I have just read in the Times about the “Scandal of wasted millions spent on the Olympic Games legacy projects.” I cannot resist referring you to my post of 9 February 2014, The Olympic Outrage, predicting precisely that outcome. Now we learn that taxpayers will be giving £200m towards a football stadium for West Ham (whose own contribution is tiny). It is a conversion of the Olympic stadium. And £140m of tax revenue will go towards Olympicopolis, an arts etc hub. Sounds like noone could think of anything better to do with the space. In the meantime, legal aid has almost vanished, for want of £220m a year, causing distressed broken families to face each other in court without support, delaying proceedings, forcing judges to act as investigators, increasing the strain on the parties, and storing up trouble for years to come. And the next generation of judges will be even less diverse in composition than the present one, because young people who have no private means cannot afford to join the legal profession due to the legal aid cuts.
Sport has a lot to answer for. The 6 week feelgood Olympics project will cost us years of social progress. All this as the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta is about to commence. It said, may I remind you, To no man will we sell, to noone will we deny or delay right or justice.
Happy new year!
Noble baroness, surely this is a “get off our butts and start moving-along better”;
so, simply improve that sort of Magna Carta statement:
“To no one will we sell, nor deny delay or downgrade, need, right and justice.”
Surely, even the ~0.0001 % of the Human Race that health-building-wise benefits from the Olympic Entrenchment, namely the athletes themselves, would consummately benefit from establishing a Common Human Movement Improvement Movement
they too need to have started ‘from the bottom up’
and their main Task-On-Earth needs to be between the 4-yearly Games,
to go about with Somatics-Teachers, Remedialists and Therapists majorly amongst the ‘poorest’ peoples,
to perform the different levels of movement-ability face-to-face with local public neighbourhoods and groups.
and hopefully thereby to emulably-exemplify the next-level that a particular individual or small-group could start achieving.
That’s the sort of ‘fulfilment-improvement’ to such constitutionals as the Magna Carta that we all need to start limbering-up in before “all-in-this-together” working-at.
Please, can anyone in their right mind explain to me why the tax payer should be funding the games of multi millionaires running this bent show? Football is no longer the local boys set up for a get together on the weekend. It is an international global money maker of the USA style. So, what kind of welfare do these financial movers and shakers claim they deserve? Please do tell. I wait with baited breath.
This strange idea we appear to have adopted from the financial sector that money making concerns, run by the wealthy top percentile, are in fact deserving of tax payers benefit, when all it is is a dramatic con begun in concept the years after WW11. Now coming full circle from taking care of the poverty stricken to the funding of big business. The tax payers are being done every which way but up. No money for your sick and infirm no money for you when you can no longer work, but, full pay outs for the loaded who feast off your earnings.
Here is a link passed to me as a new year pressie by a very astute, as well as intellectual, (the two not always going together) Austrian mind. He felt I may have missed it, which I had. It takes an hour and a half or more, but, is riveting and helps this lunatic scenario we are presently living with fall cleverly into place.
Strangely it begins in Japan. Scroll down to the video and broaden your horizons.
http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/12/princes-yen-documentary/
Maude;
those who judge who is in their “right mind” and who not, are their-selves heavily entrenched in constitutional and professional delusion, and also in arrested-development Lifeplace personal-inefficiency:
the psychiatrist “needs” the pay of ten human-beings
{The constitutionally legislated sufficient lifesupport for one human-being is £145 per week:
the psychiatrist must have ten times that.
which is tantamount to constituting one-self to be ten human beings –
a delusion of massively greater proportion than that of the full-time armchair globally-patriotic ‘consumer’ body,
who daily pays ‘Value Added’ Taxes, who supports the local supermarket-economic-growth’s
alcohol-loaded shelves, and who similarly dutifully monitors ‘fair-play’ through his/her TV “games”, “sport”, “movies”, and “adults” screens
And who ‘adultly’ believes s/he is being ‘ripped-off’,’done-down’, ‘owed-a-living’,
and ‘would have been worthier than those billionaires if they hadn’t messed-up and packed him/her off to ‘work and to fight for your country’ to get injured, impaired, or gloriously and heroicly maimed, and thereafter to be forever minority-negatively-profiled and neglected”.
————————–
Maude, thank you, your recommendation to watch the one-and-half-hour financial-history video was well meant; but it fell flat on me after half-an-hour.
I think one might get far better, quicker, and possibly clearer strategic world-financial insights, on a twice-weekly basis, from RT News’s Stacy Herbert and Max in “Keiser Report”.
—————————
My little summary:
In the face of other Corruptions running loose and often wild, through ‘Football’, Olympic Athletics for All, ‘Good Food’, ‘Decent Jobs’, and ‘The Fitness of the Whole World’,
surely all one can both honestly and effectively do, is to share not-for-profit “self-healthing” guidance with each other.
For me, a visit to http://www.lifefresh.co.uk could show a substantial list of good, and better-life-foundational, serious guidances, for the individual to pursue
at first alone, and thereafter possibly progressively and ‘neighbourly’ with likeminded others.
