Stop racism against the ethnic English

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Why is this idea important?

Multiculturalism will never work as it racist against the native ethnic English. The fanciful concept is based on the oppression and ethnocide against the native ethnic population of  England.  Multiculturalism by definition needs to eradicate the native culture and people, the native ethnic people and culture of the English and England (we era not a mongrel nation-learn your history and do not be racist). The English created England and named it after themselves.

Today most people would quite rightly be disgusted if they heard of a native ethnic population and culture being eradicated in its own land  for the benefit of the failed Multicultural project. Yet today in England the ethnic English, the native population of England are subject to state backed racism and bigotry in our own country. Our ethnic English history is not be taught or is being re-written to accommodate PC lies and disinformation. The ethnic English are being banned from applying for jobs in their own country because of who they are and their skin colour. Their ethnic identity of 'ethnicity  white English' is not to be found on monitoring or census forms. Whereas other peoples ethnicity is!  The ethnic English are being forced down the waiting list for council properties due to asylum seekers and loosing jobs because of over population. England is the fourth most densely populated area on earth.

There is no labour shortage or need for immigrants from the EU or elsewhere. In a civilised country it is for the state to make sure the native ethnic English and existing population is always trained, employed and housed at all times. Why are successive governments not doing this? Yet pulling out the stops to accommodate unnecessary immigration. This must be a bribe for votes and symptom of Multicultural fanaticism at all costs.


Multiculturalism causes meltdown and social decay, all that ties a nation together, it's shared history, traditions, ancestors and achievements, it's identity is undermined. So self-imposed multicultural ethnic segregation will always occur because of it. Where loyalty is not to country, its native culture of even a political party, but to a group whose identity, traditions and loyalty lie elsewhere and always will. It is fact that most victims of racist crime are native ethnic English and this number has increased in-line with open door immigration, and will continue along with social and national breakdown unless the doors are locked. 

The ethnic English are the goose that lays the golden egg, Wales,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and the illegal EU all need English tax payers money. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and or parliaments paid for by the ethnic English. Yet the English do not have ether own parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament not England's. And governments continue to refuse the ethnic English to once again have their own parliament where only English people can represent and vote on English matters! Yet England is largest and oldest nation in the British isles. Again this is case of bigoted multiculturalism where the native ethnic population is subject to ethnocide. There must be an immediate end to immigration. This also means leaving the illegal EU, contrary to what politicians say the EU has no jurisdiction or sovereignty in England.

All laws that discriminate against the ethnic English from existing, participation in their our culture and being 'Fully Represented' in their own country must be ended. We need to immediate and permanently leave the illegal EU, the pointless Human Rights Act and so end unwarranted and unnecessary immigration. By doing this the fast approaching maelstrom can be prevented. England has the Magna Carta, English Deceleration of Rights The English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Act of Settlement. All these are our constitution and cannot be rmeoved contrary to what politicians say. And I am speaking ethnic Englishman who has friends of various ethnicity.
 

Magna Carta 1215

Im sorry, did i miss something !?! everyone has seemingly forgotten the one and only TRUE law of this Land ? Common Law – MAGNA CARTA 1215.

Fellow free sentient natural human beings, try to contemplate the truth behind who it is that you actually are, and not what-your-let-to-belive-you-are. The clearly visable attempt to fudge reality is truly in effect if 'the powers that be' are asking for statute ammendments from the public at large, whilst not for one instance reminding us of  MAGNA CARTA 's existance and Dominance in our LAW (On the land- not the sea..) is near on unforgivable .. shame on you guys .. you gone an insulted our personal & collective intelligence and that just wont do.

