Monday, 22 May 2017

'Ariana Grande'.

Well I never did! Here we go again. All the familiar features.

Familiar look?

Event foretold?

The following has just been posted on my FB feed. It saves me typing similar but not necessarily identical observations so I will republish it here for what it is worth. 

Of course such is the overwhelming public sentiment evoked by even the suggestion of targeting children with an explosive device, that it is almost impossible to remain calm and objective about what went on. But as now seems to be common-place with these events, only the official narrative is pushed by the media, and this comes direct from 'official' sources, in which we are encouraged to have complete and unquestioning confidence. This is despite a mountain of evidence from past incidents that this may not be justified. 

As usual "an on-going investigation" is used to obscure any fact that needs to be hidden or uninvestigated; the "lone wolf" and "we can't be expected to predict or stop every determined suicide bomber" as the reason it could not be intercepted; inconvenient facts and details are never explained; the inquest process is manipulated to hide possibly incriminating detail on the back of "no need" or "too disturbing for the jury to witness" (we shall have to see if this happens); no criticism is allowed of the agencies that are charged with prevention, despite being at least fully aware of the individuals involved, if not implicated in the events themselves; it all happens amazingly timed to influence international gatherings - in this case not only a NATO summit in Brussels three days later but one at which the USA President Trump attended at the end of his 'Middle East tour', followed by a meeting of the 'G7' on Saturday! 

Unmistakable 'pink' and child theme to event and incident whilst being a "Dangerous Woman" tour.

Yet again (cite France where a State of Emergency still persists) the event is conveniently used to support standing policy objectives: the return of Mrs May in the strangely U-turn General Election; the highest state of terror emergency; troops on the streets, on trains and at public events; the arming (and centralising?) of the police; increased government control of press and Internet; limitations on individual protections; support for more military intervention in Syria.

So whilst fully empathising with the people of Manchester and any and all who have been killed, injured or traumatised by the events there, it is vital that we keep a level and dispassionate approach, for we can be sure that is the distinguishing feature of the psychopaths behind these incidents, whoever they are and wherever they come from. 

That is how "Gayle Fawkes" observations below, should be read. 

Mass expressions of grief and support may be understandable and positive but we should also be very conscious as to how they can be manipulated by those in control to deflect from criticism where it is deserved; to distract from objective analysis; to support otherwise unobtainable policy objectives at home and abroad. 

It was, I believe, a lesson that was not missed in Britain following the outpouring of emotion when Princess Diana was killed in suspicious circumstances. 

'Hard Cop' / 'Soft Cop'?

The very formulaic combination of mass gatherings, marches, prepared slogans, political leader's comments and appearances, to a common script, beds of flowers, services of hope and remembrance, foreign buildings lit in 'solidarity', minutes of silence, the use of pretty girls and iconic images, are far too resonant of the advertising industry for me to be comfortable with it.

Where is the old fashioned British approach, that treated tragedy with a respectful but genuine reserve? And then there is the very obvious contrast between the response to these events and those far more horrific in foreign lands, often caused by western military action, or indeed the daily list of routine deaths on the roads and elsewhere that are not sensationalised by the media.

Leaving aside all these considerations, and ignoring all the numerological (22?) and sociological ("Dangerous Woman" Tour?) features, I have a number of questions that never appear to be addressed let alone answered. And has anyone else noticed the strange coincidence that the attacker carries the same surname as Huma Abedin at the very centre of the Hilary Clinton revelations that effectively cost her the Presidency?

1. How was it possible, given the high state of alert nationally, particularly following Westminster, that anyone, let alone a well-know threat, was able to enter an obvious target? So what specifically was the police presence prior to the event and how was it organised?

2. The alleged suicide bomber Salman Abedi it is alleged, is the son of a MI5/6 Libyan asset, given sanctuary by the UK for his anti-Qaddafi stance, so was well known by the security services. Could this explain why numerous complaints and suspicions regarding Salman were ignored? Worse was MI5 or 6 in the know about the intended attack or even implicated in it? 

Neither in the case of Westminster or Manchester is this far-fetched or irrational. We know for certain they did similar in the case of Northern Ireland and it is heavily suggested in regard to the 7/7 tube and bus bombings, but this is a truth that cannot be told or admitted by the political elite, as they take us ever further down the slippery slope to dictatorial disaster.

