increases in site valuations. By charging an annual levy on use of a social resource that does not in fact belong to the freeholders, a levy that increases as site valuation soar, land prices would be kept down, with fewer financial dislocations. Labour and capital would become freer as land prices remained low. At the moment, low-skilled labour is not worth it, because of high land prices. It is economy skewed towards parasitism and not innovation or investment. In fact, libertarianism is pretty meaningless without a land value tax, as the free economy becomes impossible in the context of parasitism based on occupation of a social resource to which there is ultimately no legitimate title.

    Land value tax is championed by a number of organisations in Australia, including Prosper Australia, precisely because the way in which freehold title was instituted was documented in the modern era. In the Uk, the origin goes back many centuries and quickly leads us into a discussion of feudalism, but in Australia, whole areas that did not belong to anyone were parcelled up and sold off by the “Crown” – which did not own the land to sell it off – to “freeholders” – this is all documented in the 19th century. A social resource that is not the product of human investment or ingenuity has been cornered and the whole economy run in the interests of the few – with taxation shifted from land to labour and capital as a result.

  100. In the 50’s and 60’s land was worth peanuts, I remember as a child my family
    had large areas of land by ownership or lease, it was worth little unless
    building land. Immigration has pushed the price up, but it’s getting to the
    stage where there is little left, In the 60’s people got rid of land for next
    to nothing as it was so plentiful, those day’s will not return of the cheap
    rents and leases we once saw. Rents have gone as high as they can go,
    no one can afford them anymore.

  101. “Rents have gone as high as they can go, no one can afford them anymore.”

    Karl, you’re right, but Paul views this as a positive thing – anyone who objects that people can’t afford to rent a family home by earning £6 an hour is just “envious”. Despite the fact that a large range of government policies have run the economy in the interests of landowners to the detriment of labour and capital.

  102. I remember my great grandfather, had horses to pull his wagons around
    Norwich to supply businesses with wood, he had land all over the place,
    by ownership or lease, when he died it was worth little in terms of capital,
    land started to rise in the 70’s, and then prices went made thereafter.

  103. In the 50’s my mother owned a very sizable chunk of land on the coast, it was worth only a few hundred, mind you go into the sea now, my grandfather and great grandfathers had land and farms, they were worth little, it would be a dream to own that much land now, you have to remember in 17,00’s and 18,00’s land was in a bundance, it was not seen as investment, it only became expensive as the population became bigger, and with increased demand from business, supermarkets and such like, there was not much development in those day’s as a child i was brought up on the coast as well as norwich as my family had property there, it was untouched, a different world, no amusement arcades, housing estates, take away’s, did not exist apart from fish and chip shops, there were no garages selling petrol everywhere like we see today, the rents now are truely mad to the point where they have unbalanced the economy, leaving a shortfall, this is much of the problem, everybodies income goes on housing now with nothing left to purchase anything else, apart from rates gas and electric, and what the have left goes on food, in some cases people don’t get much of that either.

  104. In the 60’s where I live now, was like heaven, some of my family used to ride
    horses on the road there was so little traffic 5 minute walk I would be in the
    country, these areas are becomming cesspits now overpoupulated full of
    corrupted fucking police and CS and statists, they hae destroyed britain.

  105. In the 60’s you seldom saw the police, the od mini van, or local bobbie on his bike, councilors did not get payed, some only got expenses, the police called people sir in those day’s, that’s they way it should have stayed. Now were’re policed by violent corrupted psycho’s, dodge lawyers, bent judges, bent quacks, fiddling fucking councilors. We have new labour to thank for this fucking stalanist statist dictatorship we live under, the likes of blunkett, Straw, Blair, and many others, it started with Thatcher, but blair carried it through with the mongrels in the EU, what labour brought was a transformation of freedom to imprisonment, and they have got clean away with it, the conservatives have continued the idear, they are no longer the conservatives they once were, but another corrupted statist machine who have simply picked up the baggage, the country finished, with this new corrupted middle class, who for all intensive purposes should not exist, thier creation is based on theft and law, after law, stealing peoples wealth by fraud, telling you you’re a criminal if you get caught on a speed camera, and then helping themselves to your wallet, they bleeding the counrty dry, by making crime legal for themselves, by the use of a dictatorship judicary, England would breath again if we were rid of them, they will bleed england to death.

  106. “Paul views high rents as a positive thing” that is a NOT TRUE Mr Webb.

    It seems can not support your position (of imposing X tax) without resorting to saying things that are just flatly untrue.

    As for high property prices – some of it is natural (and, therefore, none of my business – and none of your business either).

    But some of the increse in property prices (inculding rents) is unnatural – caused by the “cheap money” (“low interest rate”) policy of the government-Bank of England. A classic property bubble (which has a spill over effect into rents).

    Indeed the govenrment is actively backing mortgages and so on – thus pushing up property prices. Artificially inflating the property marked (including rents).

    HOUSING BENEFIT also pushes up rents. Just as David Ricardo (see I can prasie him) would have predicted.

    Subsidise the buying of sometihg – and the PRICE will go up over time.

    As for taxes.

    As Murray Rothbard pointed out in “Man, Economy and State” and “Power and Market” there is no such thing as a tax that does not harm the economy.

    A tax on land will be passed on – just like any other tax.

    There is nothing “special” about land in relation to taxation and so on.

    As Frank Fetter showed – a century ago.

  107. Well of course it does I thought everyone knew that without explination, 25
    grand a year housing benefit is crazy, so are the rents and property prices
    this is what played a part in the crisis in spain Bucked property OI.

  108. Of course paul, many people making money from the high rents are the
    government themselves, or associates. Many conservatives have invested
    in property particularly where I live.

  109. Spain is over 27% unemployment now – the “Christmas Tree of Rights” Constitution (and the absurd labour codes it has led to) are having a terrible effect.

    As the labour codes of France, Greece and Italy are also having.

    To be fair I can not lay this generally at the feet of the Welfare State (after all Austria is a Welfare State and they have unemplyment of less than 5%), it is the specific labour market codes that are at fault.

    As for rents.

    The government pays most council house rents – so “market rents” (there is no real market) go straight on the TAXPAYER.

    And, yes, anyone who owns rented property (or is connected to someone who does) should declare this when voting on “Housing Benefits”.

    However, it is the Conservatives (or some of them) who want to, at least, put a cap on benefits.

