Bill of rights 1688

Chug made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

As I understand it the bill of rights 1688 was an agreement between the people and William and Mary on how to govern the country and cannot be changed without the consent of the people.

I cannot find any information to say that the people have been asked to consider any change or repeal of any of the bill of rights since 1688, so can you please tell me if it is still currently THE rules on how to govern this country?
and if not when did the people vote to change it?

Yours faithfully,

Chug freeman

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

the part of the Bill of Rights I refer to in my previous request is this.

"All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realme forever"

If there is , or has been a legal change to this please can you offer the relevant common law?

Yours faithfully,

Chug Freeman

Data Access & Compliance Unit, Ministry of Justice

This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.

Thank you for your e-mail.

If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Information Directorate

Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

Fax: 0203 334 2245

E-mail: [email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

1 Attachment

<<2376843>> Please find attached a response to your recent enquiry

Thanks

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

You say parliament can repeal or ammend the bill of rights, How so? it was an agreement betwen the people of this land and William of Orange and Mary and contains the wording.

"All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be
declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present
parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realme
forever"

It was because King james and parliament where taking liberties and the people rose up and the bill of rights was the outcome.
It cannot be changed without the consent of the people?

Yours sincerely,
Chug Freeman

J Wilson left an annotation ()

I think what this reply is trying to tell you, and all of us, is that the Bill of Rights only gives Parliament Supremacy over UK Citizens, rather than the Crown.

They can dictate to us what the laws we must obey are, but contrary to what she said MPs can decide for themselves what laws to 'obey'. For example its legal for them to cheat on their expenses and 'flip' houses, which wouldn't be legal under the Income Tax legislation for any other 'Employee' in any Trade, Profession or Vocation.

I found the Green Book on Parliament website and it uses the same words in it which do apply to other peoples expenses claims i.e. "They must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily, in the performance of the duties" to be tax free. MPs seem to disagree with that.

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Freeman,

Although the Bill of Rights does contain this sentence, which we can
only assume is an attempt to entrench the provisions in the Bill of
Rights, it is not the case the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.

One of the fundamental principles of our constitutional arrangements is
that no parliament can bind its successors. This doctrine was well
established by the end of the 17th century.

Furthermore, changes in rules of UK constitutional law can be effected
by ordinary legislation, (unlike the situation, for example, in the
United States of America, where changes can only be made by a
complicated process of constitutional amendment).

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

Thank you for your reply,

But parliament is only there by the consent of the people and can only change laws with the consent of the people otherwise it's just a dictatorship, when did the people give their consent to change the bill of rights?

How many people (A majority one would assume?) have to agree/did agreee before parliament can lawfully repeal the bill of rights?

Yours sincerely,

Chug Freeman

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Freeman,

In the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined
in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the
common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and
in constitutional conventions. There is no single consitutional document
and there are no unambiguously constitutional "higher" laws. However,
there are certain laws which are generally regarded as being "core"
constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and
special consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this
category. For example, the courts would generally be unwilling to accept
that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by later
statutes except in very clear language.

The statement in the Bill of Rights that it shall remain the law forever
should not be taken at face value. Lock expresses the view that the
sentence was included "to add solemnity and weight". It is also worth
noting that the line of succession laid out in the Bill of Rights was,
in fact, altered just over a decade later by the Act of Settlement 1700.

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins

Thank you for your prompt reply, but you didn't answer the question......
How many people (A majority one would assume?) have to agree/did agreee before parliament can lawfully repeal the bill of rights?

You also stated....
The statement in the Bill of Rights that it shall remain the law forever should not be taken at face value. Lock expresses the view that the sentence was included "to add solemnity and weight".

Why should it not be taken at face value, just because Lock expresses his view?

Dictionary definition
so·lem·ni·ty (s-lmn-t)
n. pl. so·lem·ni·ties
1. The quality or condition of being solemn.
2. A solemn observance or proceeding.

Dictionary definition
solemn [ˈsɒləm]
adj
1. characterized or marked by seriousness or sincerity.
sol·emn (slm)
adj.
1. Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
2. Somberly or gravely impressive.

The people express the opinion that it should be taken at face value with solemnity and weight!

You also stated...........
It is also worth noting that the line of succession laid out in the Bill of Rights was, in fact, altered just over a decade later by the Act of Settlement 1700.

Again one must ask
When did a majority of the people agree to this act?

Yours sincerely,

Chug Freeman

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Freeman,

The Bill of Rights 1689 is not equivalent to a modern bill of rights, which is generally a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights 1689 enacted the Declaration of Rights made by the convention parliament, and in this way the Bill of Rights acquired the force of statute. However as with all statutes, Parliament can amend or even repeal the Bill of Rights. As I have explained before, our constitutional arrangements mean that Parliament has the power to amend any previous legislation, even constitutional legislation, with no special arrangements for a referendum. If you have no points of novelty, I will be unable to respond to any further correspondence,

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

Thank you for your prompt reply,

the fact that you repeat the same answer signifies that you cannot answer the questions, I assume because the people have never been asked if they give their consent to parliament to do so?

Yours sincerely,

Chug Freeman

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Freeman,

I will endeavour to respond to your question more completely if you
could perhaps refine one or two points in your questioning for me:

Firstly, by what method do you believe 'the people' would have given
their consent?

Secondly, to whom do you refer when you use the phrase 'the people'?

Thirdly, when you say that the Bill of Rights 'was an agreement betwen
the people of this land and William of Orange and Mary', how do you
think that agreement was made?

Finally, when you say that 'parliament is only there by the consent of
the people and can only change laws with the consent of the people', how
do you think that works on a day to day basis?

If you could elaborate a little on these points, I should be able to
more fully address your concerns,

Thanks

Eirian walsh Atkins

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

thank you for your prompt reply, In answer to your list of questions.

1. The people would give their consent by giving a yes vote.
2.The people are the subjects of this common law jurisdiction.
3.William asked for a representative from evey borough in the country and together with William and Mary they agreed how they wanted the country to be governed and set it out in the Bill of Rights.
4.I don't think that it does work on a daily basis as parliament change laws and introduce new statutes and acts without ever asking the public whether they agree or not, more a dictatorship than democracy.
Just as they have with the Bill of Rights!

Parliament only exists to carry out the wishes of the people and statutes and acts are only 'given weight' by consent of the 'governed' or the people.

Yours sincerely,
Chug Freeman

Walsh-Atkins, Eirian, Ministry of Justice

Dear Mr Freeman

Thank you for your response.

When asking my first question, I was in fact attempting to define the
method by which a vote was taken, rather than the kind of vote cast.
From your other answers, I can only assume that you believe there should
be some kind of referendum whenever any change is made to the law. This
country is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy,
and so decisions are made on a day to day basis by representatives of
the electorate. Although there are some examples of direct democracy at
a national level, it is difficult to see how it could effectively work
in a country of this size or how the lack of direct democracy makes all
acts of Parliament unlawful and the acts of a dictatorship. The Bill of
Rights for example, was not written or enacted by a directly democractic
process but by an elected parliament, at a time when there was no
universal suffrage. By your definition, 'the people' had very little to
do with the Bill of Rights when it was written and enacted in 1689. The
Declaration of Rights (which was then enacted as the bill of Rights) was
drawn up by the Convention Parliament of 1689. It was read to William
and Mary and the Crown was offered to them on the condition that they
accepted the Declaration of Rights. The Declaration was then enacted,
by parliament, to give it the force of statute.

Thanks

Eirian Walsh Atkins

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Dear Eirian Walsh-Atkins,

We can see that this representative democracy does not work as the so called "representatives of the electorate" are obviously not representing the electorate and are just following their own greedy adjendas.

I disagree that the people had very little to
do with the Bill of Rights when it was written and enacted in 1689, the whole situtaion was brought about by the people being fed up with lies and deceit from self serving politicians and monarchs.
There are legal bods and policemen and many members of the public who agree with EX policeman Albert Burgess in his research into the Bill of Rights.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

I guess it will need another revolt by the people before anyone is accountable to the people, and from the mood of just about everyone I speak to in the real world it I dont think it will be long in coming.

Yours sincerely,
Chug Freeman

brian ovens left an annotation ()

Well said, people need to wake up. When it comes to the so called Law, people in power don't want to talk about it. I wonder why.

J Wilson left an annotation ()

I think this confirms what I've said about the Bill of Rights being a Bill for the right of Parliament to rule over the rest of us. It is a stark contrast to most other former UK 'Territories' for example Australia.

According to Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio... it took even them until 1986 to shake off the shackles of UK rule, when the Australia Act was passed. Under that their Constitution can now only be amended by referendum of the people of Australia.

I assume this is what Chug feels we ought to have in this country. But our State still denies us basic human rights, so why would they grant us a new Constitutional right now? They've been in denial of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 1949 although they ensured the Germans had them in their Basic Law, which also cannot be amended by a simple Act of their 'Parliament'.

Everyone should bear that in mind for the election this year and vote for the 'Human Rights Party'.

Chug left an annotation ()

If we have no written constitution it means the so called 'powers that be' can make it up as they go along, which coincidently, is what they do!

As long as some actor in a wig and gown can set a preceedent on a whim things will never be fair, and with power now being handed to Brussels it's now foreign actors who decide our fates, I'm sure our ancestors who fought for justice and equality will be turning in their graves.