3. How was it that an American journal (the New York Times and reprinted in the London Times) the very next day, could confidently publish a plan showing where the bomber and his 22 victims died? If accurate as it purported, as it drew circumstantial conclusions on the basis of it, how was it possible to reconcile it with the video images of people escaping, apparently in panic, through that concourse? Or was that a different one? (See Sky report below.)

4. Why yet again, is there only distant video of emergency vehicles and a hint of an explosion when there must have been actual footage of the bomber in the lobby?

5. Who made the announcements on the public tannoy - he appears to have an American accent - saying there was nothing to worry about and no need to bunch up? Was he informed of the circumstances or not, given the possibility of other attacker and/or devices? And what were the exit routes for the many hundreds evacuated, if the lobby became a disaster area and crime scene?

6. How was it that despite a huge row of ambulances immediately on scene (where did they come from and when were they summoned?) and despite the deployment of an explosive device with all the risks of fire or other devices that this must have entailed, were the Fire Brigade not even activated? 

Apparently it was only after an hour and half had elapsed were any units dispatched to the scene despite being only minutes away. 

This is VERY strange, and the only logical explanation I can come up with is that they were not called because it was known in advance that they would not be needed. It was not part of the plan. 

Of course even if 'ISIS' carried out the attack, it did not and could not control the response. The failure to dispatch fire units to an explosion is so contrary to standard operating procedures, it defies logic and explanation other than that suggested above.

The Sky report is here:

One year before in Manchester - the 'drill'!

I've just read that someone's step son has confirmed on fb the death of his stepmother.
Ive just read that someone's step son has confirmed on fb the death of his stepmother.
What I find strange about the story is this
I've been to the MEN countless times. If the blast was right outside the event arena, how did the mothers die from the blast? Unless you have a wrist band, you can't go beyond a certain point.
Certainly can't go where they say the mother was with out a wrist band. It would mean you can try slip into a show if you're that far. You just couldn't with out that band on.
The #Manchester event follows the exact same patterns as all other false flag attacks, and to illustrate that here's a point-by-point assessment of some of the usual symptoms...
- The perp had a recognizable ID on him (despite supposedly being blown to pieces... just like the magic passports on 9/11, Bataclan, etc...)
- There is no CCTV footage of the blast (pretty odd given how many camera's are at a venue like this)
- Lone wolf perp
- Massive reduction in civil liberties after the event with 5,000 soldiers deployed domestically the day after (a move that was officially planned in July 2015 "Operation Temperer")
- Crisis actors on scene
- A big shout of allegiance against all "terrorists" (thereby gaining national support for continued war in Syria)
- Perp was previously known ("According to NBC News, citing a US intelligence official, members of the bomber's family warned security officials about him in the past, saying that he was “dangerous”.…/everything-know-salman-abedi-…/
- Many conflicting eye witness accounts about the number of explosions (1 or 2), the sound being more like a balloon/gunshot/speaker breaking rather than a bomb. The interviews on BBC have also been conflicting (eg. one person talks about the bomb being in the same room as her despite the fact that she describes being in another part of the arena at the time)
- Killer is dead (nobody to interogate = case closed)
- No videos or photos of bodies from smartphones/camera's/etc, whether at the scene or hospitals etc (feel free to provide photos if I'm mistaken here, as I will humbly admit that I am wrong if there is undeniable evidence to support that).
- Masonic symbolism and numerology ALL OVER the news stories, as I've shown in many posts on my wall in the last 48 hours.
- Symbolic place & time = may 22nd which has 223 days remaining, which is 322 backwards (Skull and Bones). The explosion was allegedly at 10:33pm... masonic 13 and 33.
The key point to note here is this: WHO BENEFITS?
The answer to that is obvious when you consider the fact that the government had officially PLANNED to roll out military personnel in the UK as early July 2015 - see Operation Temperer, and this event gave them the perfect opportunity to do so, thereby stepping up the implementation of the totalitarian state even further.
For those who want to criticize and condemn me, you are free to do so, but please PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your counter-arguments.
I welcome opposing views, but please keep in mind that I base my analysis only in ABSOLUTE FACTS and not hearsay.
If you can provide SPECIFIC and UNDENIABLE evidence and examples to prove that anything I say is wrong then I will very humbly accept that I am wrong. Just show me the evidence, THAT'S ALL I ASK!"
Al Hilli/Mollier Chevaline Killings

Zaid al-Hilli and Saad al-Hilli's car


The brutal killings in 2012, and in particular the trauma and tragedy of two little girls made orphans by it, drew the attention of the whole world. 

