Scores of officials in Hampshire are given the power to enter your home (From Daily Echo)

hopefully the Tories will win the next election and slash council budgets to a point where they can only afford to employ essential staff.

We live in a world gone mad, have these councils nothing better to do with their budgets. Big brother and political correctness rule it seems. The councils don't seem to be able to salt the roads, replace the blown bulbs in street lights, stop the yobs on scooters, but they can enter your house just in case you are trying to hypnotize your rabbit from behind the sofa. WTF! Make my day and knock on my door!

"Snooping" in this context means things like enforcing hygiene regulations, ensuring the safety of children and vulnerable adults, trading standards, animal welfare regulations etc. And as the report itself says, "Powers of entry are not in and of themselves a bad thing.
Many of the laws that permit power of entry to private property without a warrant pertain to the
welfare of the public, and their use is often justified given the situation and the need for immediate
entry." So next time your neighbour's leylandii hedge is blocking out all our light and you want something doing about it, and you need someone to turn off that annoying burglar alarm that's been going off for a week, be grateful that council officials have the right of entry.

condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012.

any way back to this
quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote.
most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs.
another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army.
it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

c'mon people "snooping" is just a word and doesn't really cover the meaning of "powers of entry".

All authorised or warranted officers that have a duty to investigate complaints and enforce statutory law will have powers of entry into premises - this includes land and vessels usually. Domestic premises still need written notice in most cases, without a warrant, and a magistrate won't dish out warrants willy-nilly. Magistrates need the full facts from an investigation and a reason that the officer suspects entry would be refused before they even consider a warrant application.

Anyone can refuse entry to their home unless a warrant is in force.

The article mentions laws that aren't so reasonable? Illegal hypnotism - atomic research - is that so unreasonable that if someone provided intelligence that a scam or an atomic research facility was being run, wouldn't you want someone to check it for you? You wouldn't fancy a friend or relative being hypnotised by a random scammer or potential sexual predator?

Mado - settle down, it seems such knee jerk reaction to a written article, not to something that's in regular practise - just because officers have powers of entry, it doesn't mean that they have time to be knocking on random peoples door without good reason.

faffman wrote:
c'mon people "snooping" is just a word and doesn't really cover the meaning of "powers of entry".

All authorised or warranted officers that have a duty to investigate complaints and enforce statutory law will have powers of entry into premises - this includes land and vessels usually. Domestic premises still need written notice in most cases, without a warrant, and a magistrate won't dish out warrants willy-nilly. Magistrates need the full facts from an investigation and a reason that the officer suspects entry would be refused before they even consider a warrant application.

Anyone can refuse entry to their home unless a warrant is in force.

The article mentions laws that aren't so reasonable? Illegal hypnotism - atomic research - is that so unreasonable that if someone provided intelligence that a scam or an atomic research facility was being run, wouldn't you want someone to check it for you? You wouldn't fancy a friend or relative being hypnotised by a random scammer or potential sexual predator?

Mado - settle down, it seems such knee jerk reaction to a written article, not to something that's in regular practise - just because officers have powers of entry, it doesn't mean that they have time to be knocking on random peoples door without good reason.

Great post, this is complete and utter scaremongering, as if Councils have the resources or time to use these powers unless completely necessary (i.e. when someone is in danger, or there is a persistent offence, noise nuisance or something). I watched a programme about these laws being used to follow parents who had been fibbing on school applications, and that was a step too far and I saw on the programme that the government were going to limit these laws to proper use. More paranoia stirred up by this organisation for the ever gullible British public. There are some archaic laws in place still in this country, some very amusing including ancient by-laws that doesn't mean to say that we will use them! doh...

I can confirm that they have got powers of entry; when my kitchen and bathroom was being done, the clever contractors took in a neighbours cat whilst I was out and the on call at Southampton City Council asked me to go back home to retrieve the cat otherwise they would come in and get it out themselves. Whilst I was not best pleased I fully co-operated. Judge for yourselves whether it is a good or a bad thing.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

faffman wrote:
c'mon people "snooping" is just a word and doesn't really cover the meaning of "powers of entry".

All authorised or warranted officers that have a duty to investigate complaints and enforce statutory law will have powers of entry into premises - this includes land and vessels usually. Domestic premises still need written notice in most cases, without a warrant, and a magistrate won't dish out warrants willy-nilly. Magistrates need the full facts from an investigation and a reason that the officer suspects entry would be refused before they even consider a warrant application.

Anyone can refuse entry to their home unless a warrant is in force.

The article mentions laws that aren't so reasonable? Illegal hypnotism - atomic research - is that so unreasonable that if someone provided intelligence that a scam or an atomic research facility was being run, wouldn't you want someone to check it for you? You wouldn't fancy a friend or relative being hypnotised by a random scammer or potential sexual predator?

Mado - settle down, it seems such knee jerk reaction to a written article, not to something that's in regular practise - just because officers have powers of entry, it doesn't mean that they have time to be knocking on random peoples door without good reason.

Great post, this is complete and utter scaremongering, as if Councils have the resources or time to use these powers unless completely necessary (i.e. when someone is in danger, or there is a persistent offence, noise nuisance or something). I watched a programme about these laws being used to follow parents who had been fibbing on school applications, and that was a step too far and I saw on the programme that the government were going to limit these laws to proper use. More paranoia stirred up by this organisation for the ever gullible British public. There are some archaic laws in place still in this country, some very amusing including ancient by-laws that doesn't mean to say that we will use them! doh...

ah yes freemantle i am charging you for not practising your achery skills on a sunday.
a law that can still be enforce today.

southy wrote:
condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed.

As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

The actual NEWS here is: 'Someone has asked how many members of Staff employed by local authorities have a Power of Entry included in their job description, under any legislation'.
The news is not that they have such powers. Many of them have had such powers of entry for many years, and no one has objected, because they could not effectively work without them.
Not all persons listed have all the same powers of entry.
The use of a Power of entry must be shown to be fully justified and where possible a full explanation given to the occupier.
It should only be used as a last resort when all reasonable means have failed, or would obviously fail if attempted.
The use of the word 'snooper' and reference to the more obscure Acts of Parliament are merely there to give the story a more sensational appearance.
As far as I can tell the only recent changes have been a requirement to moderate (reduce!) the powers in line with the Human rights legislation.