Forget trying to adjust statutes and acts etc etc with the hopes that somewhow they can be of use to us the people, as satutes and acts were designed to punish us 'the chattle' / Surfs for 'crimes' that dont actually exist in reality, but thru conditioned fear of 'threat' from supposed  'authority','  folks just tend to comply without retort, giving their 'consent' to be on the wrong end of a security transaction, this is pure insanity. Forget amiralty law, equity law, commercial law or all the other quite decietful Statutes and Acts that are given the force of law if consented to by the governed (YOU)

The common law of this land is as close to perfect a law as we a free sovereighn nation will ever need .. we THE PEOPLE OF THIS ONCE GREAT LAND are indeed protected from oppression and tyranny by MAGNA CARTA 1215, and in its contents we find the truth and protections without the loss of Liberty, Freedom and Justice ..  it doesnt get any simpler to 'understand' than its 3 basic tenants;- No Harm, No Injury, No loss  ..   NO CRIME .. thats it. 

ALL STATUTES,ACTS, BY-LAWS are Commercial law ( of the sea) NOT Common Law (of the land) .. Commercial law is dealing with 'legal fictions' not real people, commercial law needs your consent AS A REAL NATURAL FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN to bring 'false' charges against you, YOU MUST CONSENT !! ..  SIMPLE IF YOU DONT LIKE THE OFFER (CONTRACT) DONT GIVE THEM YOUR CONSENT. The video below perhaps might help.

Peace and love to you all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#


 

Why is this idea important?

Im sorry, did i miss something !?! everyone has seemingly forgotten the one and only TRUE law of this Land ? Common Law – MAGNA CARTA 1215.

Fellow free sentient natural human beings, try to contemplate the truth behind who it is that you actually are, and not what-your-let-to-belive-you-are. The clearly visable attempt to fudge reality is truly in effect if 'the powers that be' are asking for statute ammendments from the public at large, whilst not for one instance reminding us of  MAGNA CARTA 's existance and Dominance in our LAW (On the land- not the sea..) is near on unforgivable .. shame on you guys .. you gone an insulted our personal & collective intelligence and that just wont do.

Forget trying to adjust statutes and acts etc etc with the hopes that somewhow they can be of use to us the people, as satutes and acts were designed to punish us 'the chattle' / Surfs for 'crimes' that dont actually exist in reality, but thru conditioned fear of 'threat' from supposed  'authority','  folks just tend to comply without retort, giving their 'consent' to be on the wrong end of a security transaction, this is pure insanity. Forget amiralty law, equity law, commercial law or all the other quite decietful Statutes and Acts that are given the force of law if consented to by the governed (YOU)

The common law of this land is as close to perfect a law as we a free sovereighn nation will ever need .. we THE PEOPLE OF THIS ONCE GREAT LAND are indeed protected from oppression and tyranny by MAGNA CARTA 1215, and in its contents we find the truth and protections without the loss of Liberty, Freedom and Justice ..  it doesnt get any simpler to 'understand' than its 3 basic tenants;- No Harm, No Injury, No loss  ..   NO CRIME .. thats it. 

ALL STATUTES,ACTS, BY-LAWS are Commercial law ( of the sea) NOT Common Law (of the land) .. Commercial law is dealing with 'legal fictions' not real people, commercial law needs your consent AS A REAL NATURAL FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN to bring 'false' charges against you, YOU MUST CONSENT !! ..  SIMPLE IF YOU DONT LIKE THE OFFER (CONTRACT) DONT GIVE THEM YOUR CONSENT. The video below perhaps might help.

Peace and love to you all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#


 

Repeal Part 7 CJA 2003 Trials on Indictment Without a Jury

Trial of all indictable offences should be restored to the public by means of the traditional 'trial by jury' only.  Trial of indictable offences by judge only, such as R v Twomey and others, should be abolished.

Bail for defendants accused of stealing over £1 million should no longer be within the gift of judges, eg Asil Nadir and Peter Blake [co-accused of John Twomey], but should be prohibited absolutely in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done.

Why is this idea important?

Trial of all indictable offences should be restored to the public by means of the traditional 'trial by jury' only.  Trial of indictable offences by judge only, such as R v Twomey and others, should be abolished.