I was one of many thousands who were touched and intrigued by the circumstances and sought within the constraints imposed by government agencies and media reports, to study and comment on them. 

What I discovered, and reported, was disconcerting. 

It began with an obvious conflict of evidence that suggested either the French or British authorities - or both! - were engaged in manipulating the truth, or even lying! It was but the first of numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and irregularities that appeared to discredit the reported circumstances and investigation.

Specifically, this first anomaly, related to the French claim, as soon as the event became public, which was within an hour of it taking place, that the initial report came from an English cyclist. This person, it was reported, came upon the scene almost immediately after it had happened and used his mobile phone to raise the alarm. Within days this had been categorically denied by the person concerned - with the apparent approval of the British authorities.

This raised a profound question that could not be explained, even by French incompetence. It was a conflict of evidence of such importance that it raised questions about the reliability of all the other reported facts and indeed this proved to be true. It was only the first of many such!

The French emergency authorities, in common with all other advanced nations,  for obvious reasons, records all telephone calls to the emergency services. Yet that initial call, claimed to be by the Englishman, has never been released. It is highly unlikely that his call could have been confused with the Frenchman who later claimed to be responsible, so it remains a highly suspicious mystery that implicates the French authorities and questions their credibility. Many more followed.

Questions still surround the circumstances of the attack and how it was handled, not least when two days later the crime scene was allowed to be trampled over by an army of press and public before again becoming restricted for further forensic examination! This remember when it was a high-profile international case, headed up by France's top criminal investigation teams!

I do not intend to rehearse the incredible twists and turns, the multiple leads that led nowhere; the theories that had to be false; how evidence was withheld; how certain victims appeared to be protected; how police reports kept changing; how released photographs proved lies were told; how witnesses reports were never explained; how forensic reports were mishandled and countermanded; how the British and French authorities appeared to be following conflicting agendas whilst claiming to be "co-operating". 

How could it be possible with so many witness statements and details of vehicles no one was apprehended? Incredibly it took a year to learn that a leading suspect on a motor bike was actually interviewed at the time by French Government employees who also drove past the scene within minutes of the murders, yet this had to be revealed by a British BBC 'Panorama' team! Nothing much came of it with a totally unconvincing explanation.

This was an event that was almost unprecedented in the way it was handled with not one but two - French and British - large police teams of upwards of a hundred officers. Yet after nearly five years, virtually no progress and the teams virtually disbanded! Is it any wonder that Saad al Hilli's brother, Zaid is demanding a Judicial Review?

In my humble opinion, only one explanation can account for this failure and for the mountain of anomalies: State involvement by secret agencies, involved in the events themselves and what appears to be a subsequent cover-up. Nothing that has happened in France, or indeed many other European locations, since that 2012 event, has done other than confirm some very dark and coordinated 'terrorrist' activity centred on the continuing conflict in the Middle East and long-term CIA/Mossad goals, of which I believe this was just another example.

Even were Zaid al Hilli to succeed in getting his Judge-led inquiry, that no doubt would take years and cost millions, recent experience of such does not bode well for resolution, other than proving that when State interests are involved, regular criminal investigations prove inadequate.

In fact, I rather take the view that the killings had a far wider and deeper significance than what has been admitted officially and something of a water-shed in both the West's (particularly France and Britain's) involvement in Syria and the phenomenon of supposedly "ISIS" terror attacks in European centres of population, beginning in France. 

Whether the al Hilli/Mollier killings were directly connected must remain speculative unless or until one or other of the secret agencies 'spills the beans', so to speak. What we can say with a degree of certainty is that the al Hilli family had deep and long-standing connections to British and American Intelligence, whilst operating at the highest levels of the Iraqi government, up until Sadaam Hussein gained power, largely at the behest of the Americans. 