    I have never earned 500 Pounds a week in my life (or anything like that – not even half of it).

    So I see no reason why someone should live in Central London and claim X, Y, Z.

  110. If only it was X Y Z, it’s W UV A B C as well, this is the problem, why do you
    think the UK is top immigration spot, no one wants to go to India or SF do
    they. How about Somalia. No takers.

  111. Paul,

    I agree that housing benefit and all the rest has served to subsidise buy-to-let landlords, and, in the context where HB cannot be eliminated overnight, it should certainly not keep going up to whatever suits the landlords.

    But a tenancy in fee simple is not absolute ownership of land – it is a tenancy held of the Crown – and you seem to be trying to convert tenancy in fee simple into absolute ownership. Next thing you will be saying leasehold ownership should have all the same rights as freehold. Freehold is just a tenancy of the crown and is not allodial title.

    We all do have an interest in land prices, as this is a common social resource – and you have flatly refused to comment on the fact that all land title traces back to land grabs and not from purchase from some original owner – they are not making any more land, and land in prime locations can be occupied by parasites demanding more and more and more.

    The LVT would restrain, and probably reverse, land price increases and bring the parasitical party to an end. The LVT could not, at least in the long run, be passed on, as there is a market in rentals, and people can go elsewhere, to other locations or other landlords. I accept that not all buy to let landlords could afford to pay their mortgages in the context of an LVT – hopefully those parasites would go out of business – but the fall in land prices would enable other people to offer land for rent at lower prices. It is nonsense to say that a rent of £1,000 a month can become £2,000 a month or £3,000 a month, whatever the landlord likes, as the market can only bear so much, and as land prices come down, the rent demanded would fall out of kilter with the new market rent (i.e. the rent demanded by new landlords who purchased land at the post-price-collapse level). That is not to say that there would not be short-term difficulties, but over the long term, the props to the BTL market would be kicked away and property prices and rentals would come down!

    I personally woudl reduce the housing element of benefits to a maximum of £500 a month, regardless of property size or location. Landlords operate in a market, which is the thing you don’t seem to understand. Take away the props to the skewed market, and they will try to put the rents up, but fail to do so in a market context. Some would go out of business.

    I’m pretty sure, Paul, that you are a social scrounger, either a BTL landlord, or a would-be scrounger of some other description. We should be encouraging PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY – proper investment, not parasitism based on occupation of a social resource.

  112. Land is not the subject of this blog, but I am trying to read Fred Harrison’s book, the Traumatised Society, on the land fraud question and how is skews the economy, and would like to write a review as a blog here in the next couple of weeks, opening up to comment on land and LVT issues.

  113. In effect with lease hold particulary long term leases you probably have more rights than freehold anyway, some leases could run for a 100 years, with little restricition, this is not the case with freehold anymore. The funny thing is at one time landlords, you to state No DHSS they appear to be the only ones who can afford the rents now, paticularly immigrants, landlords soon drop the discrimination when they know there’s 25 grand a year to be had in rent care of the tax payer. State control of land is no good either the statist bastards have to much power over us as it is, whilst they control the land, they retain their own private land denying the right to anyone else to own any.

  114. Anyway, thatchers policy on the right to buy was a flop, why should people buy houses for 12,000 when they have a market value of 80,000, why should private owners have to pay full market value and morgages. whilst they get their properties on the cheap, we had cases in Norfolk where they bought properties, sold them at hudge profits, and then were given council houses again. Why should council staff be able to buy property on the cheap for a tenth of it’s real market value, they sold a hudge estate in Gt yarmouth a few months ago for 50p, in reality it was worth milions on the free market.

  115. Of course more to the point these councils and health authorities hold assets and properties all over the place, why is there no
    scrunity of public money, tell me where can you buy an acre of land these
    day’s for 50p only via the internal state sales, you or I won’t be allowed to
    bid. It’s a closed shop.

  116. Paul, you could have earned 500 per week in the late 70’s and early 80’s if you had done some research based on your skills or what you could do, but there’s no guarantee it would last forever, if you became ill or had an accident you would be finished, the day’s of making money are over for a while, may be decades, where’s all the money now, well according to the BBC in tory Chlose Smith county it’s in death, the undertakers here a booming, like a production line, you could be come one of them and earn thousands a week. but alas that one’s a closed shop, of course paul you are right, people should sign a decleration about properties, they do not, Police are required to sign and disclose they are masons they do not, the last batch of forms the government sent out got thrown in the bin on all accounts, the woodentops just refused to comply, Things just don’t work the way should paul, that’s the problem.

  117. Paul, one could alway’s try the lottery, I know at some points I’ve been
    lucky in my life, but just not that lucky, the question is do you feel lucky,
    some people win. If I win a few million I’ll think of you paul.

  118. Of course in relation to victoria and the governments right to opt out of HR law, A good example is provided in relation to David Camerons laws and reforms on welfare. The EU has the powers to have matters heard in other courts in relation to various social and domestic legislation, The european commission are now looking at these new laws, Laszlo Andor is currently looking at the legislation and it could effectively be ruled on in legal terms by the EU, this wouuld still be binding the same as a ruling from the ECHR. Regarding the changes to the EU and the relationship with the ECHR, if TH left the ECHR the EU would still be able to look at violations under the new changes, the only way Therrsa May would be able to get out of the new deveolping situation would be to get out of ECHR and the EU, this she will not dear do, in view of the proposed mechanisims that could be put in place were disclosed after Cameron called for a referendum. Britain is now officially classified as an EU state by Brussels. Also the UN has it’s own offices in Europe that can look at abuses of prisonsers in relation to certain cases if they fill the criterion for doing so, so, it will not be easy to just walk away from the ECHR there are other mechanisims within the EU to deal with such situations. Or sanction rougue states.

  119. In any event I was just on the EU site they have a number of other mechanisims in oder to deal with abuses of political prisioners, such as
    the UN and other agencies, where people like CH or Phil Gormley think they
    can continue to defy the law and illegally detain political prisoners, there
    would be no reason why any prisoner subject to denial of application of law could submitt formal request to have files examined.
    This may be a very important legal point paritcularly where rulings have been made that the police or
    health authorities have acted used illegally to detain prisoners on the
    basis of political views contrary to that of the public authorities. In such
    circumstances where the authorities refuse to uphold the law, or allow access to MP’s adivce facitities which are part of required process or domestic remedy rights people
    such as CH would have to justify her actions as well as the court in their
    refusals to apply the required laws, the agancies could only rule yes or
    no, there is no cost as with the ECHR. So this makes TH’s position look
    futile, you cannot just walk away from the law.