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote:
condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed.

As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

it helps to have a relation that is a lawer
to enter a home with out a search or arrest warrant, they got to have a reasonable account that a person or persons lifes are in danger. that is covered in the magna carter to. or have a custom officer present

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote: condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed. As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

it helps to have a relation that is a lawer to enter a home with out a search or arrest warrant, they got to have a reasonable account that a person or persons lifes are in danger. that is covered in the magna carter to. or have a custom officer present

Speaking as someone who is legally qualified, you are talking out of your backside, now stop it.

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote: condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed. As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

it helps to have a relation that is a lawer to enter a home with out a search or arrest warrant, they got to have a reasonable account that a person or persons lifes are in danger. that is covered in the magna carter to. or have a custom officer present

Speaking as someone who is legally qualified, you are talking out of your backside, now stop it.

and your not legally qualified now are you. or you would know the ins and outs of the magna carter.
like police officers dont just walk into some one home, with out a search or arrest warrant, they radio back to get permission first, and the officer on watch will phone the duty judge who in turn gives permission

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote: condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed. As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

it helps to have a relation that is a lawer to enter a home with out a search or arrest warrant, they got to have a reasonable account that a person or persons lifes are in danger. that is covered in the magna carter to. or have a custom officer present

Speaking as someone who is legally qualified, you are talking out of your backside, now stop it.

and your not legally qualified now are you. or you would know the ins and outs of the magna carter. like police officers dont just walk into some one home, with out a search or arrest warrant, they radio back to get permission first, and the officer on watch will phone the duty judge who in turn gives permission

Oh be quiet, you silly person. Yes I am legally qualified. There is no such thing as a duty judge; you mean a magistrate. Dont be so insulting you silly boy. Officer or watch; what century are you living in.

The Magna Carta is only one part of the British Constitution, along with the common and statute laws.

Police officers can enter your home on suspicion that an offence has been committed; they dont need a warrant on those grounds.

Go and fantasise somewhere else.

come the election I'd vote Southy or donald we are knackered as it is but these guy would bring a tickle in me tum. "southy for president" anyone agree? :)

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

southy wrote: condor who ever gets into power at the next general election, will not be able to do any thing, its going to be a hung government, and stay in power they will have to do deals with the minority partys. and it be the minority partys that will hold the key, some forecaster's are forecasting that 1974 record to be broken, meaning there be a second general election with in the year, but personally my self i going for the next election in 2012. any way back to this quote "how many of their officers have been given the power to enter people’s homes based on the authorities granted under 1,043 different law" unquote. most of those laws are unenforceable because of the magna carter, the magna carter clearly states that a crown officer must be present and acting on behalf of the crown, because all land in england is owned by the crown, to act with out the crown permission is an act of treason to the crown, to gain the crown permission you need a court to issue a search warrant and you will need an officer of the law. their is only one group of people that can enter a home with out a warrant and that is customs. another problem for the councils is another part of the magna carter. it is also treason to have a private army and giving those sort of powers to more than one person. is a act of treason again, because doing this is an act of making a private army. it be worth every one while to read the magna carter in full. it over rides all laws that came before it and after it, it is your constitution the peoples rights. it is signed by the crown and the lords.

Your knowledge of the law is abominable. Police officers can enter your home without warrant on reasonable suspicion that an arrestable offence has been committed. As for Magna Carta, I'll Magna Carta you in a minute.

it helps to have a relation that is a lawer to enter a home with out a search or arrest warrant, they got to have a reasonable account that a person or persons lifes are in danger. that is covered in the magna carter to. or have a custom officer present

Speaking as someone who is legally qualified, you are talking out of your backside, now stop it.

and your not legally qualified now are you. or you would know the ins and outs of the magna carter. like police officers dont just walk into some one home, with out a search or arrest warrant, they radio back to get permission first, and the officer on watch will phone the duty judge who in turn gives permission

Oh be quiet, you silly person. Yes I am legally qualified. There is no such thing as a duty judge; you mean a magistrate. Dont be so insulting you silly boy. Officer or watch; what century are you living in.

The Magna Carta is only one part of the British Constitution, along with the common and statute laws.

Police officers can enter your home on suspicion that an offence has been committed; they dont need a warrant on those grounds.

Go and fantasise somewhere else.

no they cant, they need permission to enter, an officer can not break the law to enforce the law. in each area there is one magistrate judge (duty judge) that will be on call to give permission for such cases after he heard the basics over the phone. ie like gun fire, or where there is reasonable grounds to make the officer think a person or persons life/s might be in danger or likey to endanger others.
and if you was qualified then you would know what is writen down in the last parts of the magna carter, the magna cater supercedes any law that came before it and after it, and any law that comes in to conflict with the magna carter, the magna carter is the law that you rule by. and the magna carter can not be altered or changed by any means.

Southy,
I have to agree with Donald2000 on this one, mainly because he is correct and you are wrong.
There is are many pages of legislation on the Statute books which give details of the many circumstances where premises may be entered without a warrant. Some powers are even conferred under English Common Law.
It will obviously surprise you to learn that many sections of the Magna Carta (or to give its proper name: Magna Carta (1297)
1297 CHAPTER 9 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29) have been repealed by numerous subsequent Acts of Parliament.
'When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, it is best to stop digging'.

X Old Bill wrote:
Southy, I have to agree with Donald2000 on this one, mainly because he is correct and you are wrong. There is are many pages of legislation on the Statute books which give details of the many circumstances where premises may be entered without a warrant. Some powers are even conferred under English Common Law. It will obviously surprise you to learn that many sections of the Magna Carta (or to give its proper name: Magna Carta (1297) 1297 CHAPTER 9 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29) have been repealed by numerous subsequent Acts of Parliament. 'When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, it is best to stop digging'.

