British Rebelion

A new movements, recently come to my attention over here in the UK, which I find very interesting.

This movement is claiming under the 1215 edition of the Magna Carta article 61, that they have the right to enter into a state of lawful rebellion.

www.infowarriors.co.uk...#/lawful-rebellion/4539771528

against queen and country, so to speak until such time a just government is installed.

I've researched it a bit and there seem to be some basic conditions.

. you can't initiate violence against the government

. you are still bound by a basic code of law (no killing, no stealing etc)

but beyond that you are outside the law.

Seems like there are a few test cases going through the courts at the moment.
I hope so badly they win, if people start to notice this there could be BIG changes.

reply to post by monkofmimir

I did a little checking on Magna Carta.

Article 61 is about allowing the barons to elect twenty-five of their number as a committee.

On the face of it, this looks like a personal issue concerning King John himself and the other barons at the 1215 meeting.

However, if anyone tries to operate it today, they would surely need to gather together the barons of the country (i.e. the hereditary peers) and get them to elect a committee of twenty-five. That's what the article says.

Apart from that, I've also discovered that most of Magna Carta, including this clause, has already been repealed, by law, at various stages, between 1829 and 1969.
Perhaps the promoters of this idea should have done more research.






[edit on 27-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by monkofmimir


article 61

Since, moreover, we have conceded all the above things (from reverence) for God, for the reform of our kingdom and the better quieting of the discord that has sprung up between us and our barons, and since we wish these things to flourish unimpaired and unshaken for ever, we constitute and concede to them the following guarantee:- namely, that the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who with all their might are to observe, maintain and secure the observance of the peace and rights which we have conceded and confirmed to them by this present charter of ours; in this manner, that if we or our chief Justiciar or our bailiffs or any of our servants in any way do wrong to anyone, or transgress any of the articles of peace or security, and the wrong doing has been demonstrated to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, those four barons shall come to us or our chief Justiciar, (if we are out of the kingdom), and laying before us the grievance, shall ask that we will have it redressed without delay. And if we, or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom) do not redress the grievance within forty days of the time when it was brought to the notice of us or our chief Justiciar (should we be out of the kingdom), the aforesaid four barons shall refer the case to the rest of the twenty-five barons and those twenty-five barons with the whole community of the land shall distrain and distress us in every way they can, namely by taking of castles, estates and possessions, and in such other ways as they can, excepting (attack on) our person and those of our queen and of our children until, in their judgment, satisfaction has been secured; and when satisfaction has been secured let them behave towards us as they did before. And let anyone in the country who wishes to do so take an oath to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons in the execution of all the aforesaid matters and with them to oppress us to the best of his ability, and we publicly and freely give permission for the taking the oath to anyone who wishes to take it, and we will never prohibit anyone from taking it.

Just for clarification.

edit to add:
There has to be a notice of forty days before the lawfull rebelion is started.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by zaiger]

Even if it doesn't work at least it shows how unhappy people are with things.

reply to post by monkofmimir


Unhappy with what things? And how would this "work"?

reply to post by zaiger


Sorry I was a little vague there my bad.

I think it shows peoples general discontent and disillusionment with the current status quo.

Even if this has no legal stand point, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a continued attempt to rally behind it.

Its a small first step but its still a first step in the British actually trying to deny a government that until recently has become increasingly authoritarian (the government may go the other way with lib-dem but its to early to tell for sure.)

reply to post by monkofmimir

I think it shows peoples general discontent and disillusionment with the current status quo.

Please explain to me how the people get the government to change the status quo. When it is the people that create it. Im sorry the idea of a large group of people asking someone else to change the status quo seems retarded to me, as it is just giving more responsiblility to the government and lessening the responsibility of the people.
Maybe you should define what you mean by the status quo.

reply to post by zaiger


By status quo I am directly referring to the government and its impact on the country.

people will argue on the finer points of what parts of its influence have a negative effect,
But it cannot be denied that there are several government trends and actions, that are unpopular but largely uncontested beyond moaning and fringe parties. Examples could include health and safety or Europe.

I goes deeper than that though to old issue that have never been fully addressed such as the first past the post voting system, or the Iraq war could be included

I agree with you, “the people” in the sense of the “Silent Majority” won't change the system, there probably isn't some hypothetical situation where you could have the country act with perfect unity and set us free.
My beliefs I am glad to say aren't that nieve but you don't need everyone, you just need enough that are willing to act.

“history isn't decided by passive majorities, its decided by angry minorities”

As to the method, your right asking politely and crossing your fingers and hoping is dumb.
You seem to have forgotten though that, that isn't the only method of instigating change, there are a multitude of ways everything from Ghandi's peaceful Jihad to bloody civil war or even political lobby groups.

As far as i am concerned the english people could not give a feck, so why should they be wanting freedoms, when they love people being tortured.

reply to post by monkofmimir


I think you and many others are missing the point that in order for there to be change there has to be something definable to change. Nobody has ever accomplished anything by just making broad claims about "bad things". Just sounds like a bunch of psuedo-revolution rhetorical crap desgined to get a bunh of "free thinkers" to join a cause that has nothing to offer besides the ability to get dumb people inspired via lame speaches.

reply to post by zaiger


heh

Well put I'll give you that.

We are a lot of rebels with out causes... no not without exactly, we feel there's something deeply wrong, we know there's something deeply wrong but ask a hundred people what and you'll get a hundred different answers.

Until we can define, what exactly is wrong and know how to change it were just repeating the same mistakes as we always have...

Thank you for challenging my beliefs, its refreshing.

reply to post by zaiger


You are so right, a large group of people asking the govt to make changes is retarded. This is why the UK is in such a state, we all have "Stockholm syndrome" its all become clear to me now.
We should all band together and change the status quo. Not by an armed revolution, or criminality but by assembling together like tetrominoes outside westminster and forming a large wall of non-retardness.....

They just need to address each issue one at a time, it is not that hard. The civil rights movement was formed under the idea of civil rights. The civil rights movement was not started over "lets change something".

reply to post by andy1033


Yes, Brits tend to love watching people being tortured...

Just for a heads up - I am British and i must say, i don't enjoy it, nor have a witnessed such things.

OP - I will be on the rampage if our very poor Government decides to ban England tops in pubs during the World Cup, its word on the radio stations at the moment. They believe people from different countries will find it intimidating/offensive for us to proudly wear our colours in crowded areas in big groups.

Oh well, 2 years left i guess untill "something" happens to us, supposidely.

Sorry for bad grammar/spelling, in a rush.

Cheers.