  120. Karl – I could indeed have earned serious money in my youth if I had applied myself to the task.

    I did not – I did silly things instead. And maintained myself by doing silly jobs.

    If you do win the lottery keep all the money. I would only waste it.

  121. Mr Webb – I would argue that the old “Feudal” law (both English and Scots) offered better protection for de facto private ownership than the official “private ownership” of Roman Imperial law did.

    Although as both Roman Imperial law and MODERN LAW provide basically bugger all protection against the state – it is not hard for “Feudal” law to better.

    It is no accedent that the believers in an enlighened elite telling everyone else what to do and how to live (“for their own good”, “for their own happiness”) have always been great enemies of the “old law”.

    Thomas Cromwell, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, J. Bentham (with his 13 departments of state which were to cover virtually every aspect of life), and on and on.

    None of them were friends of the old law – and it was not really its faults they hated (it was its virtues – the way it got in the way of the state).

  122. Of course paul. The Magana Carter 1215, barons of King John was a revolution in the law, also know as the great charter for liberties for England, Jurist Edward Coke interpreted the Maga Carta to duly apply to all subjetcs of the Crown. The Romans brought in the foundation stones in relation to organised statist control of the courts and justice, we still have the “Tribunals” based on Roman priciple of law, albeit a more british corrupted version. Of course the legal framework has been taken over by the new corrupted middle class, full of deception, fraud, perversions of evidence, you are right when you claim we would have been better served by history for the delivery of justice, it’s sick now being overseen by very sick people.

  123. John O Leary

    I wonder who is making these demeted laws, this fucking Norfolk Constabulary and MP’s are now pursuing policies as described as disruption activities against criminal life styles, it seems to work like this they make some false allegations that have no merit, and then pump false data into the computors to clean them out and falsely imprison you. I think much of the problem is these fucking middle class ginks who run the justice system is the fact they are becomming so inbred, they are effectively stupified. I wonder the legalramifications of their proxy was against the IRA and republicans, both in realtion to the GF ECHR and UN legislation. People have the right to challenge the acts of Smith and Gorham, What happened to republicans civil rights, is this how you let people piss on you these day’s, don’t you have legal rights anymore, where are your republican lawyers, whilst smith and her cronies pisses on innocent suspects one might ask, what sort of republicans are they these day’s the republicans of shitham.

  124. David, your blogging idea sounds worth a go.

  125. Karl How Can Secret trials be Justice.

    I was just reading about the case of Wanda Maddocks, who tried to tried to get her father removed from a care home after concerns about his care, a
    secret court heard the case and found her guilty of interfering with her fathers care. She was arrected off the street by police and thrown in jail
    for six weeks, denied appeal rights, she stayed their for six weeks with drug
    dealers, murders, some who beat her up. Of course you might think this was
    china 1960, or Iraq under saddam, but No: this is the UK under David Cameron and the new Starsi dictatorship we are being forced to live under.
    What fucking judges make these laws, they should be strung up.

  126. My father once asked me to remove him from Kettering General Hospital – which I did (he lived some more years).

    I wonder if the fate of Wanda Maddocks could have applied to me.

  127. Karl on the Great Charter – I would recommend Geoffrey Hindley’s “A Brief History Of The Magna Carta” (which you may well have already read).

    Hindley makes it clear that the “debunking” of the Charter has gone too far – it could have restricted liberty to the nobles, as the Charter of Sicily did, but it DID NOT. The use of terms like “free men” (not “nobles”) was vital for the future (it is one important reason why England is NOT like Sicily).

    Also we should remember Henry the first – in many ways a brutal man, but whose desperate need for support (against his older brother) led him to appeal to the people of England – not just by marriage (the marriage to a lady whose forefathers were the Anglo Saxon Kings of England) but by his Charter of 1100 swearing to uphold the law (seeing “the law of England” as different from both his own WILL and from Roman law).

    Of course Maitland sneers at Henry – which is another reason I have some time for King Henry the first.

  128. John Bennett

    D.J.Webb stated

    “The Common Law gives us the right of self-defence—this right is actually ours according to natural justice, and cannot be taken away, and the Common Law is simply a codification of the rules of natural justice—and yet judges have refused to allow us to bear arms without the permission of a Chief Constable. Statute law may update the Common Law for new circumstances—but not substantially remove longheld rights—and so a law designed to prevent only those with criminal records from obtaining arms might be legitimate, but a law preventing any of us from doing so is unlawful, and so the fact that all police forces in England have implemented regulations denying firearms licences to those who state they are seeking them for self-defence amounts to a surreptitious overturning of the Bill of Rights. It is the substantial nature of the overriding of Common-Law rights that is the problem here”.
    Mr Webb,
    Naturally Judges will not allow us to bear arms, because they do not wish the public to know of their right to be armed for their self defence, especially since 1968.
    However a perusal of the comments made in Parliament by the then Attorney General, The Lord Saltoun , and also the then Home Secretary Maxwell-Fyffe, show that during debates on the 1953 “Crime Prevention Act”,disarming the public was not considered lawful. What has happened since, is by reason of unlawful interpretation of those debates.
    As regards the Police,( Chief Constables) refusing certification, it is because they KNOW that you do not require one.They Know it is yours by right to be armed, and will inform you “That it is not their POLICY, TO GIVE CERTIFATES”. Note that “Policy”, not Law.
    You do not need a licence or certificate granting you a right that you already possess.That right is a natural right.
    I refer you to the case “Fegan v Regina” 1971 Northern Ireland.
    The Chief Constable will advise that you will have to apply to the Home Secretary for a Section 5 certificate before you are allowed to carry firearms on you.
    This is false, you merely inform the Home secretary that you intend to arm yourself for self defence, and in order that some uninformed policeman should take offence that you are armed, would he by return send you the requisite Section 5 to allay the policeman’s fears. This will never be forthcoming of course,and then should you be stopped and charged then the Home Secretary must be brought into court to show why they have not complied with the Common Law, which they by their oath of office have sworn to uphold.