@ Miles JSd:
It’s a pity you left it mid flight as the hot stuff gets hotter the further in you go. Explanations are always long winded because it is covering what they believe is unknown. So, having to sit through what you already know can bring on the need for forty winks. I too cling breathless to Stacy and Max with gratitude.
However, it sums up in the round, just exactly the shaft we are getting from the ECB, IMF, BofE, Federal Reserve, along with our politicians in too tight with big money to care. Along with the rest of it. I found it riveting. But then I always find trawling through conspiracy a mind game of the highest order.
@Miles JSD:
Here’s a link to a BBC2 documentary you should find less taxing. No pun intended. LOL
Enjoy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1
LOL happening, thank you –
as a retreat from the ongoingly cloying Financiallly-stultifying gordian knot
{for which, noble baroness nonetheless thank you}
one better value for money
‘historicly holisticly health supportively’
I recommend getting on top of would be
Peter Dawson RRC 1069.
“All this as the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta is about to commence. ”
Hmm just about the whole MC is broken by law. Legal aid is small beer compared to the joke that passes for the protections of the European arrest warrant.
The plight of our Judiciary is very much in mind at the moment especially as a constitutional crisis unfolds around them caused by the loss of their investment in Parliament and the Judicial Office of Lord Chancellor in the HoL.
Everybody knows that part of the Lord Chancellors role was to oppose any prospective bill that might offend the dignity of the regent and which might cause a refusal of Royal Assent.
The bookies were taking odds of 10:1 Christmas 2014 betting that the Queen would abdicate during her Christmas speech. Hence the high viewing figures on that day. By the side of her was a picture of George V placed there in the context of her speech. But it might just as well have been George IV given that it might be her son Charles that will be left to inherit her failings.
Prior to 2013 if we were to ask our Judges by what right do they dispense justice? They would be bound to say “by the laws handed to us by a sovereign parliament”. If we were then to ask “why do you not change these laws because as primary legislation such laws can never be perfect? They would reply “our regent grants royal assent and assigns perfection to these laws and only parliament can remedy them and then only with the regent’s consent.” Then we ask “so these laws can never be challenged in the courts or be changed by them as statutes because they represent perfection”. “Yes” would come the reply.
In this barrel of perfect legislative apples there now sits a bad one lacking a necessary perfection. What Parliament has achieved and by a super majority is constitutional change that has surrendered its sovereignty to the courts and released the judiciary from the political restrictions of the Acts of Settlement 1701. Our judges must now act politically because the precedent of perfection has been broken by Parliament.
By refusing her perfection to this bad apple the Queen released herself from the political restrictions of the Bill of Rights 1689 and is now free to act politically to use her perfection to political advantage as she sees fit. Parliaments clerks have raised the Jolly Roger and it now sails as a pirate ship giving Protestants the legal right to bear arms against it.
The Prime Minister said “the electorate is his boss”. That all that has happened is because voters made him do it. Well, go to polls next May and return your member of parliament and prove him right. The incoming government must accept that Parliaments Sovereignty is lost and encapsulate this in law. The Monarchy will no longer serve its purpose in Parliament and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties will have their republic.
God help the Queen because nothing now will now save her.
Two quick but pointedly penetrating questions, if I may please:
1. Surely the Monarch constitutionally is the ‘the last defender of The People’ ?
[Australian PM Hawke confessed that “because constitutionally (‘) no act of war can be implemented without the Monarch’s signature(‘) he the PM had erred by ordering military helicopters to fly-over the Pedder Dam demonstrators in Tasmania, because he didn’t first obtain the Queen’s (Governor-Generals’s) signature to use that military force”.
2. Now much more ‘hotly’, since UK Law does not recognise the citizen’s Holistic Health, neither can the UK recognise the citizen’s (need and right to) be building their holistic health, even ‘mutually-cooperatively’;
and since UK Culture and Practice does not recognise and support very many successful advances in Individual Human Development and Holistic Health Building knowledge and practical know-how[*see list],
Parliament as well as the whole Establishment, Civil Service, Local Government, and the ‘Socially-Mobile Career Ladders’ of the UK, is de facto
“hostile to the holistic-health-building of the People [by the people, for the People]”.
—————
A ‘rub’ comes of course:
since a citizen’s health does not exist, surely neither does the citizen her/him-self …
===============
[*] please feel free to print-out a not-for-profit reasonably wide-ranging representative list from http://www.lifefresh.co.uk .
But, Senex, the Monarch is not accountable to the people by way of a vote. Therefore, it is indeed the right move not to have the monarch in a position of total responsibility, as, if they make the wrong decision and the citizens (note not subjects) cannot be rid of the wrong doer, because of the accident of birth, it would inevitably create the need for revolution.
Take it a step forward, why would the Monarch want to be the responsible war monger, when the truth is, he/she cannot withdraw permission should parliament decide war is the way to go anyway? It is juvenile and doesn’t make sense.