Unfortunately its something Southy has heard and in keeping with the best traditions of the Daily Echo has chosen to illustrate his ignorance. Its a shame that those of us who have studied to LLB level are rubbished by an ignoramus who thinks that knowledge of one statute makes a legal education.

Yes, Southy I studied a law degree. Any further queries?

Donald2000 wrote:

X Old Bill wrote:
Southy, I have to agree with Donald2000 on this one, mainly because he is correct and you are wrong. There is are many pages of legislation on the Statute books which give details of the many circumstances where premises may be entered without a warrant. Some powers are even conferred under English Common Law. It will obviously surprise you to learn that many sections of the Magna Carta (or to give its proper name: Magna Carta (1297) 1297 CHAPTER 9 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29) have been repealed by numerous subsequent Acts of Parliament. 'When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, it is best to stop digging'.

Unfortunately its something Southy has heard and in keeping with the best traditions of the Daily Echo has chosen to illustrate his ignorance. Its a shame that those of us who have studied to LLB level are rubbished by an ignoramus who thinks that knowledge of one statute makes a legal education.

Yes, Southy I studied a law degree. Any further queries?

only studied so your a runner for a lawer, do you know of a barrister christopher lea go and talk to him, he got loads people off and force judges to advise the jury to return a not guilty verdict, by using the magna carter, the magna carter can not be repealed. every time a there is a new crown head in our case the queen, at her carnation she swore an oath, and part of the oath is the enforcement of the magna carter has it is writen down.
christopher lea now works for the crown prosecution, and he still up holds the magna carter, he has stop cases going ahead because it breaks the magna carter.
so while you two are at the bottom of that hole would you like me to fill in while your still at the bottom.

southy wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

X Old Bill wrote: Southy, I have to agree with Donald2000 on this one, mainly because he is correct and you are wrong. There is are many pages of legislation on the Statute books which give details of the many circumstances where premises may be entered without a warrant. Some powers are even conferred under English Common Law. It will obviously surprise you to learn that many sections of the Magna Carta (or to give its proper name: Magna Carta (1297) 1297 CHAPTER 9 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29) have been repealed by numerous subsequent Acts of Parliament. 'When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, it is best to stop digging'.

Unfortunately its something Southy has heard and in keeping with the best traditions of the Daily Echo has chosen to illustrate his ignorance. Its a shame that those of us who have studied to LLB level are rubbished by an ignoramus who thinks that knowledge of one statute makes a legal education. Yes, Southy I studied a law degree. Any further queries?

only studied so your a runner for a lawer, do you know of a barrister christopher lea go and talk to him, he got loads people off and force judges to advise the jury to return a not guilty verdict, by using the magna carter, the magna carter can not be repealed. every time a there is a new crown head in our case the queen, at her carnation she swore an oath, and part of the oath is the enforcement of the magna carter has it is writen down. christopher lea now works for the crown prosecution, and he still up holds the magna carter, he has stop cases going ahead because it breaks the magna carter. so while you two are at the bottom of that hole would you like me to fill in while your still at the bottom.

Go away, you silly little boy and get your own knowledge. Just because your mate is a barrister (if that indeed is the case) does not make you anything. Stop riding on other people's glory. Get your own qualifications and then come back and challenge me. Otherwise, shut up.

seeing you cant see because of all the fog before your eyes, go back to 1987 and what lord denning said, and done, in the appeal courts, when he up-set the ruling government and the house of lords, but got praise from the queen. by finding a case gave the wrong verdict that found a guy guilty, but when it went to the appeal courts lord denning advise a rehearing of the case. and the guy was found not guilty the law is question was made in 1961 but took till 1987 for this law to be challenge and this was all because of that last part in the magna carter. but this was not the bit that up-set the house of lords and commons, it was his reply in the house to one of the questions he was ask, and that was, a law can only work if it can survive the test of time. people maybe found guilty for years but if some one comes along and challenges it by a law that that is all ready in place. then so be it the older law supersedes the newer law, has in this case the magna carter whitch is set in stone and can not be changed or appealed.
and it was this part of the magna carter plus another part, that stop this brown government from putting fishing licences on sea fishing.

southy wrote:
seeing you cant see because of all the fog before your eyes, go back to 1987 and what lord denning said, and done, in the appeal courts, when he up-set the ruling government and the house of lords, but got praise from the queen. by finding a case gave the wrong verdict that found a guy guilty, but when it went to the appeal courts lord denning advise a rehearing of the case. and the guy was found not guilty the law is question was made in 1961 but took till 1987 for this law to be challenge and this was all because of that last part in the magna carter. but this was not the bit that up-set the house of lords and commons, it was his reply in the house to one of the questions he was ask, and that was, a law can only work if it can survive the test of time. people maybe found guilty for years but if some one comes along and challenges it by a law that that is all ready in place. then so be it the older law supersedes the newer law, has in this case the magna carter whitch is set in stone and can not be changed or appealed. and it was this part of the magna carter plus another part, that stop this brown government from putting fishing licences on sea fishing.

Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: seeing you cant see because of all the fog before your eyes, go back to 1987 and what lord denning said, and done, in the appeal courts, when he up-set the ruling government and the house of lords, but got praise from the queen. by finding a case gave the wrong verdict that found a guy guilty, but when it went to the appeal courts lord denning advise a rehearing of the case. and the guy was found not guilty the law is question was made in 1961 but took till 1987 for this law to be challenge and this was all because of that last part in the magna carter. but this was not the bit that up-set the house of lords and commons, it was his reply in the house to one of the questions he was ask, and that was, a law can only work if it can survive the test of time. people maybe found guilty for years but if some one comes along and challenges it by a law that that is all ready in place. then so be it the older law supersedes the newer law, has in this case the magna carter whitch is set in stone and can not be changed or appealed. and it was this part of the magna carter plus another part, that stop this brown government from putting fishing licences on sea fishing.

Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed.

That wont stop Southy who thinks that because he has a mate who is a barrister, thats the end of the story, whereas thats completely tommy rot.