    The only problem thereafter would be obtaining firearm as the suppliers ,Registered Firearms Dealers will be loathe to assist as they would be intimidated by their local police force in that they would have such dealers licence revoke,..on policy.
    Sad when one realises that the police who walk about our streets, armed, do so by that same common law right of Self Defence.

  129. John Bennett, yours was the first reply on this blogpost that addressed the subject of the blog. Well done. Yes, it should be possible to let the Home Secretary know you are arming yourself and can they send you a Section 5, but the judges are so politicized that they will simply invent stuff to deny you your rights.

  130. You may be able to cite common law in this respect, but the court will just
    ignore it and throw it out, You rights will be denied on this point, but not
    the rights of the Police or State, who will uphold their own right to do so.
    That does not just apply to a side arm but any thing perceived by the police
    as a weapon.

  131. Anyway, these courts laugh at commom law, or any law, they just do things
    on the mood of the day now, there is no law under state control only their

  132. djwebb2010

    Sean, I will try to get round to reviewing Fred Harrison’s book on the land over the next few days. The key point is that land “ownership” is a licence to use a common resource – just like a licence to use the electromagnetic spectrum. Does anyone “own” the electromagnetic spectrum? These things existed long before human occupation of the British Isles. They are not the product of human labour and no more of them is being made. I would be against any attack on private property – but this is not genuine private property. An inheritance tax on money, stocks and shares and chattels is an outrage – but land is a different question, as it is not the product of human labour,

    This has nothing to do with snooping round your conservatories – building a conservatory is your investment to improve a property and is nothing to do with the common social resource. The Land Value Tax relates to a tax on the UNIMPROVED site value – the value of which, as Paul Marks well explained above, is created by social activity – not a tax on improvements made.

    If we take a building in London, with a market value of the property at £2m, and an identical building in Burnley with a market value at £100,000 – the difference is not in the building – the reinstatement value of which is the same. In the case of an older building in Burnley, the reinstatement value – the value you should insure the building at as that is the cost to rebuild it – might exceed the property’s selling price (let us say the reinstatement value is £200,000, but the undesirability of Burnley means the property sells for £100,000, which partly reflects the fact that the building, which would cost £200,000 to rebuild, is 100 years old). The reinstatement value in London is essentially the same, or slightly higher due to higher labour costs in the capital, let us say £220,000 to rebuild – and yet a small fraction of the £2m property selling price. The difference is in the value fo the improved site location. Building a conservatory on one of these would add to the property value, but the point of the LVT is to disaggregate the building value from the unimproved land value – the latter is, just as the electromagnetic spectrum, a common social resource that has been commandeered by a subset of society.

  133. djwebb2010

    I meant “the difference is in the value of the UNIMPROVED site location”

  134. Whilst what you say is true there are certain advantages to situations like that, firstly, rents are cheaper in areas where property prices are lower, In Norfolk property prices used to be affordable we had a situation where many people started to move here from London as a result property prices when through the roof, although properties are slow in selling at the moment. This changed Norfolk for the worst in my opinion, I remember the old Norfolk of the 60’s and 70’s real Norfolk people, many of these people got pushed out and went to other areas, I am not a fan of retired statists taking over land and housing, on the basis of one property being of a higher market value in one area as opposed to another and then making a killing. This effected the property prices making houses too expensive for the people who live here, people who have lived in areas for centuries should have housing rights, and not be pushed out by gready statists who have been paid to much in the first place, And of course despite some people ending up with a 100 grand in profit at the time, I suspect taxation policy was not clear on this point. Of course Cornwall has undergone changes as well, I have spent a lot of time there since I was a child, I prefer real cornish people to the new creation of middle class snobs a by product from the creation of this useless New Economy, discription as given by Diane Abbot.

  135. djwebb2010

    Well, the cost of the state bureaucrats is significantly increased by property prices – as they expect a certain standard of living. And in fact soaring executive pay reflects the same dynamic. Things like “London Weighting” for public sector employees are simply designed to skew the property market.

  136. It’s another corrupted perk, designed to steal money and put them in even
    greter control of our lives, take Smith, she comes from Kent, why does she
    give the false impression she comes from Norfolk, why should she have the
    right to reside over the justice and fate of people in this county why should
    any immigrant with no English ancestory., I don’t want to see retired woddentops taking control of rural areas and running things to their advantage, I don’t like country immigration, they should be patriotic and
    stay in their own counties, not take over other peoples.

  137. Of course where land used to an issue of ownership with the English, this will not be the case, as decades move forward they will own less and less land and assests. Not that i am a fan of English academics, oxford has done an interesting investigation into immigration, the over complex study shows white Britions will no longer be a majority by 2066 by the minority, setting aside the Oxfords professors findings, for obvious reasons, I have looked at other research from all over the world, it does in fact conclude, the UK has the fastest rising percentage of ethinic minority and births in the world, per square mile, the number of none white Britains will double the figure by 2037, and not 2040, this is a directly caused by labours open door on immigration, and various discrimination laws brought in by Blunkett, such as the CRB, increasing the hudge numbers of migrant workers being brought in to fill, vacanices do due no suitable applicants being found in local areas,
    due to police records.We will take over the melting pot of the US with fewer
    people describing themselves as white or British, Britian will witness the
    biggest demographic change in the history of the Island, the increase that
    will take place between 2013 and 2050, will be the highest ever recorded
    in realtion to other western countries, in wales now 26% of babies born are
    to foreign mothers, in England this is 25%, other european countires
    only show an increase of 10 to 14%, our population will be 77 million by
    2051, but I suspect the true figure is much higher, there will be no point
    in many Britians entertaining the subject of land or houses, quite simply
    they will not be able to afford to buy it, and there will be tight legislation
    introduced on land and building to cope with the population increase and
    impact this will have on housing stock, Britain has gone beyond the window
    to stop the changes, soicety and government will beome more corrupt, and
    adopt new methods of policing to deal with the situation, Judges will continue to fill their bank accounts at the expense of the misery of the Native
    English, with increased growth in the area of statist mecanisims, to control the chaos.

  138. Land is NOT a “common resource” (Samuel Pufendorf is not a good guide to theology) and ownership is NOT a “license to use”.

    If someone does not want to use their land (other than to look at it – or not even that) that is their affair. If someone want to own a nature reserve – that is their choice (nothing to do with the state).

    As for land going up in value over time without anyone doing anything to it – sometimes that happens. some times that happens, and sometimes it does not.