In this you observe the tensions that have existed between America and Britain over Iraq and what effectively has been a transfer of influence from an old empire to a newer one. Saad's uncle initially blocked Sadaams rise to power and was subsequently tortured by him, from which he never recovered. Saad's father fared only slightly better. Both sought refuge in Britain (not America notice) and were thereby indebted.

It is highly likely that Foreign Office contacts were maintained over the two or three decades that intervened between their flight and the first and second Iraqi wars, when no doubt their intelligence and contacts within the Arab world would have been highly prized. There are also clear indications that at the time of the second war, Saad might have benefited from his assistance in the area of citizenship. The al Hilli family was never an 'ordinary' one, and the fact that it was presented as one by the British Government, lends credence to the suspicion that Saad's fateful trip to France was anything but normal either.

In fact nothing about the French 'holiday' was normal. Saad told no one where he was going. His children were kept out of school on a new term without notice. He took extensive security precautions with his house. His detailed movements en route have never been revealed. He move camp site at least once when he arrived. He was noticed leaving the site frequently and witnessed having an argument with an unidentified male only the night before his death. He took an inexplicable and bizarre route for an inexplicable purpose and there is clear evidence, both forensic and circumstantial, that a meeting took place between him and Mollier in this remote spot.

Yet both British and French sources both wish us to believe that this was an ordinary holiday trip, that Mollier had lost his way and was an accidental victim, and that there was no connection between the two. The treatment of Mollier by the French authorities, with-holding any images interminably and then only issuing old ones and consistently claiming he was not a target, contrary to all the evidence, speaks volumes. Indeed as was subsequently revealed, not only were lies told by the French authorities in respect to where he fell and died, but the seven bullets in him suggest quite the opposite to what was stated. This it might be noted was the sort of treatment commonly meted out to a traitor in fact!

It should be noted the current wave of 'Isis' attacks in France happened in March 2012 when a man on a motor bike (note!) shot dead a religious instructor and three children, following an earlier attack when he shot dead three Arab/black paratroopers. The Chevaline murders took place six months later (1) A little over two years later in January 2015, the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred in Paris followed by many more, all of which appear to include fabricated elements. (2)

But perhaps more significant even in terms of timing were the co-ordinated actions of France and Britain in Libya and Syria. In March 2011 bombing was carried out by these two countries that lasted a further five months. Lord Owen's optimistic but flawed assessment is here. (3) It would be a brave person who held to it today with the country reduced chaos. 

Then just two years after the Libyan fiasco, and one year after Chevaline, Prime Minister Cameron had his plans to bomb Syria thwarted by the House of Commons (4) with Iran also in Western sights. Remember the notorious American/Israeli 'Stuxnet' attack directed at primarily Iran and ruining 1000 centrifuges but later causing widespread computer problems, happened in and around 2010. (5) Saad of course was a computer expert and Mollier was a metallurgist in nuclear related materials, in a firm that had had questionable dealings with Iran. 'Areva' has inherited a long collaborative history in developing Iran's nuclear industry and amazingly Iran has a 10% stake in the State owned company. (6)

So all of this - and much more - makes for a heady and explosive mix. Was Saad al Hilli working, maybe reluctantly, by British Intelligence? Was Mollier a British agent with important information to impart. Were both set up and attacked by a combined American/Israeli/French operation as a clear warning to the British? Or was it, in the immortal words of Monty Python, something completely different? We can only speculate pending Zaid's "Judge-led Inquiry" - if he gets it.

"Time tells" they say. But only if those in the know decide to reveal the truth. That it must be said, looks increasingly unlikely.

See also:







Reposted from Daily Express article here:

"French Alps murders: Find monsters who butchered my brother and his family"

"THE brother of a businessman gunned down with his wife and

 mother-in-law in the French Alps is demanding a British

 judicial review of the long-running case.