In order to know how our Constitution has been developed, one needs to know about superceded and repealed laws, statutes and cases and how these things all dovetail together to make law what it is in the present era.

Having a mate whose a barrister does not add up to anything. I once met Barnes Wallis; does that make me an expert on explosives?

Such is the drivel that inhabits this august publication.

Donald2000 wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: seeing you cant see because of all the fog before your eyes, go back to 1987 and what lord denning said, and done, in the appeal courts, when he up-set the ruling government and the house of lords, but got praise from the queen. by finding a case gave the wrong verdict that found a guy guilty, but when it went to the appeal courts lord denning advise a rehearing of the case. and the guy was found not guilty the law is question was made in 1961 but took till 1987 for this law to be challenge and this was all because of that last part in the magna carter. but this was not the bit that up-set the house of lords and commons, it was his reply in the house to one of the questions he was ask, and that was, a law can only work if it can survive the test of time. people maybe found guilty for years but if some one comes along and challenges it by a law that that is all ready in place. then so be it the older law supersedes the newer law, has in this case the magna carter whitch is set in stone and can not be changed or appealed. and it was this part of the magna carter plus another part, that stop this brown government from putting fishing licences on sea fishing.

Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed.

That wont stop Southy who thinks that because he has a mate who is a barrister, thats the end of the story, whereas thats completely tommy rot.

In order to know how our Constitution has been developed, one needs to know about superceded and repealed laws, statutes and cases and how these things all dovetail together to make law what it is in the present era.

Having a mate whose a barrister does not add up to anything. I once met Barnes Wallis; does that make me an expert on explosives?

Such is the drivel that inhabits this august publication.

Wierd that, I once had a mate who studied for an Llb and thought that made him a Barrister.
If you are old enough to have 'once met Barnes-Wallis' then it must have been some time since you read law.
Pardon me if I don't come to you for an opinion.
Typical 'know-it-all' OAP.

Stephen J said
"Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed."
you can not repeal laws that unrepealable, you only got to look at history, there been a number of monarchs and governments that though that they changed the magna carter, but look at when it suited them they fall back on the magna carter. todate theres been 3 kings and 1 queen where the magna carted been reverted back to. the last time a crown lost his crown because of the magna carter was king james, who was replace by william and mary of orange.
it dont matter what laws any government brings in, if it contravenes the magna carter, then any one who challenge those laws and reverts to the last part of the magna carter, the magna carter over rules it, has lord denning has said to government the magna carter is set in stone. and can not be repealed or altered or changed in any way.
the magna carter was used to stop this government in bring in a law that would mean you had to have a licence to fish in tidal waters (salt waters) and this happened only 4 mths ago.
to do away with the magna carter, you will need to do away with the crown and house of lords. and that is just not going to happing in the near future.
cromwell government was the last time it could of been done away with, but they chose to keep it in place and to the letter.

oh by the way theres more than 63 clauses to the magna carter. there 63 parchments to the magna carter.
and i have a full copy of the magna carter and i have seen 2 of the 3 original magna carter that was signed by king john and the barons, the 2 that i seen are here in england the 3 is not in the uk.

Militant Ford Worker wrote:

Donald2000 wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: seeing you cant see because of all the fog before your eyes, go back to 1987 and what lord denning said, and done, in the appeal courts, when he up-set the ruling government and the house of lords, but got praise from the queen. by finding a case gave the wrong verdict that found a guy guilty, but when it went to the appeal courts lord denning advise a rehearing of the case. and the guy was found not guilty the law is question was made in 1961 but took till 1987 for this law to be challenge and this was all because of that last part in the magna carter. but this was not the bit that up-set the house of lords and commons, it was his reply in the house to one of the questions he was ask, and that was, a law can only work if it can survive the test of time. people maybe found guilty for years but if some one comes along and challenges it by a law that that is all ready in place. then so be it the older law supersedes the newer law, has in this case the magna carter whitch is set in stone and can not be changed or appealed. and it was this part of the magna carter plus another part, that stop this brown government from putting fishing licences on sea fishing.

Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed.

That wont stop Southy who thinks that because he has a mate who is a barrister, thats the end of the story, whereas thats completely tommy rot. In order to know how our Constitution has been developed, one needs to know about superceded and repealed laws, statutes and cases and how these things all dovetail together to make law what it is in the present era. Having a mate whose a barrister does not add up to anything. I once met Barnes Wallis; does that make me an expert on explosives? Such is the drivel that inhabits this august publication.

Wierd that, I once had a mate who studied for an Llb and thought that made him a Barrister. If you are old enough to have 'once met Barnes-Wallis' then it must have been some time since you read law. Pardon me if I don't come to you for an opinion. Typical 'know-it-all' OAP.

Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak.

And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006.

I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it.

southy wrote:
Stephen J said "Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed." you can not repeal laws that unrepealable, you only got to look at history, there been a number of monarchs and governments that though that they changed the magna carter, but look at when it suited them they fall back on the magna carter. todate theres been 3 kings and 1 queen where the magna carted been reverted back to. the last time a crown lost his crown because of the magna carter was king james, who was replace by william and mary of orange. it dont matter what laws any government brings in, if it contravenes the magna carter, then any one who challenge those laws and reverts to the last part of the magna carter, the magna carter over rules it, has lord denning has said to government the magna carter is set in stone. and can not be repealed or altered or changed in any way. the magna carter was used to stop this government in bring in a law that would mean you had to have a licence to fish in tidal waters (salt waters) and this happened only 4 mths ago. to do away with the magna carter, you will need to do away with the crown and house of lords. and that is just not going to happing in the near future. cromwell government was the last time it could of been done away with, but they chose to keep it in place and to the letter.