    Sometimes one will buy a painting (or find a precious stone just lying in the sand) and it will go up in value – without one doing anything (and sometimes it does not go up in value).

    This is no business of anyone else – and does NOT justify any special tax.

    Nor does any tax tax just hurt one group of people – all taxes get passed on.

    This is one of the things that Murray Rothbard explains (at some lenght) in Man, Economy and State – Power and Market.

    Of course Rothbard draws on Frank Fetter and others – but he still adds his own insights.

  139. djwebb2010

    Paul Marks,

    You have the mentality of a thief and a con-man. I have asked you repeatedly who the original owner of the land was that the title was purchased from – and you have been unable to tell me. In Australia, land that was held in common by Aboriginal society was seized, parcelled up and sold off as freehold – can you explain the origin of freehold title in Australia? The same thing happened in England, but its origins are more than 1,000 years ago.

    Land is a common resource insofar as no one made the land – or the electromagnetic spectrum.

    You are once again refusing to explain who originally owned all the land of England. Trace back freehold title, and you cannot arrive at someone who owned it to sell it. Please make your next post in this thread an explanation of this point – which you seem to be evading.

  140. It was a similar situation in England, when society statrted to become organised by military might people took lands and became owners, then
    sold it on, the Crown being some of the biggest land owners, look at the
    changes after 1066, this explains things.

  141. djwebb2010

    Yes, Karl, that is the point Paul Marks has consistently evaded. And he won’t say who owns the electromagnetic spectrum (and who they bought it from originally).

  142. Well what is an electromagnet spectrum, I can’t say I am familiar, but you
    have a point he does not answer the question.

  143. Of course the statists have become clever with their astronomical salaries, they have just given themselves a “Monopoly” over property and land purchase, I had a neighbour in London he wlaked five minutes to work, still got london waiting. They effective steal land without drawing a sword.

  144. djwebb2010

    The electromagnetic spectrum refers to the ability to transmit signals at various frequencies, for radio, broadband, television etc. See The British govt recently auctioned off the rights to part of the broadband spectrum to companies that would seek to offer mobile content, 4G (fourth-generation) mobile services and the like.

    The ability to broadcast at a frequency is a given of nature – and is a common social resource – but can only be exploited by offering it to private “owners” via a licence. No one originally owned the electromagnetic spectrum, but the government has stepped in to licence it.

    It is a similar thing with North Sea oil – no one originally “owned” it, and the oil is a gift of nature – but the government makes licences available as long as the public purse takes a cut. (Show me the original owner of North Sea oil.)

  145. The Wood Gnome

    Most of the north sea gas came from this coast they told us we would get
    free gas, not a chance it all got stolen as well as the revenues. Intersting
    about the E.S.

  146. K. Raedwald

    Of course it is true there has been a massive influx of immigrants to Wales, and there will continue to be so, firstly wales has free prescriptions, healthcare, university education, housing, and the lovely coast line, with access to both natural and man made resources, but most importantly lots of land to accommodate it’s growing population, I can understand, why people from Romania or Bulgaria would want to live there, some english see it as “Paradise” with it’s range of benefits and freebies, some English even call it paradise, no wonder it has become a magnet to immigrants who can blame them, they could only dream about places like wales if they stayed in their own countries, probably one of the better places to live in the UK if dependent on wealfare.

  147. Justin Fox

    I think indeed Wales will be a magnet for migrants, it will become a migrant
    state, within the UK there is no doubt they all seem to be heading there, who can blame them for going to a place they call paradise.

  148. I can’t help thinking our laws are a disgusting abuse of proceedures I read the front page of the mail today Bill Roach front page news on the basis of some allegations going back to 1965, despite the fact he has not yet had a trial. Reading on into the pages we see a senior police officer facing very serious allegations has won the right to anonymity under new press laws. I now in my own case despite the fact the stattist beoke the law and committed serious offences, I was told during the investigation by Inspector scott, they were allowed to withhold their names and identities under proceedures. This is a two tear abuse of the criminal justice proceedures, you can see just why the government changed the law it needs no explinations, to protect themselves when involved in crime.

  149. Alo,te inbesc, I du-te la wales, paradis sunete bun!

  150. I do not hold with the law of the sea (bed) and the outer space treaty – to me PRIVATE PROPERTY should be the key.

    As for the electromagnetic spectrum stuff – I suspect government licensing was always a scam (to get government CONTROL over what was broadcast – a power that Franklin Roosevelt used to deadly effect in the 1930s).

    However, even it was not always a scam it certainly is now, There is no justification for government intervention in the face of new techology (other than normal civil law cases – which might be dealt with by private arbitors, after all the best parts of commercial law were imported from private “Law Merchant” in the first place – by Mansfield in England and, more formally, by George Joseph Bell in Scotland).

    As for the private land ownership – if it has to be “justified” by efficient use (if the land is really a “common resource”) then the state can always hand it over to someone else who will “use it better” – for the “common good”.

    This is at the heart of the principle of “eminant domain” which is used both by the state to take land for its self – and to take land and give it to other private parties (“but only because the land is a common resource and they will benefit the community more”).

    As John Dundas pointed out in his (1710) work on the difference between the old “Feudal” law and modern (in his case mostly Scots) law – it was one of the features of the old law that it did NOT allow this. Saying that land would be economically better managed in other hands and, therefore, should be taken from the present holders, was not a principle of the old law.

    So Mr Webb – you have got it the wrong way round.

    It is MODERN law that you like – not the old law (although Imperial Roman “law” would suit you also, with an Enlightened Emperor of course).

    For it is MODERN law that allows for land to be taken and given to someone else – for the “good of the community” of course.

    It was also one of the principles of the French Revolution – ownership having to be “justified” in terms of what good it did for the community.

    If ownership has to be “justified” in this way – it is not ownership at all, and the “license” of the state depends on the favour of the state.

    It is a plan for corruption – and for, in the end, first tyranny and then chaos.

  151. djwebb2010

    The land value tax encourages efficient use by taxing even idle land – including Tesco’s land bank and the land developers are holding but not building on.

    Actually the feudal law did permit the king to rescind a peerage and grant the land to someone else!

    Paul Marks, you are a statist! Land ownership is a statist thing – as it only exists because of the state. Trace it back and you will find the state behind it!

    Once again you have failed to say how land ownership developed when there was no original owner.

  152. So I have the mentality of a thief and a conman do I Mr Webb.

    Well I love you to sweetheart.

    As you are an Irishman you know perfectly well what the question “who owned the land ORIGINALLY” means.

    “And when the Celts came to Ireland they found the people of the Goddess Dana already there – so they divided the land between them. The Celts got all the land on top of ground – and the people of the Goddess Dana got all of Ireland below the ground – they became the fairy folk, hence the fairy hills that you see children”.

    These would be the burial works.

    “Who owns the land ORIGINALLY?”

    Is a question that only a murdering, stealing, piece of shit comes out with, to use as an excuse to burn out a family (burning the women and children alive) who have owned a piece of land for hundreds of years.

    “Well they did not own the land ORIGINALLY” says the murdering. stealing, piece of shit.

    Do you know anyone like that Mr Webb?

    Just asking…..

  153. djwebb2010

    Paul Marks, you are the one who is denying that freehold property is a creation of the state, and so it is you who support the land grabs and the burning out of women and children in Ireland! You have unwittingly exposed yourself.

  154. Yes paul, I think you have got the reality of land ownership, sounds so
    familar, burning woman and children alive is not good, such people should
    be delt with, sounds like you have used the correct words.

  155. Note to people who do not know…..

    “Who owns the land ORIGINALLY” if asked as a matter of theory is correctly replied to by “nobody”. Certainly not “the community” or “the people” (a collective abstraction that owns nothing).

    Undiscovered land is owned by NOBODY – because it has not been discovered yet.

    However, almost all discovered land (apart from, perhaps, some in Iceland) has blood in the soil.

    As Mr Webb knows well – all land has human blood in it (if one goes back far enough).

    In practical terms a man who asks “who owned this land ORIGNIALLY” is (at best) asking a meaningless question.

    What matters (In Australia or anywhere else) is who owns the land now – and whether the family has been in peaceful possession over generations.

    Someone who says “who owned this land ORIGINALLY” never intends to find some long lost real owner.

    On the contrary – they just want to add fresh human blood to add to the old human blood.

    Fair enough.

    Those who come to kill (using “who owed this land ORINGIALLY” as a justification for their killing) should themselves be killed.

    By the way, I am glad we got to the truth of the matter.

    The mask of a “single tax” (and so) removed.

    I had a feeling that Henry Georgism was not what this was really about.

  156. I think all people who deprive people of liberty, money or justice should be
    punished, if the courts fail, god will find you another way.

  157. djwebb2010

    Paul, I’ve rattled you!

  158. You have indeed Mr Webb – I do not like being called names, and call straight back.

    Nor do I like people who think that land should be the plaything of the state.

    If you do not like the example of the French Revolution – then I (being the lovely person that I am – filled with the milk of human kindess and the spirit of compromise) will present an antiBritish government example (and an anti Mexican govenrment one).

    Not the obvious one of the Plantations in Ireland (you know them well enough – and, unless you invent a time machine, it gives you no justification – for past land grabbing gives no justification for present land grabbing).

    No the anti British governement example I am thinking of is the heavy hints (and more than that) that all land in America was the plaything of the Crown.

    The Crown even tried this “if you can not prove just title it is not your land” stuff at home (targeting, surprise-surprise, the opposition Duke of Portland – PROVE this land that your family have held for hundreds of years is justly yours…..).

    In America they (and it is “they” – “the Crown” never really means the person of the King) thought they would win without trouble – after all their enemies were often just Rednecks. Ignorant (“the only book they have ever read is the Bible”) “Scots-Irish” (as the Americans describe – you-know-who) who faught with the Indians, but also intermarried with them – and had no GOVERNMENT PAPERS for their land.

    The Rednecks produced their reply – in lead at Kings Mountain (at many other times).

    The Mexican government example is much the same.

    The military dictator (sorry “the people”) of Mexico declared that what the state gives it can take away, so the State coudl take (or tax to bits) the Rednecks in Texas (and it was Rednecks again – look at the family names).

    The reply of the Rednecks was made plain to the Mexican government.

    Sometimes Rednecks use their land well – and sometimes they do not.

    But even if they just sit about all day drinking Moonshine and howling at the Moon – that is nothing to do with you.

    You neither have the right to take their land (no “Eminant Domain” please) or de facto take their land by taxing them into the ground.

    And if you try and take their land they will kill you – after all they often start to learn to shoot at the age of five (Al Jazeera was gloating about how one Redneck child in Texas acceidentally killed another).

    I may be a romantic fool (“you certainly are Paul”) but I think that the Rednecks will still be on their land long after their enemies (both Islamic and Socialist – both the Green and the Red) are burning in Hell.

    De Soto argues that the tragedy of Latin America is that there were so few people like the American Rednecks.

    In Latin America one had to have complicated government papers to own land. And each regime (in the endless Revolutions) tended to play games with those papers.

    Just being in peaceful possession of the land was not enough – not in Latin America.

    “Peaceful Paul – what about the Hatfields and the McCoys and …..”

    True – but that was not over land (indeed it is hard to say what it was really about). Although other disputes were indeed over land.

    But government and the law had a worse record – and not just on Indian property rights.

    In New Mexico when the Murphy-Dolan faction murdered Mr Tunstall (unarmed) and Mr McSween (armed only with a Bible) the government-law backed them.

    Hard to fault “Billy the Kid” in principle – although his tactical sense was away with the fairies.

    Mr Earp (in Arizonia) had better tactical sense – and he was up against many of the same individuals who had worked for Murphy-Dolan in New Mexico.

    Certainly Mr Earp ended up with no real land (just six feet of dirt in the Jewish graveyard in L.A. – thanks to his wife) – but “some people have to give things up, lose them, so that others can keep them” – to quote that great political philosopher Frodo Baggins.

    The people that Mr W. Earp wanted dead (for killing his kin and his friends) were dead. They could not steal any more (either in the United States or Mexico) so that he ended up with nothing much was not that important.

    “One could always appeal to the law” – Mrs McSween tried that. The lawyer was murdered.

    “Leave me alone and I will leave you alone – try and burn me out, or tax me out, and I will kill you”.

    That is as good as we can get in this fallen world.

  159. By the way I apologise for giving the impression that the Hatfields and McCoys were the same – although I find the dispute baffleing (although it seems to go back to a McCoy who served in the United States Army during the Civil War and was killed when he came home – everything else, the alleged pig stealing, the ….. I think was window dressing).