Zaid al-Hilli, 58, says that no progress has been made in the five years since the killings, and a High Court judge should be given access to all of the case files in a bid to find the assassin.
His younger brother Saad, 50, his dentist wife Iqbal, 47, and her mother Suhaila al-Allaf, 74, were shot in the head at close range, execution style, while on holiday.
They were murdered in their car, which had stopped in a lay-by off a remote forest road near the village of Chevaline, close to Lake Annecy on September 5, 2012.
Iraqi-born satellite engineer Saad and Iqbal’s young daughters, Zainab and Zeena, miraculously survived the shooting.
Speaking from his home in Surrey, widower Zaid said: “There has been no progress for years so it is time for a review.
“I do not trust the French police or the prosecutor, so I believe the review should be conducted by a High Court judge.
“I would be happy to give evidence to the review and answer any questions put to me.”
His lack of faith in the police came after he was held four years ago on suspicion of conspiracy to murder his brother and family by Surrey police, working with their French counterparts.
Zaid said: “They arrested me and took me to Guildford police station and interviewed me over two days. They were claiming all sorts of rubbish. I said to them, ‘Produce the evidence’.
“It didn’t worry me because I wasn’t hiding anything,” he added.
French cyclist Sylvain Mollier, 45, was also shot dead at the scene of horror and had more bullets in his body than the other victims, suggesting he was the real target of the attack.
“I think the authorities know who was behind it... it was to do with the French cyclist and his affairs,” said Zaid.
"My brother and his family were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"They were tourists. They were not the targets.
“This is why a review is important because it would bring everything out. There is so much information that a judge needs to look and recommend what needs to be done.”
He claimed the murder scene was not properly protected for a long period of time, and that valuable forensic evidence was lost, making the investigation harder.
“They only kept the crime scene sealed off for a few days, when I have been told it should have been sealed off for three weeks,” said Zaid.
DNA traces are said to have been found inside the family’s BMW estate car and on a bumper after further forensic tests were ordered in 2015, three years after the killings.
The traces were run through police data bases across Europe but no matches were made.
One line of inquiry for French police was that the al-Hillis were unlucky enough to have crossed the path of a lone psychopath as he launched an unprovoked attack on the cyclist.
French police have also examined a theory that there was a dispute between the al-Hilli brothers over an inheritance, a theory Zaid claims has no basis in fact.
Although the brothers had rowed about Saad’s £1million property in Claygate, Surrey, the dispute was not a major issue, he insists."

Sunday, 21 May 2017

Moves to make criticism of Israel "anti-Semitism".


The UK government’s new ‘anti-semitism’ definition conflates racism with valid criticism of Israel

We must be free to critisise evil acts by humans whoever they are, wherever they are. Nations, organisations and individuals must be subject to the same principle. Nor can religious groups be excluded. To do so makes all complicit in their evil acts. (1)

Now it is a given that Israel wishes to be considered a JEWISH state and most of its violent and immoral acts are carried out by Jews, therefore it is hard to distinguish between the two.

There have been notable Jews that have taken a brave and principled stand against the mistreatment of (mainly) Palestinians but by and large the Jewish hinterland has been silent. (2) Until it raises it voice against the villainy that is fascist Zionism and all it has entailed, how are we to distinguish between the two?

Jews are powerful and influential in world affairs, and sadly America has sold its soul to them. Britain may be less so, but being tied to America, has shamefully agreed to turn a blind eye to grievous breaches of human rights and basic natural law that still continues to this day.

Any attempt to prevent free speech that involves highlighting these things is as good as agreeing to them, and if so, it cannot be long before we see our own government employ the same methods. Sorry, but this is already apparent! (3)

Remember this famous saying by William Drummond: "He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave."


1. See :

2. In this category perhaps we should mention:

British politician, the late Sir Gerald Kaufman. See: and

Miko Peled. and

Norman Finkelstein. See: and


Monday, 15 May 2017

Shaftesbury's 1675 Warning More Relevant than Ever!

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave." - William Drummond.

All around the world, those who are in positions of authority, use the tremendous power of the State to control the thoughts and actions within it. This can and does include incarceration, torture and death - either legitimate or assassination - besides a plethora of other available manipulators and sanctions. I am informed by Clive Stafford Smith, the founder of "Reprieve" that somewhere in the world a person is officially executed every FOUR HOURS! 

Of course this fails to even consider the gay abandon with which countries dispense death, injury and destruction by military means, and hold it up in the public imagination as some sort of 'good'! 