That puts you at odds with organisations such as the British Library. With all respect to you, I'll go with them. One reason is that they know how to put facts across clearly, concisely and convincingly. Unfortunately you seem unwilling or unable to achieve any of those things. I always think that there may well be something in what you say, but it's always lost in a fog of drivel.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: Stephen J said "Only three of the original 63 clauses of Magna Carta are still in force, and the only one relevant here states that "no free man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled without the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land." All the rest have indeed been repealed." you can not repeal laws that unrepealable, you only got to look at history, there been a number of monarchs and governments that though that they changed the magna carter, but look at when it suited them they fall back on the magna carter. todate theres been 3 kings and 1 queen where the magna carted been reverted back to. the last time a crown lost his crown because of the magna carter was king james, who was replace by william and mary of orange. it dont matter what laws any government brings in, if it contravenes the magna carter, then any one who challenge those laws and reverts to the last part of the magna carter, the magna carter over rules it, has lord denning has said to government the magna carter is set in stone. and can not be repealed or altered or changed in any way. the magna carter was used to stop this government in bring in a law that would mean you had to have a licence to fish in tidal waters (salt waters) and this happened only 4 mths ago. to do away with the magna carter, you will need to do away with the crown and house of lords. and that is just not going to happing in the near future. cromwell government was the last time it could of been done away with, but they chose to keep it in place and to the letter.

That puts you at odds with organisations such as the British Library. With all respect to you, I'll go with them. One reason is that they know how to put facts across clearly, concisely and convincingly. Unfortunately you seem unwilling or unable to achieve any of those things. I always think that there may well be something in what you say, but it's always lost in a fog of drivel.

It has been explained to him and the other idiots who have supported him, time and time again that laws are capable of being repealed, or superceded, yet without a shread of knowledge or ever being involved in any legal capacity, they come on here to peddle their illiterate nonsense.

If the Magna Carta was still in force then clearly constables would not have right of entry into premises without a search warrant duly signed by a magistrate. This is clearly NOT the case and is evident in everyday life, so it does not matter how many copies of the Magna Carta Southy has.

All it goes to show is that there is fear and loathing of educated people; thats so typical of Southampton. Underneath all that university learning, the locals display a rich vein of ignorance which condemns this city to be a third rate and barbaric place.

face it donald you and your multi names dont work. at less try and change how you post it was pick up at 8pm last night when i got a phone call.
face it one thing for sure your no lawer maybe a lawer runner and thats about the most i give you. lawer dont talk to people like the way you do.
has my friend said well he more than a freind, being a lawer you never stop learning new things about the law. your well out of your depth.
my friend well he an in-law he was watching what you are saying and he laughing his head off. he thinks you should go back and study more, because what they have teach you 2006 you have learned nothing thats only the begining it takes years to pass the bar. chris seems to think your a student who gave up after year because you was not getting any where.
just lok at what you said here
quote"Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak.
And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006.
I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it." unquote
people who study law do not talk like this, they are not rude, that be the worse thing they can do, no law firm will employ rude people, that be more than they dare do.
so please go back to your penguin books and do years more studying.

oh ps donald i just had a phone call. by any chance are you a car sales man or and estate agent, because some things you sound like one.

southy wrote:
oh ps donald i just had a phone call. by any chance are you a car sales man or and estate agent, because some things you sound like one.

Go and seek professional hope, you stupid person because you need it.

No-one can judge who anyone is from these columns in any case; its all totally anonymous. You dont know who I am and you never will do.

So put that in your Magna Carta, thick brain.

southy wrote:
face it donald you and your multi names dont work. at less try and change how you post it was pick up at 8pm last night when i got a phone call. face it one thing for sure your no lawer maybe a lawer runner and thats about the most i give you. lawer dont talk to people like the way you do. has my friend said well he more than a freind, being a lawer you never stop learning new things about the law. your well out of your depth. my friend well he an in-law he was watching what you are saying and he laughing his head off. he thinks you should go back and study more, because what they have teach you 2006 you have learned nothing thats only the begining it takes years to pass the bar. chris seems to think your a student who gave up after year because you was not getting any where. just lok at what you said here quote"Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak. And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006. I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it." unquote people who study law do not talk like this, they are not rude, that be the worse thing they can do, no law firm will employ rude people, that be more than they dare do. so please go back to your penguin books and do years more studying.

So are you (and your friend) suggesting that the UK Statute Law Database, published by the Office of Public Sector Information, which gives the dates at which the various clauses of the Magna Carta were repealed, and the legislation that repealed them, is wrong? Just to be clear, you did say that none of the Magna Carta could ever be repealed, didn't you?

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: face it donald you and your multi names dont work. at less try and change how you post it was pick up at 8pm last night when i got a phone call. face it one thing for sure your no lawer maybe a lawer runner and thats about the most i give you. lawer dont talk to people like the way you do. has my friend said well he more than a freind, being a lawer you never stop learning new things about the law. your well out of your depth. my friend well he an in-law he was watching what you are saying and he laughing his head off. he thinks you should go back and study more, because what they have teach you 2006 you have learned nothing thats only the begining it takes years to pass the bar. chris seems to think your a student who gave up after year because you was not getting any where. just lok at what you said here quote"Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak. And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006. I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it." unquote people who study law do not talk like this, they are not rude, that be the worse thing they can do, no law firm will employ rude people, that be more than they dare do. so please go back to your penguin books and do years more studying.

So are you (and your friend) suggesting that the UK Statute Law Database, published by the Office of Public Sector Information, which gives the dates at which the various clauses of the Magna Carta were repealed, and the legislation that repealed them, is wrong? Just to be clear, you did say that none of the Magna Carta could ever be repealed, didn't you?

Hello Stephen and others; a lot of this is my fault. I have been disgustingly rude to Southy for which I humbly apologise. I am not feeling very well at the moment and regardless of the merits of his case I have acted badly, so I am sorry for being so rude to him.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
face it donald you and your multi names dont work. at less try and change how you post it was pick up at 8pm last night when i got a phone call. face it one thing for sure your no lawer maybe a lawer runner and thats about the most i give you. lawer dont talk to people like the way you do. has my friend said well he more than a freind, being a lawer you never stop learning new things about the law. your well out of your depth. my friend well he an in-law he was watching what you are saying and he laughing his head off. he thinks you should go back and study more, because what they have teach you 2006 you have learned nothing thats only the begining it takes years to pass the bar. chris seems to think your a student who gave up after year because you was not getting any where. just lok at what you said here quote"Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak. And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006. I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it." unquote people who study law do not talk like this, they are not rude, that be the worse thing they can do, no law firm will employ rude people, that be more than they dare do. so please go back to your penguin books and do years more studying.