    As Old Man McCoy bitterly pointed out years afterwards (to anyone who implied to him that the two sides were the same) the McCoys did not kill women or children – the Hatfields did.

    Of course (and many libertarians forget this) the Civil War had its real origins with private individuals.

    Forget Lincoln and Jefferson Davis – the killing started in “Bleeding Kansas” before either Lincoln or David were powerful.

    And the crimes were not all on one side.

    For example……

    Three men from Alabama boasted in a bar that they were going to run every antislavery person out of Kansas (burn them out).

    But they were boasting in the wrong bar.

    They were killed indian style (staked out and cut a bit at a time) – it took all night.

    No one should die like that.

    If someone has to be killed, just shoot them in the head and have done with it.

  160. djwebb2010

    Paul, to the extent your long sequiturs mean anything coherent at all, it is that you think allodial title is proven by a government piece of paper. You don’t realise that all of the examples you give prove you wrong. You are pro-land grabs, and so in the American example you would have been on the side of the land grabbers seeking to turn American land into freehold title. As far as your incoherent comments on eminent domain are concerned, you are mixing up right to long possession of land under the Common Law – which does exist under the Common Law and is even the reason why squatters gain title to land after 12 years – with the right to capitalise public spending into private land values, as I have mentioned above! The landless would never get any access to land to have it grabbed off them in your version of a libertarian paradise – the Scots-Irish would be paying huge rents or offered mortgages 6 times their salary in your world. Basically, libertarians are selfish individuals too, and so most libertarians (think Allister Heath, etc) want to see taxes piled on capital and labour lest they personally have to pay a levy on their site valuations. In fact the land value tax, by restraining land value increases, makes access to land, the common social resource, available to all or most people – including the Scots-Irish.

  161. No Mr Webb.

    I am not saying anything about who owned the land “orignially” – in fact I think at best it is a dumb (bone-dumb) question, and (more normally) a “question” that is just trotted out as an excuse for robbery and murder. What matters is who owns the land NOW and whether they have been in peaceful possession for generations – not whether they came over with William the Bastard in 1066, or with the Anglo Saxons in 500s, or bought the land only a few centuries ago (and most British “aristocrats” did not really come over with William – it is a myth).

    You have no right to burn people out (black, white, or pink with purple spots) and you have no right to tax them out.

    As for arificially high land prices and rents…..

    I am glad that you share my opposition to Cental Bank “cheap money” (“low interest rates”) and the rest of the propping up the property market.

    As for the economic effects of taxation – as I have pointed out several times…


    All taxes get passed on.

    See Murray Rothbard’s “Man, Economy and State” and “Power and Market”.

  162. The conservatives should learn from that moral, they have no right to steal
    peoples money or impliment ethnic cleansing againt their policitcal opponents I hope smith got the message, just look how many people voted
    tory in relation to avaialble voters, they have no mandate to control us.

  163. Nick diPerna

    Karl. Don’t let those nasty Conservatives get you down. They were over-disciplined as children and had all traces of compassion driven out of them. :-)

  164. djwebb2010

    Paul, you strike me as a scrounger of the worst sort. A social scrounger. Your mode of argumentation is purely assertive. E.g.:

    “Land is NOT a “common resource” (Samuel Pufendorf is not a good guide to theology) and ownership is NOT a “license to use”.”

    Where is the ‘argument’ in this? You simply ASSERT a view, with no logical points to back it up. I suppose you didn’t go to university and don’t know what a viva voce is. If this was your PhD thesis, you would have just failed the viva. What is the ARGUMENTATION you are using to back up the views you are asserting?

    Land, just like oil reserves, fish in the sea, the electromagnetic spectrum et al – is something given by nature, although the value is the product of human activity. E.g. the electromagnetic spectrum is only valuable because we have invented radio waves – it wasn’t valuable to the Vikings, because they didn’t know it existed or how to exploit it. The Saudis had oil under their feet, but in the pre-modern age, it wasn’t something they realised could be used in any beneficial way. Land – well footfall is a large part of the value of a site. A business sited in John O’Groats will not see as many potential customers pass its doors as an equivalent business in Piccadilly. So while the existence of such natural things is a gift of nature, its exploitability is often a function of society.

    Now you have agreed that there was no original owner of such natural resources, although it took many posts to get you to admit that, and your argument – without real argumentation – is that “the original land grab, while it took place, is a historic event, and all title that stems from that must be accepted, as to do otherwise would be to grab the land back”. So you are saying “forget the grabbing of Australian land in the 1700s; who owns it now?”

    Let’s be clear: land is not ownable in an absolute sense. It never has been – in Common Law, freehold is not allodial title. Which means that ultimate ownership in a more fundamental sense is vested in the Crown – which is why land has always been taxable. So while land title stems from ancient land grabs, that is not the same thing as saying that those land grabs ever produced allodial title – it has always been the case that land can be subject to a levy. Taxes on labour and capital are new developments, however, and they tax things that are not the result of an original grab of a social resource.

    While title to, e.g. Australian land, has been established by conquest and sale, that title has never been allodial. To that extent, it is a licence – a licence to use a social resource, ultimate ownership of which is vested in the Crown.

    Now the Common Law, while not providing for allodial ownership of land, other than the allodial title vested in the Crown, does provide for land ownership: as I mentioned long possession is title accepted in the Common Law. In mediaeval England, someone with tenancy in fee simple possessed the land – it was “property” – but there was a feudal duty payable. It was individual title to what had been 1,000 years previously common land, but that title was not absolute — and couldn’t be absolute, given that land is just the gift of nature.

    As for private property of the seabed and outer space – I think you’re losing it Paul. Who does the Moon belong to? Clearly it is just the gift of nature, and if valuable minerals are found on the moon and it one day becomes commercial viable to mine them – then “property rights” would be an issue. If there were a single sovereign body that occupied the Moon, it could claim the right to parcel up the land on the Moon as freehold title – and would be entitled to charge a levy on mineral resources there, simply because a common resource had been converted into NON-ALLODIAL title in fee simple. Of course there are many nations, and it would require a treaty to divide up the proceeds…

    Paul, it is just scrounging to corner a social resource via a dodgy claim and then argue that social activity that increases the value of that is just the benefit of ownership. The Irish had no freehold land – and it was created by the British state – which claimed to have “sold” the land they had used for centuries. Under the Common Law – which was not operational in Ireland, but can be referenced in so far as it is just natural law – they had possession of the land (but not allodial title), and it was the British state who converted that into freehold title. You are the ones who burnt the Irish women and children out!