The British Constitution group have a petition and I believe they should be supported.
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

Simon left an annotation ()

I can see where you were going with it. The Bill was originally drawn up and agreed by a representative from each borough. It would therefore have been changed or overwritten by MP's which are effectively the same. Your local MP, representing you, voted in by your neighbours, voted to amend the Bill on your behalf. I agree that this type of 'democracy' is more of a dictatorship, but the Bill was amended by the same system that created it.

Matt-Thomas: White left an annotation ()

The man from the AGENCY says:
"Finally, when you say that 'parliament is only there by the consent of the people and can only change laws with the consent of the people', how do you think that works on a day to day basis?"

do these people think that they are our governors? do they think that we are stupid? do they turn till its too tight? Yes yes and yes...when did they stop being our representatives? I use the Bill of Rights for most things i have to challenge, they look at you like your dumb....but the Bill Of Rights is the Bill of RIGHTS..
Great Thread Chug....viva la revolution :)

Chug left an annotation ()

On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. She said:
"There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

Lord Wilberforce, speaking in the House of Lords in 1997 said:
"Perhaps I may remind noble lords of what our essential civil rights, as guaranteed by common law, are: the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule against double jeopardy; no retrospective legislation; no legislation to be given an effect contrary to international law - an old principle that has been there for years; freedom of expression; and freedom of association …firmly secured already by the common law of this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by new inter-state obligations…"

Once again, John Locke distilled the issue:

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".

mark: jennings TM left an annotation ()

Lord Gray's Motion [1999] UKHL 53.

…..although the treaty was spent when Scotland and England ceased to exist as separate states upon their merger into the new state of Great Britain, the Union Agreement continues to have effect as fundamental law in that new state with the result that, in regard to certain provisions which were entrenched by that Agreement, the United Kingdom Parliament does not enjoy unlimited sovereignty.

……Thirdly, the Union Agreement took effect as a skeletal, but nonetheless fundamental, written constitution for the new Kingdom of Great Britain when it came into being.’

In MacCormick v Lord Advocate, Lord Advocate Clyde, who was later to become Lord President Clyde, expressly acknowledged on behalf of the Crown in the course of the argument that some provisions of the Treaty of Union were expressly made fundamental and unalterable and that Parliament could not legally repeal them, and Lord President Cooper followed the same line in his opinion at pp 411–412.

……….It is sufficient for present purposes to say that,……. the argument that the legislative powers of the new Parliament of Great Britain were subject to the restrictions expressed in the Union Agreement by which it was constituted cannot be dismissed as entirely fanciful.

--S--

It is from the constitution that those legislators derive their power: how then can they change it without destroying the foundation of their own authority? The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758). Emmerich de Vattel.

--S--

"Parliament could not, merely by passing an act, declare itself to be sovereign: sovereignty must be attributed to parliament by some higher rule which defines parliament and is therefore logically and authoritatively prior to parliament. But the impact of this argument is that there is at least one rule, deriving from the common law, which parliament cannot alter. That is a strange way to insist upon parliamentary sovereignty. And, of course, if there is one such common law rule immune from Parliamentary change why should there not be others ?"

""Can Parliament make law that Parliament cannot change ?". If "Yes" then Parliament is not sovereign. If "No" then Parliament is not sovereign. Therefore Parliament is not sovereign. Q E D."

Richard Tur, MA. LLB Hons (Dundee) holds university qualifications in Law, Jurisprudence and Philosophy and has been Benn Law Fellow at Oriel College, Oxford since 1979.

--S--

So Parliament of Great Britain was constituted by the Union Agreement where some provisions are fundamental and unalterable so that Parliament could not legally repeal them.

The Parliament to which we refer is not the Parliament to which Eirian Walsh Atkins refers, the Parliament of Great Britain was constituted in 1707 (Article 3) after the Bill of Rights.

The Parliament of Great Britain was born with wide BUT LIMITED power.

Concerned left an annotation ()

The lady who was replying to him, a Ms Walsh Atkins has been in trouble

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Jem left an annotation ()

Typical, She's not addressing any of the contradictions between law and rights and just pretending they're not there.

I once had a solicitor of 15 years nearly in tears because I asked him how we can have both Article 7 of the universal dec of Human rights (Equality before the law) and give the police extra discressionary powers for performing searches at the same time (One violates the other, you can't have both).

He tried to talk his way round the subject 3 times, but I wouldn't allow him to ignore the double standard. He eventually broke into a tearful rage (Hissy fit) calling me all the names under the sun *But he still couldn't answer my question).

They're shitty people who are living in a cloud of cognitive dissonance in order to profit from restricting the freedoms of others.