So are you (and your friend) suggesting that the UK Statute Law Database, published by the Office of Public Sector Information, which gives the dates at which the various clauses of the Magna Carta were repealed, and the legislation that repealed them, is wrong? Just to be clear, you did say that none of the Magna Carta could ever be repealed, didn't you?

yes it is wrong, go back to 1987 and look at what lord denning said, and he got to the highest post you can get to, he was master of the rolls, and he was not scared to up-set politicians and lords.
what he basic told the two house of government was a law is only good if can stand the test of time, people can be found guilty for years but if some one come along and challenge that law in the courts, and presents an aguement in the courts, and proves that it contravenes another law, then the courts must revert back to the older law and not the new law (this is your so called loop holes). this rule is writen down in the magna carter. he was on about a law that was made into statue law in 1961 and it took till 1987 for it to be relise that this 1961 law was unworkable and can not be enforce. you see the magna carter is set in law it is your base for all laws, it can not be repealed, altered, contravene in any way.
2 more examples for you 1978 winchester crown courts a guy was charge with 63 accounts of salmon poaching. the laws came in this case came out in 1960 to 1962 and 1970 to 1973. it was a week long case but on the wed when the crown prosecution finish there case, the defence barrister brought in the magna carter first he read the last part about where the magna carter can not be changed ect, he then read out the real long part, in the magna carter its only a paragraph but its what is say that is important because it ment laws had to be read that date back to when the magna carter was signed it was about all the rights that the people of london had at that time. there rights now became every ones rights all round the country, its a very long list, and those rights are still in place they can not be taken away from the public. any way it was early evening when the judge turned to the jury and said you must return a not guilty verdict on those charges 62 of the charges was read out and the jury agreed to a not guilty verdict, so that left one charge left. whitch ended up has a stale mate on the friday. that one law that was left needed to be tested but never did, because after this the law was changed, taken salmon out of tidal waters became a civil offence and not a criminal offence ( it was no longer class has thief )
this second example only happen in summer last year, those powers that the local council has about entering and searching was also given to the EA, now i was there when this all took place. the ea wanted to search a car, the owner told them you will need to get a police officer here first, they said they dont need to and with that one put his hand on the car door handle to open it (he did open it a little) the owner said remover your hand from my car or i will break your fingers, and the next thing to happen was the guy moved away and radio for the police, an hour later an officer turned up and the ea guy told him that the owner of the car made threats to break his fingers, the owner of the car told the officer to ask him what he had done. with that the officer was on the radio and 10mins later he got his answer back, and he pulled the ea guy to one side, then went to the owner of the car and ask him do you want to charge him for atemped entry into your car, he said no and then told the officer now your are here they can now search his car. whitch they did do and got nothing.
and this some of your laws that have tried to replace the magna carter. and its all down to what in the last parts. the problem is some people just pled guilty thinking the law is right. other that pled not guilty and dont use the magna carter. a law that contravenes the magna carter is only good till a test case comes up, no law has of yet that has contravene the magna carter has survived a test case against the manga cater in the last 700 years, and there has been many trys by the crown and government. the only way to do a way with the magna carter is to do away with crown and the house of lords. now can you see that happening in the near future.
and all this is because of that last part in the carter and it got signed by the crown and the barons (who was in those day the government)

Stephen J here's another 2 examples
i joke with freemantlegirl about the archery that you must practice it on ever sunday, this law is still in place the reason is because like the magna carter it cant not be repealed so its just forgotten about
the other was maggie poll tax there was a loop hole that could not be over come. apart from all the demos around the country. there was an old law that tin miner or owners could not be charge poll tax. what the T&G union done was to buy shares into the cornish tin mines whitch made every member of the T&G a tin mine owner at the time there was over 1 and half million members in the T&G a lot of money for the government to lose, maggie argued with the law lords over this because maggie atemps to get this change was block every time, another law that can not be changed, well we all know what the out come of this was in the end to much pressure the poll tax was scrap and in came the council tax.

ok donald your apologise.accepted

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: face it donald you and your multi names dont work. at less try and change how you post it was pick up at 8pm last night when i got a phone call. face it one thing for sure your no lawer maybe a lawer runner and thats about the most i give you. lawer dont talk to people like the way you do. has my friend said well he more than a freind, being a lawer you never stop learning new things about the law. your well out of your depth. my friend well he an in-law he was watching what you are saying and he laughing his head off. he thinks you should go back and study more, because what they have teach you 2006 you have learned nothing thats only the begining it takes years to pass the bar. chris seems to think your a student who gave up after year because you was not getting any where. just lok at what you said here quote"Shut up, you nasty ignorant little pipsqueak. And I am not yet old enough to be a pensioner. And I last read law in 2006. I dont think I am a barrister and I never said I was. So shove it." unquote people who study law do not talk like this, they are not rude, that be the worse thing they can do, no law firm will employ rude people, that be more than they dare do. so please go back to your penguin books and do years more studying.

So are you (and your friend) suggesting that the UK Statute Law Database, published by the Office of Public Sector Information, which gives the dates at which the various clauses of the Magna Carta were repealed, and the legislation that repealed them, is wrong? Just to be clear, you did say that none of the Magna Carta could ever be repealed, didn't you?

yes it is wrong, go back to 1987 and look at what lord denning said, and he got to the highest post you can get to, he was master of the rolls, and he was not scared to up-set politicians and lords. what he basic told the two house of government was a law is only good if can stand the test of time, people can be found guilty for years but if some one come along and challenge that law in the courts, and presents an aguement in the courts, and proves that it contravenes another law, then the courts must revert back to the older law and not the new law (this is your so called loop holes). this rule is writen down in the magna carter. he was on about a law that was made into statue law in 1961 and it took till 1987 for it to be relise that this 1961 law was unworkable and can not be enforce. you see the magna carter is set in law it is your base for all laws, it can not be repealed, altered, contravene in any way. 2 more examples for you 1978 winchester crown courts a guy was charge with 63 accounts of salmon poaching. the laws came in this case came out in 1960 to 1962 and 1970 to 1973. it was a week long case but on the wed when the crown prosecution finish there case, the defence barrister brought in the magna carter first he read the last part about where the magna carter can not be changed ect, he then read out the real long part, in the magna carter its only a paragraph but its what is say that is important because it ment laws had to be read that date back to when the magna carter was signed it was about all the rights that the people of london had at that time. there rights now became every ones rights all round the country, its a very long list, and those rights are still in place they can not be taken away from the public. any way it was early evening when the judge turned to the jury and said you must return a not guilty verdict on those charges 62 of the charges was read out and the jury agreed to a not guilty verdict, so that left one charge left. whitch ended up has a stale mate on the friday. that one law that was left needed to be tested but never did, because after this the law was changed, taken salmon out of tidal waters became a civil offence and not a criminal offence ( it was no longer class has thief ) this second example only happen in summer last year, those powers that the local council has about entering and searching was also given to the EA, now i was there when this all took place. the ea wanted to search a car, the owner told them you will need to get a police officer here first, they said they dont need to and with that one put his hand on the car door handle to open it (he did open it a little) the owner said remover your hand from my car or i will break your fingers, and the next thing to happen was the guy moved away and radio for the police, an hour later an officer turned up and the ea guy told him that the owner of the car made threats to break his fingers, the owner of the car told the officer to ask him what he had done. with that the officer was on the radio and 10mins later he got his answer back, and he pulled the ea guy to one side, then went to the owner of the car and ask him do you want to charge him for atemped entry into your car, he said no and then told the officer now your are here they can now search his car. whitch they did do and got nothing. and this some of your laws that have tried to replace the magna carter. and its all down to what in the last parts. the problem is some people just pled guilty thinking the law is right. other that pled not guilty and dont use the magna carter. a law that contravenes the magna carter is only good till a test case comes up, no law has of yet that has contravene the magna carter has survived a test case against the manga cater in the last 700 years, and there has been many trys by the crown and government. the only way to do a way with the magna carter is to do away with crown and the house of lords. now can you see that happening in the near future. and all this is because of that last part in the carter and it got signed by the crown and the barons (who was in those day the government)

I give up. Why, even when encouraged to do so, are you unable or unwilling to make your points in a clear, concise, and therefore convincing manner? Does it not bother you that although you have a lot to say, you rarely successfully communicate anything at all? You say "go back to 1987 and look at what lord denning said." Where? When? Like most of what you say, it's meaningless.

Stephen J, Fareham i all ready stated it was to the 2 house of government, thats the lords and commons.
here is the simple low down of it all.
a law is only good if it can make it though a test case.
no law that has contravene the magna carter in its 700 plus year history. has made it though a test case.
laws might hang around 100's of years but the moment a test case comes up will show how good that law is, and if it contravenes the magna carter, the case will get a not guilty verdict like it all ways have done, judges will all ways fall back on the older law.
and the magna carter is one of those laws that is set in stone can not be appealed, altered, or change in any way.
king john was not a very bright person. but his scrollers where. it was those guys that put pen to paper, and done it in such away so it could not be changed
king john might off had the barons sword in his back, but he was not going to let them get it all there way.
the magna carter was no rush job, it took 200 days to do those 63 parchments.

southy wrote:
Stephen J, Fareham i all ready stated it was to the 2 house of government, thats the lords and commons. here is the simple low down of it all. a law is only good if it can make it though a test case. no law that has contravene the magna carter in its 700 plus year history. has made it though a test case. laws might hang around 100's of years but the moment a test case comes up will show how good that law is, and if it contravenes the magna carter, the case will get a not guilty verdict like it all ways have done, judges will all ways fall back on the older law. and the magna carter is one of those laws that is set in stone can not be appealed, altered, or change in any way. king john was not a very bright person. but his scrollers where. it was those guys that put pen to paper, and done it in such away so it could not be changed king john might off had the barons sword in his back, but he was not going to let them get it all there way. the magna carter was no rush job, it took 200 days to do those 63 parchments.

If you are arguing that any law that is in contravention of the Magna Carta is liable to be challenged, then you are quite correct. Such legislation could well be regarded as 'bad law', something against which Denning fought vigorously. But you have stated clearly that no part of the Magna Carta has been or ever can be repealed. This is wrong, as legislation such as the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) proves.

Council Officials are not the only persons allowed to snoop on people - the Officials can encourage council tenants to spy on their neighbours so beware of Council run
'Forums' where 'Tenant Heros' are invited to 'Tenant Housing Conferences' to 'discuss' what makes a 'good neighbourhood' and to receive 'Tenant Hero' Awards ! ! Could it be that some of the 'Awards' are given because the 'Hero Tenant' has been snooping on their neighbour. What Council needs powers of entry into one's own private abode when you have 'Hero Tenants' to do it for them. Simples !

I fully agree with Williams846 about the amount of snooping that goes on with this council without even using the much vaunted powers of entry. Such incidents have included appointing neighbours as unofficial rubbish pickers and collectors and allowing neighbours to steal other people's rubbish to put in their attics so that the said rubbish can be disseminated. I think residents of the city would be surprised and dismayed as to what goes on in their name. Councils are no longer there to support the council tax payers; they are there to spy on them.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:
Stephen J, Fareham i all ready stated it was to the 2 house of government, thats the lords and commons. here is the simple low down of it all. a law is only good if it can make it though a test case. no law that has contravene the magna carter in its 700 plus year history. has made it though a test case. laws might hang around 100's of years but the moment a test case comes up will show how good that law is, and if it contravenes the magna carter, the case will get a not guilty verdict like it all ways have done, judges will all ways fall back on the older law. and the magna carter is one of those laws that is set in stone can not be appealed, altered, or change in any way. king john was not a very bright person. but his scrollers where. it was those guys that put pen to paper, and done it in such away so it could not be changed king john might off had the barons sword in his back, but he was not going to let them get it all there way. the magna carter was no rush job, it took 200 days to do those 63 parchments.