    J S Mill’s support for property rights did not extent to giving allodial title to possessors of natural resources such as land. Because such “ownership” is not genuinely private and is ultimately derived from state power, offering windfall profits to the commandeers of such resources. Now it is not proposed that the owners of land be “taxed out” – a tax on site valuations – more correctly called a “levy” – would produce a very low levy on cheap sites – and would substantially increase as site valuations increased. In other words, it would be a countercyclical mechanism, an automatic mechanism designed to deter speculation and absurd increases in site valuations.

    The result would be cheaper land prices – giving everyone access to ownership of natural resources in land. At the moment, young people find themselves priced out – they are the equivalent of the burnt out Irish, burnt out by you and your insistence that allodial title to natural resources be created by statute (state power) – and they are cut off from the land, which is actually their patrimony.

  165. David, I notice that Samuel Brittan has come out in favour of LVT. Interesting.

    For what it may be worth, I’m not decided one way or the other. What I do believe is that it would be desirable to shift the burden of taxes from wages and profits to rents. Such taxes are cheap and easy to collect. They need no inquisition, and they are fairly inflexible. We could also give landowners increased political weight in the Constitution to reflect their greater public duties. The result would then be much lower state spending. But I think that is a different thing from LVT.

    All I can say is that the country would probably not go tits up _IF_ LVT could be brought in as a replacement for other taxes. The problem is in the if.

  166. They don’t get me down, I realise they have no compassions of apparent
    morals, most people in Norfolk realised that today as well, the political
    map have changed for the first time in my lifetime. They are finished.

  167. I was on the coast today, chatting with a few small business owners, the conservatives could never understand how much people hate them, the electorate is sick of labour, sick of conservatives, most of all sick of police corruption, and corruption in government office. I expected some change, in view of the public mood, even in middle england, It was hard to digest Ukip had turned the sea of blue to a sea of grey, I can’t really remember in these parts, people declearing they would hang government, this is becomming common language and people are not frightened anymore to voice that opinion, but it does indeed, raise serious questions, these people are not the usual anti government club, but middle class english people, people in business, educated people, people with degrees, the conservatives are in serious meltdown, the problem is, people nowadays just realise what they are, they realise and understand the workings of our corrupted justice system, their aim of total statist control has “Backfired,” the people have had more than enough, the conservatives at long last are becomming confined to history, I predicted they would lose all political power and the election, and they will, along with the nanny reds.

  168. djwebb2010

    Sean, see this interesting article:

    Crossrail has produced a 40% rise in house prices along the route. It is fatuous to claim there should never be any publicly funded infrastructure in society – I am all in favour of reducing public spending below 10% of GDP – but it is silly to say to zero. Such infrastructure could be funded by shifting the burden to LVT.

  169. I still don’t have an opinion – partly because I have never studied the arguments. However, granting that mass-immigration increases house prices, is it proper to tax the value of property owned by people who strongly oppose MI?

  170. djwebb2010

    I would look at it another way: numerous government policies, including immigration, are really designed to boost the property market, such is the influence of rent-seekers on policy formulation. Mark Carney’s insistence on a huge accommodation expense package for becoming governor of the Bank of England kind of implies that he is planning on primping the London market even further…. It seems wrong that people in charge of monetary policy get such expense accounts insulating them from the results of their policies!

  171. There’s no need to look at this in another way, you already perceive the government policy correctly, of course if you look at those behind the policies on immigration, ie, the conservatives, they are indeed some of the biggest property owners, this wealth creating idear started with Margret Thatcher, the then, and Nicholas Riddleys deregulation of rents, what were his words now, Oh, you poor landlords, you poor landlords. of course this policy is specifically formulated to created a housing shortage, pushing up the prices to extortion levels, where the tory landlords make big profits, and speculators make a quick killing, a grey area for tax collection, of course like any monetory formular based on corrupted maths, the sums or mass in scientific terms will never add up, the minus or negative mass to this policy equals thus= there will also be large numbers of people trapped in rent povert, and domestic ecomonic policy, there will be a futher mass of people working who dream about owning their own home and having a family, these people will alway’s remain outside of the market, never being able to live their dream. When government money making formulars are induced into areas of housing, fuel, utilities, such as gas electric and water, the formular works out in the figures such as thus, 30% have high payed jobs and profits, 70% struggle and live in poverty to generate the profitis, the system works in all areas of government, you must understand the formulars of mass, and see money in this perspective, what this means is, we all struggle and can bearly afford to live, whilst they live like kings from cradle to the grave, of course i have met many conservatives in my time, some are sickly obsessive people when it comes to hording wealth, whilst it might be nice to own 20 houses, and have a few million in the bank, you can’t take it with you, it won’t go down the hole, or human lives on the material plane are short indeed, it might be better for them to enjoy life and have a good shag, for they have a destiny appointment with a very dark eternity indeed.

  172. The Priest

    For it’s easier for a greed obsessed rich man to pass through the eye of
    a “Needle” than enter the kindom of eternity, for they be dammed, they shall
    burn in the torture of hell, demons shall become their masters.They lives
    on the earth shall pass quickly as though time has speeded up.

  173. Yes you have to unload a camel to get it through the eye of the needle gate -hence the saying “you can not take it with you”.

    As for Crossrail Why should railways not be funded privately? They used to be.

    As for good fortune (such as finding the price of your house going up) being a justification for taxation.

    No – it is not a justification for some special tax.

    Of course, higher property prices will tend to push people into a higher Council Tax band (so it may not be good fortune at all).

  174. As for being a “social scrounger”.

    I see – so that I was working from 0530 this morning.

    Mr Webb you know nothing about economics and you know nothing about political philiosphy.

    I do not have to “prove” this – you prove it yourself.

  175. Paul we have all done this, don’t let him get to you, one day on a shovel
    he would probably be dead. We all now who the legalised scroungers are
    in this country, the ones who give themselves a million pound pension they
    haven’t payed for, of a £250,000 a year salary when they are not worth
    £25,00 a week of anyones money.

  176. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  177. I’m extremely inspired with your writing skills and also with the format for your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it your self? Either way stay up the nice high quality writing, it is uncommon to see a great blog like this one today..