Bail for defendants accused of stealing over £1 million should no longer be within the gift of judges, eg Asil Nadir and Peter Blake [co-accused of John Twomey], but should be prohibited absolutely in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done.

Clarify whether English Common Law is superior the EU’s Napoleonic Code

Under English Common Law, the role of the state is simply reduced to being able to tell you what you cannot do – murder, rape, theft, assault and so on.

Under the Napoleonic Code, the role of the state is entirely different: it tells you what you can do and everything else is forbidden.

As I understand it, the passing of the Lisbon Treaty means the the Napoleonic Code is therefore in force in the United Kingdom.

Why is this idea important?

Under English Common Law, the role of the state is simply reduced to being able to tell you what you cannot do – murder, rape, theft, assault and so on.

Under the Napoleonic Code, the role of the state is entirely different: it tells you what you can do and everything else is forbidden.

As I understand it, the passing of the Lisbon Treaty means the the Napoleonic Code is therefore in force in the United Kingdom.

Repeal of the 1973, Treaty of Accession, bringing the UK, into the EEC,

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Why is this idea important?

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Right to Jury Trial

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

New Magna Carta

Introduce a new layer of law, a new Magna Carta, 2010.

This layer should take precendence over any other law or provision, so that it can be enforced in any court in the UK, and UK courts have to give it precedence over EU and other international law.

The Charter should state our human rights which should be absolute and subject to no interpretation (except by a jury), inferior legislation, or judicial instruction. Anyone who wishes to take action under the Charter would ask for a jury, and make their claims to the jury.

The Charter should give absolute rights of freedom of speech, expression, movement, sexuality, etc. Where two absolute rights conflict (e.g. freedom of religion vs freedom of association) the jury may rule that both claims are rightful, so that neither claim wins.

The Charter should only be changed following a referendum. Citizens should be permitted to propose amendments to the referendum wordings.

The Royal Coronation Oath should be amended to refer specifically to the Carta, and the monarch should be subject to the same liability to prosecution as anyone else in event of a breach.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a new layer of law, a new Magna Carta, 2010.

This layer should take precendence over any other law or provision, so that it can be enforced in any court in the UK, and UK courts have to give it precedence over EU and other international law.

The Charter should state our human rights which should be absolute and subject to no interpretation (except by a jury), inferior legislation, or judicial instruction. Anyone who wishes to take action under the Charter would ask for a jury, and make their claims to the jury.

The Charter should give absolute rights of freedom of speech, expression, movement, sexuality, etc. Where two absolute rights conflict (e.g. freedom of religion vs freedom of association) the jury may rule that both claims are rightful, so that neither claim wins.

The Charter should only be changed following a referendum. Citizens should be permitted to propose amendments to the referendum wordings.

The Royal Coronation Oath should be amended to refer specifically to the Carta, and the monarch should be subject to the same liability to prosecution as anyone else in event of a breach.

Repeal the imprisonment without charge law

Currently it is possible to detain someone suspected of (usually terrorist activity) an offence and can be held for 28 days without charge. This interment first used in Northern Ireland during the troubles has been extended to Britain. As the cradle of democracy we should repeal this legislation as there is no other European country that has the potential to be so repressive.

Many developing countries and those with dictatorships do not hold people for so long. As we have only held one person for as long as 21 days since the Terrorism Act 2006 was introduced, it has proved in practise to not be necessary so it must be repealed along with any related legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is possible to detain someone suspected of (usually terrorist activity) an offence and can be held for 28 days without charge. This interment first used in Northern Ireland during the troubles has been extended to Britain. As the cradle of democracy we should repeal this legislation as there is no other European country that has the potential to be so repressive.

Many developing countries and those with dictatorships do not hold people for so long. As we have only held one person for as long as 21 days since the Terrorism Act 2006 was introduced, it has proved in practise to not be necessary so it must be repealed along with any related legislation.

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.