If you are arguing that any law that is in contravention of the Magna Carta is liable to be challenged, then you are quite correct. Such legislation could well be regarded as 'bad law', something against which Denning fought vigorously. But you have stated clearly that no part of the Magna Carta has been or ever can be repealed. This is wrong, as legislation such as the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) proves.

no it is right, just that the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) has not had a full blown test case. and theres all way that possibility that it never will
there been law in the pass to change the magna carter, but has all ways when there conflict its all way revert back to the magna carter.
since william of orange was crowned king, it went quiet, laws have been coming out that do contravene the magna carter, but no one had bothered the challenge them. and its only been since the late 1970's and after when some of those laws have been challenge with the magna carter and every time since the late 70's the magna carter has been the law that the judges fell back on, and not the later law.
like i said to do away or even alter the magna carter you will need to do away with the crown and the lords.

remeber that saying, the law is an a s s, its not the law that is, but the government/s that makes laws that is an a s s.

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: Stephen J, Fareham i all ready stated it was to the 2 house of government, thats the lords and commons. here is the simple low down of it all. a law is only good if it can make it though a test case. no law that has contravene the magna carter in its 700 plus year history. has made it though a test case. laws might hang around 100's of years but the moment a test case comes up will show how good that law is, and if it contravenes the magna carter, the case will get a not guilty verdict like it all ways have done, judges will all ways fall back on the older law. and the magna carter is one of those laws that is set in stone can not be appealed, altered, or change in any way. king john was not a very bright person. but his scrollers where. it was those guys that put pen to paper, and done it in such away so it could not be changed king john might off had the barons sword in his back, but he was not going to let them get it all there way. the magna carter was no rush job, it took 200 days to do those 63 parchments.

If you are arguing that any law that is in contravention of the Magna Carta is liable to be challenged, then you are quite correct. Such legislation could well be regarded as 'bad law', something against which Denning fought vigorously. But you have stated clearly that no part of the Magna Carta has been or ever can be repealed. This is wrong, as legislation such as the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) proves.

no it is right, just that the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) has not had a full blown test case. and theres all way that possibility that it never will there been law in the pass to change the magna carter, but has all ways when there conflict its all way revert back to the magna carter. since william of orange was crowned king, it went quiet, laws have been coming out that do contravene the magna carter, but no one had bothered the challenge them. and its only been since the late 1970's and after when some of those laws have been challenge with the magna carter and every time since the late 70's the magna carter has been the law that the judges fell back on, and not the later law. like i said to do away or even alter the magna carter you will need to do away with the crown and the lords.

The problem here is that your point of view is based on the ideological belief that none of the Magna Carta can, under any circumctances, be repealed; mine is based on the historical fact that since 1828, apart from three crucial Clauses, it has been repealed. We therefore have to agree to differ.

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote:

Stephen J wrote:

southy wrote: Stephen J, Fareham i all ready stated it was to the 2 house of government, thats the lords and commons. here is the simple low down of it all. a law is only good if it can make it though a test case. no law that has contravene the magna carter in its 700 plus year history. has made it though a test case. laws might hang around 100's of years but the moment a test case comes up will show how good that law is, and if it contravenes the magna carter, the case will get a not guilty verdict like it all ways have done, judges will all ways fall back on the older law. and the magna carter is one of those laws that is set in stone can not be appealed, altered, or change in any way. king john was not a very bright person. but his scrollers where. it was those guys that put pen to paper, and done it in such away so it could not be changed king john might off had the barons sword in his back, but he was not going to let them get it all there way. the magna carter was no rush job, it took 200 days to do those 63 parchments.

If you are arguing that any law that is in contravention of the Magna Carta is liable to be challenged, then you are quite correct. Such legislation could well be regarded as 'bad law', something against which Denning fought vigorously. But you have stated clearly that no part of the Magna Carta has been or ever can be repealed. This is wrong, as legislation such as the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) proves.

no it is right, just that the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125) has not had a full blown test case. and theres all way that possibility that it never will there been law in the pass to change the magna carter, but has all ways when there conflict its all way revert back to the magna carter. since william of orange was crowned king, it went quiet, laws have been coming out that do contravene the magna carter, but no one had bothered the challenge them. and its only been since the late 1970's and after when some of those laws have been challenge with the magna carter and every time since the late 70's the magna carter has been the law that the judges fell back on, and not the later law. like i said to do away or even alter the magna carter you will need to do away with the crown and the lords.

The problem here is that your point of view is based on the ideological belief that none of the Magna Carta can, under any circumctances, be repealed; mine is based on the historical fact that since 1828, apart from three crucial Clauses, it has been repealed. We therefore have to agree to differ.

no historical fact is every time a law been challenge in court with the last part of the magna carter, judges have fallen on the side of the magna carter every time.
try and find a court case where a judge has over rule the magna carter when that last part of the magna carter has come up. there is none to date.
like i said people could be found guilty for years under some law that contravenes the magna carter. but its not till some one challenge it, with those last parts of the magna carter will any thing be done about it.
and the 1828 repeal acts mainly deal with ireland and also includes what is left of feudal rights whitch are not included in the magna carter 1215 but was added in 1225 ( king henry iii ) and 1297, ( king edward i ) after king john death in 1216

any way have a good evening and i wish you a happy new year.

to me its a very interesting subject and is all ways worth the debate.

The 1828 act to which I refer is the Offences Against the Person Act. This was the first legislation to repeal any part of the Magna Carta. That is historical fact. One problem is that you're conflating 'repeal' with 'contravene'; new legislation may not necessarily contravene what went before, it may consolidate it for example, but it does repeal it. New legislation that contravenes the spirit of the Magna Carta will always be open to challenge, and it's these instances that you rightly highlight. But that is not to say that none of the Magna Carta can be repealed, or indeed has been, as history clearly demonstrates.

I wish you a very Happy New Year, and thanks for the argument!

Southy, for someone who gives the impression of being educated, your command of the English language is appalling