In reality, the only thing that protects - or fails to protect - the individual in such situations, is sound, fair and humanitarian law, and a respect for it in the corridors of power, however inconvenient that may be. 

Human nature is such that there will always be those who want greater power to do as they please with other human beings and prepared to fabricate the circumstances to have their wicked way. So we all have a duty to be alert to the machinations of government designed to curtail the real and natural freedoms we possess, and to resist them with every legal means at our disposal. 

It is a mistake to consider this a once-for-all thing. It is an on-going and continuous process to assert the rights and freedoms of the individual, versus the over-weaning power of individuals, institutions or government. It requires citizens to be informed and politically active.

The protections that we enjoy - such as they are - are under threat here in Britain as they are around the world. They have been dearly won by remonstrance and hard work over hundreds of years, as this article attempts to illustrate. They should not be abandoned lightly or carelessly. In fact we need to see public figures strenuously and energetically defending and promoting them - what I think has recently been called in another context, "unexpected push-back".

In 1675 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, made a celebrated speech to the House of Lords during the debate on the case of Shirley v. Fagg, a jurisdictional dispute about whether the House of Lords could hear appeals from lower courts when the case involved members of the House of Commons. He used the opportunity to press home some Constitutional principles, that still have pertinence today. (1)

It had already been outlined in a popular pamplet of 15,000 words entitled "A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country." It is still not clear to what extent his secretary, John Locke contributed, or even authored it completely. It certainly fits the outlook and style of his later writings on the constitution published anonymously in 1689. Indeed the "friend in the country" might well have been Locke himself, utilized as a literary device.  

He rejected any attempt to limit the judicial power of the House of Lords, in modern parlance as 'the thin end of the wedge' or perhaps 'the start of a slippery slope'. In either case he argued that if successful, the rights of the common man would be equally damaged, because it would allow autocratic rule: rule by force rather than law.

Shaftesbury argued that every king could only rule either through the nobility or through a standing army; thus, this attempt to restrict the power of the nobility was part of a plot to rule the country through military might and force of arms.

He challenged the fact that the Bishops were attempting to establish the principle of the 'Divine Right of Kings' - that they obtained their authority from God not law, and could not be opposed - that had been central to the bloody Civil War only thirty years previous. 

Divine Right of Kings and Royal Succession by Arianna Tsikitas on Prezi

If this were the case he argued, "our Magna Charta is of no force, our Laws are but Rules amongst our selves during the Kings pleasure" and "All the Properties and Liberties of the People, are to give away, not onely to the interest, but the will and pleasure of the Crown."

Parts of the speech ring like a clarion call to our present age and situation where we have witnessed the House of Lords being filled with placemen and placed under direct threat to accede to Government demands. Could this have ever been better demonstrated by the unprecedented and ominous presence of the Prime Minister at one recent sitting? (See image at top) (2)

Then there have been political tampering with the unelected membership to one of political nomination - demolition with no clear plan for an alternative. The historic role and functions of the Lord Chancellor have been split and changed so that the holder no longer even requires a law degree to fill it, with the holder held in contempt by all. (5) Of course it is only a small step to holding the law itself in contempt.

The Lord Chancellor with Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice to her right and left.,1511,67,106&resize=600

Then the House of Lords has been stripped of its ultimate judicial appeal function which has been transferred to a new 'Supreme Court", obviously more expensive by far, with a hint of artificiality and the synthetic about it. But note even it had to complain recently that the 'Lord Chancellor' failed to support it. Note the slippery slope?

So we return to Lord Shaftesbury's thesis which is being borne out by current events, even to the extent of as the law is being undermined so we see the appearance of plans to put soldiers on the streets,(3) the arming of the police (4) and the increasingly casual use of tasers and guns, often with fatal results, in preference to arrest. Nor is his telling phrase, "If you grow useless, you will quickly grow burdensome." Having emasculated its functions and compromised its independence, many use this as an argument for its abolition and only one house of legislature.

The Supreme Court

"My Lords, to these give me leave in the first place to say, that this Matter is no less than Your whole Judicature, and Your Judicature is the life and soul of the Dignity of the Peerage of England, you will quickly grow burdensome, if you grow useless, you have now the greatest and most useful end of Parliament principally in you, which is not to make new Laws but to redress Grievances, and to Maintain the Old Land-Marks. The House of Commons’ Business is to complain, Your Lordships’ to redress, not only the Complaints from them that are the Eyes of the Nation, but all other particular persons that address to You. 


