The Rules We Live By

I publish above a slide from Dr Martin’s lecture that shows a deeply shocking admission of profit-driven conspiracy that dates from 2016. While as citizens we could not be expected to know this, for the public health authorities it is an entirely different matter.

I post here an excellent piece that I received today as an email from The Good Law Project’s Jolyon Maugham, whose teams’s constant harrying of the Johnson regime in the courts has been a lot more successful than many others, by reason of his laser focus on the corrupt procurement practices by which the parasites have been looting the public purse.

His point about written constitutions is an interesting one. My comment is that the offences of murder and manslaughter and grievous bodily harm are being committed on a daily basis and should already be prosecutable in the UK and elsewhere. What is required, I believe, in the absence of official unwillingness to further a prosecution, is for there to be a thorough preparation of so-called “private” prosecutions In relation to specific cases, both in England and Wales and in Scotland, such that the DPP is not able to withhold consent for the matter to proceed.

And what is also required is for all of us, everywhere to see the reality of the crimes being committed and to name them fearlessly and with iron intent.

For prosecutions to happen just now in UK it would be necessary to establish in each case a firm link of intent and action between minister and victim. We know, for example only, that the government were advised by a detailed DoH report on April 8th 2020 that to close the NHS to elective procedures and consultations for non-flu patients would likely result in 170,000 deaths over 6 months; they went ahead anyway. Of the actual real world figure of about 60,000 for the rest of 2020 there will have been many, no doubt, who would have lived otherwise long lives, and it is among these we shall find sufficiently likely victims of unlawful killing for a full investigation to determine whether that government decision made deaths reasonably forseeable and whether it was on the basis of the government’s wilful refusal to accept expert advice except from people with direct commencial interests in the injectates being proposed and from Mr Gates and his organisation, whose appalling record in Africa and India they could and should have known.

I published Dr David Martin’s superb pungent analysis of the US situation a couple of days ago. As he demonstrates, the US has already got laws that were enacted to deal with Al Capone and his chums which are perfectly applicable to Dr Fauci and his cohorts in the FIA the CDC and the pharmas.

And possibly the greatest legacy of the Founding Fathers of the United States in the constitution was the affirmation that it is the people who are sovereign, a reality they underwrote with the 2nd Amendment – the right for the citizen to bear arms. One does not need to be a backwoods dreamer to truly understand the significance of that – a significance that is becoming more obvious by the day.

As Jolyon Maugham avers, the world our unwritten constitution was built for no longer exists. The choice now is whether to ditch the idea of integrity as the foundation of the social contract or to accept the world of alternative truth that is on the march. God Bless the American Founding Fathers, for they may well be the fatal nail in the hoof of that dark horseman Mr Global.

“The UK may be the only democracy in the world without a written constitution – a ‘higher’ law or code to which all others must conform.

By Jolyon Maugham, of the Good Law Project

Until now, we haven’t seen the need for binding rules. We’ve relied on self-restraint. We’ve trusted politicians to behave themselves. We’ve assumed that only ‘good chaps’ – as Lord Hennessy memorably put it – will rise to high office. And those good chaps won’t need to be told how to behave. Being good chaps, they will know what the rules are and they will obey them.

But what happens if the people running the show aren’t good chaps?

What you get is what we have. Bullying of regulators. Stacking of boards. Challenges to the independence of the media. Criminalising civil protest. Restricting the right to vote. Attacking the independence of MPs. Challenging the judiciary, curtailing its powers and reversing its decisions. Abandoning the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There are well-sourced rumours of political interference in operational policing decisions. And, let us not forget, we have a Prime Minister who unlawfully suspended Parliament.

All of this is before we start on the tidal wave of sleaze engulfing the Government: VIP lanes for the politically connected; vast payments to politically connected middle-men; procurement fraud going uninvestigated; failures to declare conflicts of interest by MPs; and the misleading of Parliament by the Prime Minister.

Sitting above all of this is a set of problems, arising not so much from how some politicians behave but from how the world now is. Our politics feels more divided. We seem to have less in common, and the idea we all want the same things for the country feels less secure.

The truth is, the world our rules were made for no longer exists.

What does this mean for the idea that Parliament is supreme – has absolute power? Is this conception of democracy consistent with a first-past-the-post system that can, and often does, give unconstrained power to a Government with a minority of the popular vote? And if MPs are coerced into voting with the Government, who gets to play the constitutional trump card of Parliamentary supremacy? MPs accountable to voters, or the Executive?

At the heart of all of this is a simple truth: you don’t need a constitution to protect you against good chaps because they’re good chaps, and a constitution that can’t protect you against bad chaps is no constitution at all.

Meanwhile, what remains withers and weakens. What is left is less and less able to command public confidence. Trust in politics – and ultimately in democracy – is the victim.

A responsible Government would respond with a process for a new British Bill of Rights. A smart Opposition would demand one.

Thank you,”

Jo Maugham – Good Law Project