In this modern world can an office begot by birth really want to be the scapegoat in such matters? Especially when the fact is, we are ruled by the financial despots of the planet and not really by anyone or anything else. Even the European Union we give so much truck to is pulled by the nose to jump to the tune of the banksters.
And this is the dilemma for the nation, how do we get rid of them? They now being in the seat of Monarch. The untouchables.
Power to request is quite different from power to demand. The famous line in the film Cleopatra who to Mark Anthony, went like this, ‘I asked it of Caesar, I demand it of you.’
Maude, you must remember that our constitution is very old. I agree with you when you say “the Monarch is not accountable to the people by way of a vote”. However, the nobility in Parliament sat by way of suffrage. In this way the regent uncomfortably accommodated democracy.
The Bill of Rights dealt with the shortcomings of the Caroline era but it could not control how the regent dispensed his perfection. This thorny issue has bedevilled us from the beginning. The Judicial Office of Lord Chancellor in the Lords was created to address this.
The Chancellor would not give the regent any reasonable cause to deny the laws of Parliament his perfection and by doing so the Judiciary would be locked out from any right to change primary legislation; what is deemed perfect cannot be changed except by the regents delegated authority in Parliament. This would of course bring the Chancellor at various times into conflict with the political ambition in both houses as well as from regent.
There are very powerful forces working within society that would not hesitate to corrupt our judicial system to buy off our judges especially if they had first bought off the regent.
Now we have a Frankenstein system whereby the Law Lords are technically able to change Primary Legislation in direct competition with Parliament but only when the regent has refused to grant perfection to any Parliamentary law.
Subsequently, our Civil and Criminal Justice systems are now compromised. There must be an inquiry.
Hello Senex, the following link (3 pages) adds a little colour to the recent history of the Lord Chancellor:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/judicial-independence/seminar-note-the-abolition-of-the-lord-chancellor
@ Senex:
~What I feel you are fearing is, somehow, what was once a sure way to believe corruption could not divert the course of justice, as the set up was ‘perfection’ in and of itself, and therefore able to defer such a takeover, no longer exists? ~And because of that anomaly there needs to be investigation by a body of integrity.
However, if what you fear is so, then surely you cannot dwell on detail but must look at the whole picture? If there is a move to undermine the balance needed to assure safe legislation, it cannot be threatened by one individual and as a result, must be a conspiracy. The objective then has to be to confront the full spectrum of that conspiracy and address its motives and beneficiaries.
This brings to mind what Sir Peter Tapsell raised in PMQ’s recently, regarding the concealment of the Chilcot report. Who was holding it back and why? What did they have to gain from so doing? All smells of the same stinking fish to me.
And to add a poke at the lot of them, lets use Nigel Farage’s metaphor of ‘a fifth column’ is at work, or, at play, right in the heart of our Parliament.
Thanks Tiz; sympathy to Baron Irvine of Lairg.
The Supreme Court is now a legislature in its own right operating in parallel with Parliament; one for the people and one for the Queen or regent. Because Parliament has surrendered its sovereignty to this court the offending bill is now the property of that court to amend as primary legislation as it sees fit. But there is another Act of Parliament, which Parliament has surrendered: the Parliament Act 1911. George V never gave his perfection to this bill.
Before any English Parliament ever came into play it was the Judges that provided primary legislation but only as the King approved them. Our system of Justice evolved to iron out the inherent unfairness of this system. The first step down that road was to create Parliament. The constitutional changes surrounding the Lord Chancellor and now in place have taken us back to a time before that very first Parliament.
Those powerful forces operating within society and directly related to Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall have demonstrated once again their pervasive and corrupting ability to weaken the relationship between the Crown, State and people. This government and cabinet stand in resolute support of these forces as does the Queen herself.
“powerful forces……… to weaken the relationship between the Crown, State and people. This government and cabinet stand in resolute support of these forces as does the Queen herself.”
of these powerful forces to weaken?
It all depends on what you mean by “state”. It was certainly the intention to weaken the relationship between Crown and Parliament. Lord Speaker is president of ……parliament, and yet an office with far less executive power than before.
Law Lords are technically able to change Primary Legislation in direct competition with Parliament but ……..
…..wouldn’t
Subsequently, our Civil and Criminal Justice systems are now compromised…..
…..could be, but arent.
There must be an inquiry.
Chair the committee.
“Chair the enquiry” Tried, believe me I tried. Could not get near, there was a queue of Law Lords, Court Judges, and Magistrates.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab) “We are very proud on these Benches that we introduced civil partnerships for gay people some years ago, and that we fully supported the Government last year, in the previous Session, when they decided the time was right to introduce equal marriage for gay people. We did that because we agreed with the Government that marriage is an important institution and that gay people have the right to be treated exactly the same, enjoying the same benefits and facing the same challenges in the society they are equal members of.”
May I suggest you ask QCs Lady Kennedy or Lord Pannick?
Ref: Divorce (Financial Provisions) Bill: 27 Jun 2014: Column 1510
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140627-0002.htm