A Land may Groan under a Multitude of Laws I believe Ours does, and when Laws grow so multiplied, they prove oftener Snares, than Directions and Security to the People. I look upon it as the ignorance and weakness of the latter Age, if not worse, the effect of the Designes of ill men; that it is grown a general opinion, that where there is not a particular direction in some Act of Parliament the Law is defective, as if the Common Law had not provided much better, Shorter, and Plainer for the Peace and Quiet of the Nation than intricate, long, and perplexed Statutes do: which has made Work for the Lawyers, given power to the Judges, lessened Your Lordships’ Power, and in a good measure unhinged the security of the People." 

Does that ring any bells today?

What we face is a sort resurgence of the antique concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" - or variation of it, except we have to replace the theological with the practical, and the 'King' with 'State'. Power has become concentrated no longer in the Sovereign but in political place holders, or even more sinisterly, those nameless and faceless people and institutions that actually dictate and control events - what Queen Elizabeth herself (if the source can be believed) referred to as, powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” (7) 

In other words a bureaucratic totalitarianism against which the law and its institutions are so enfeebled as to provide no bulwark against the despotism of private power and interest. This is a long game, but there are unmistakable signs that someone is playing it. As Lord Shaftesbury said in 1675 (again) 

"In a word, if this Doctrine be true, our Magna Charta is of no force, our Laws are but Rules amongst ourselves during the King’s pleasure. 

Monarchy, if of Divine Right, cannot be bounded or limited by human Laws, nay, what’s more, cannot bind itself; and All our Claims of right by the Law, or Constitution of the Government, All the Jurisdiction and Priviledge of this House, All the Rights and Priviledges of the House of Commons, All the Properties and Liberties of the People, are to give way, not only to the interest, but the will and pleasure of the Crown. 

And the best and worthiest of Men, holding this principle, must Vote to deliver up all we have, not only when reason of State, and the separate Interest of the Crown require it, but when the will and pleasure of the King is known, would have it so. For that must be, to a man of that principle, the only rule and measure of Right and Justice. 

Therefore, my Lords, you see how necessary it is, that our Principles be known, and how fatal to us all it is, that this Principle should be suffered to spread any further." There is a need to restate the constitutional fundementals of this country if we are to be spared the very real dangers.

"The King governing and administering Justice by His House of Lords, and advising with both His Houses of Parliament in all important matters, is the Government I own, am born under, and am obliged to. 

If ever there should happen in future ages (which God forbid) a King governing by an Army, without His Parliament, ’tis a Government I own not, am not obliged to, nor was born under. 

According to this Principle, every honest man that holds it, must endeavour equally to preserve the frame of the Government, in all the parts of it, and cannot satisfie his Conscience to give up the Lords House for the Service of the Crown, or to take away the just rights and priviledges of the House of Commons to please the Lords."

There are those that believe we are passing through hazardous times. The Sovereign and Consort must, if natural laws apply, must be reaching the end of their tenure and this will involve instability as has been envisaged theatrically, recently transferred to television and a much wider audience. (6) 'BREXIT' that will dominate the political agenda for the foreseeable future, offers both opportunities and risks. We are passing through so called 'terrorist and propaganda events' that shout fraudulence to secure the sort of changes referred to above. Any weakening of institutions and laws that enshrine the historic freedoms and rights, for which this country has been justly proud, requires the greatest suspicion and opposition.

Only thirteen years after he made the speech, after great political upheaval, referred to as "the Glorious Revolution", the relationship between Sovereign and Parliament was codified and agreed in accordance with Shaftesbury's objectives, although he didn't survive to see it. In 1682 he had to flee the country but immediately fell ill and died only a few months later in Amsterdam. His efforts, with the largely secret support of his amanuensis, the philosopher John Locke, had lasting effect, that we should cherish and protect. 

I believe that despite the passage of over three hundred years and a transformed technological and sociological environment, he would recognise many of the same political dangers and the need to resist them.

The full speech is here: