|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At a recent Heritage Party conference, Graham Moore explained the English Bill of Rights and its importance within the English constitution.
The English Bill of Rights, also known as the Bill of Rights 1689, is a foundational document of the English constitution. Signed into law by William III and Mary II in 1689, it outlines specific constitutional and civil rights.
The English Bill of Rights has had a lasting impact on British constitutional law and has influenced the development of similar documents, such as the United States Bill of Rights. It remains an important part of the UK Parliament’s archives, with the original manuscript still in custody since its creation.
The Bill of Rights specifically relates to the English. “Britain is an island. We share this island. It’s called Great Britain for a reason; it contains three nation states that are independent of each other. The Acts of Union created a political union. Political unions are a stepping stone to the new world order. It started a long long long time ago,” he said.
On the other hand, the Acts of Union are treaties between the ruling classes of England, Scotland and Ireland. To take back rights and achieve real solutions, it is necessary to void the Acts of Union.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Graham Moore, chairman of the English Constitution Society, spoke about the importance and power of the English constitution at the Heritage Party Conference held on 28 September in Reading. You can watch his speech below, or begin by reading our summary of his speech, with timestamps, which follow. Or you can use our summary to navigate through it, as you choose.
Moore is an English constitutionalist. As well as posting articles on the English Constitution Society’s website, Moore posts articles and videos on his website ‘The Full English Show’ under the pseudonym Daddy Dragon.
If the video above is removed from YouTube you can watch it on Rumble HERE. The following is a summary of Moore’s speech. The numbers in the [square brackets] at the end of the paragraphs are the respective (approximate) timestamps in the video where Moore discussed the topic. We have taken the liberty of adding links to sources and some comments of our own in [square brackets].
The Acts of Union and its Legal Nature
The Acts of Union were put in place, with the Scots asking to join England after bankrupting themselves in South America, specifically in the Darian Gap, where the indigenous population fought back against Scottish colonisation in the late 1600s [01:08].
The Acts of Union, consisting of two separate acts in 1706 and 1707, were a treaty and not a law, despite being enrolled into the House of Commons or Parliament [02:00].
The Law of Treaties states that a treaty is sovereign to sovereign, not sovereign to subject, and the Acts of Union were between the ruling classes of Scotland and England [02:21].
Legal Systems in England and Scotland
The English common law jurisdiction was brought into England in 1536 [02:44].
Scotland has a separate jurisdiction called Roman law, which differs from English common law. The English system is based on the idea that everything is allowed unless forbidden, while Roman law is the opposite. Roman law lists everything that is allowed and anything not on the list is prohibited [02:57].
The English Constitution and the Concept of a “Dog King”
The English system historically allowed for the election of kings and social mobility but this has been lost. Moore refers to the current system as a “dog king” where the king no longer represents the people [03:58].
The English constitution is based on the separation of powers, which is crucial for people to understand, and some, like David Starkey, have misunderstood this concept [04:30].
“David Starky got it completely wrong,” Moore said. “That’s because he’s not a legal historian he’s just a historian. He talks about kings and queens and going back a thousand years. I’m not looking at that. I’ll look at the law the constitution and what is written.”
Related: Starkey ‘filled with horror’ at guide to constitution, The Telegraph, 23 July 2006 and 800 years of democracy is unravelling before our very eyes: Distinguished historian DAVID STARKEY on how our self-satisfied politicians have launched a coup over Brexit, Daily Mail, 17 March 2019
The English Bill of Rights and its Significance
The English Bill of Rights is part of the English constitution, which exists despite claims that the UK does not have a written constitution [04:54].
[Note: It is commonly stated that the UK does not have a single, codified written constitution. Instead, its constitution is comprised of various written and unwritten sources. This is not the claim that Moore is disputing; he acknowledges the English Bill of Rights is only part of the English constitution. As always, the devil is in the details.]
The English Bill of Rights was passed in 1689, and it contains inalienable rights that were also given to Scotland through the Claim of Right. “because they asked for it,” Moore said [05:19].
[The Claim of Right was passed by the Convention of the Estates, a precursor to the Parliament of Scotland, in April 1689. It affirmed the supremacy of Scottish laws and customs, rejecting the notion that the English monarch had absolute authority over Scotland.]
The Prince of Orange landed in Brixham, Devon, on 5 November 1688, with a 3,000-man army, including English exiles, to take the country back from the tyrannous King [05:59].
The 5 November is an important date to us, not because of Guy Fawkes attempting to blow up the Houses of Parliament, it’s an important date “because that’s when the [William III] Prince of Orange landed in Brixham in Devon with a 3,000 man army,” Moore said.
The Declaration of Rights (written into the English Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Reasons (a declaration in September 1688 by the Prince of Orange to justify his invasion of England and the overthrow of King James II) are still enrolled in the Houses of Parliament, as they were the original contract between the subjects of England and the Crown [06:20].
The Crown took two oaths: the Coronation Oath and the Accession Oath, and breaching these oaths is a serious offense akin to treason [06:35].
Historically, kings who breached their oaths apologised to the people and perjury of an oath was punishable by severe penalties, including death [06:52].
The English Bill of Rights declares several rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which cannot be repealed according to Section 2 of the document [08:02].
“The right to keep and bear arms is still your right today,” Moore said. “It cannot be repealed.” This is because the English Bill of Rights states that its provisions cannot be repealed, using phrases such as “forever” and “in all time to come” [08:22].
Further reading: English vs British, English Constitution Society
The English Bill of Rights and its Disregard
The Judiciary and Parliament ignore the English Bill of Rights, with Parliament claiming sovereignty despite being limited by the constitution [08:49].
The people are sovereign, and members of Parliament should be constitutionalists, recognising the limitations of their power imposed by the constitution [09:07].
The English constitution is not taught in bar exams, resulting in judges being unaware of constitutional rights and common law, with this information being removed from the curriculum in the early 1970s [09:32].
“I am a constitutionalist,” Moore emphasised. “Parliament is limited by the constitution, that is factual. They never teach you that in school. And you know when they removed it? Do you know when they removed it from school curriculums? Do you know when they removed it from the bar exams so judges don’t know what your constitution is? … They took it out of the curriculum in the early 1970s” [9:14].
He continued: “Anyone here guess why they did that? The European Community Act (1972) was unlawful, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires. And the reason they removed it is because they knew it affected every one of your sovereignties. There was an argument with Ted Heath and he literally stopped everyone [from] understanding exactly what the constitution meant. They kept their mouth shut. They committed treason. To subvert the English constitution is to commit treason against the English” [9:28].
“I am an Englishman,” he said. “When I talk of my country I talk of England. Britain is an island. We share this island. It’s called Great Britain for a reason; it contains three nation states that are independent of each other. The Acts of Union created a political union. Political unions are a stepping stone to the new world order. It started a long long long time ago” [10:26].
[Note: The Acts of Union refer to two Acts of Parliament passed in 1706 and 1707, which merged the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, and then later, in 1801, Ireland, into a single Kingdom of Great Britain.]
The Act of Settlement and its Importance
The 1701 Act of Settlement, specifically Chapter 4, states that the laws of England are the birthright of the people, and it is their job to pass on the eternal flame of freedom to the next generation [11:02].
The Act of Settlement is a crucial constitutional document that outlines the hierarchy of the King and peers, and what they can and cannot do, but parts of it have been repealed, which they shouldn’t have done. [11:52].
Three Whips in Parliament and the Role of Members of Parliament
A three-line whip, or three whip, in Parliament is considered unlawful and is a coded system. A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party’s position with serious consequences for non-compliance. Members of Parliament are supposed to represent their constituents, not the King, Lords or a political party [12:03].
Many politicians, including Nigel Farage, are unaware of the constitution and the history of America, including the story of Benedict Arnold who betrayed George Washington and so became a traitor. Arnold is an example of treason [12:54].
“Everyone turned their backs on [Arnold]; the Americans turned their back, the Canadians turned their back because they knew what treason meant. Treason is when you betray your nation,” Moore said. “We should never betray this nation.”
The End of Slavery in England
The English stopped slavery, not the British, and this is an example of how people have been misled about their history [14:11].
Ancestors of the English people were taken as slaves, with examples including the “stolen village of Baltimore” in southern Ireland, where the entire village was enslaved, and the taking of Irish and English people to slavers in America, a fact not commonly taught in history [14:22].
The English defeated slavery through cases such as Somerset vs Steuart in 1772, where a barrister stated that no one could be a slave and breathe the air of England, as it was too pure for any slave to breathe free [15:07].
Following this case, black people came to England to be free and were looked after by white people, with many flocking to St George’s Square in London [15:42].
Modern Betrayal and Misinformation
The English people are now being betrayed by those who have been convinced that the system is about English racism, when in fact the racism comes from the British Empire [16:07].
The same people who told the public that the covid injections were “safe and effective” are also telling them that they do not have a constitution and that they are British, not English [16:27].
Legal Cases Against King Charles III and Police Officers
A group of people, including Moore, are taking King Charles III and four police officers to court under universal jurisdiction and have already been through the process [17:19].
The English stopped torturing people in 1640 and previously used to rendition Englishmen to be tortured in Scotland until 1708 [17:33].
A new law, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 134, allows for the prosecution of torture, and a case is being brought against King Charles III for torture in Texas [17:51].
The police are being brought to court for torturing people on the streets of London, with one member, 23 years old, being completely passive when attacked by police officers [18:21].
[Note: Moore published a video update shortly after his speech at the Heritage Party Conference. You can watch his update on Rumble HERE.]
Cases of Torture and Universal Jurisdiction
The Royal Dutch Shell company was involved in a case where they ordered the torture and murder of 11 Nigerian eco-warriors who were trying to protect their village, and the family of the victims tried to bring the case to the High Court of England but was rejected, and they eventually got a massive out-of-court settlement in New York under universal jurisdiction [18:51].
The problem lies in the British system, which is part of the new world order that needs a way of controlling nation states, and this is achieved by creating a union that sits above the nation and is controlled by foreigners [19:46].
The English Bill of Rights and other documents prevent independent interference with a nation, so a union is created to control the nation from above, as seen in the cases of the USSR, the European Union and the United States of America [20:08].
The American Revolution and its True Nature
The battles in America were about a confederacy versus a Roman federal centralised system, and it was not about slavery but about control [20:40].
The Texans adopted the English common law and the English constitution as part of their state constitution in 1836, making them more English than the English, and this is why cases can be brought to Texas [21:13].
The Peterloo Massacre and the Fight for Voting Rights
The British attacked unarmed men, women and children at Peterloo in 1819, killing 19 people, and this event led to the working class demanding the right to vote [21:39].
The British repealed parts of the English Bill of Rights unlawfully and buried it in legislation without informing the public, taking away people’s rights bit by bit [22:18].
To take back rights and achieve real solutions, it is necessary to void the Acts of Union and the Balfour Declaration, which would have no authority, and to have constitutionalists who are knowledgeable about the law [22:35].
The Distinction Between English and British Identity and the Erosion of National Identities
Moore emphasised the distinction between being English and being British, with Moore identifying as English first and stating that the British brought in two Acts of Parliament [23:01].
He said the British Nationality Act of 1947 and 1981 were significant events, with the 1981 act erasing the identity of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish men, replacing it with the term “British.” Moore compares this to the actions of Joseph Stalin in the USSR [23:12].
Being called “British,” he said, means having no rights, as rights are associated with being English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish [24:01].
Challenging the British Establishment, Juries, Common Law and Sovereignty
The British establishment and ruling class can be challenged by understanding the constitution and individual rights [25:40].
Moore discussed the importance of juries and common law rights, with the Chief Justices attempting to erase juries and install administrative law, similar to the European Union’s legal system [26:00].
He explained the concept of sovereignty, with people being sovereign apart from Parliament, and Members of Parliament not being allowed to call themselves as such because they are not members of the true Parliament [26:33].
He also discussed the relationship between the Crown, Parliament, and the Government, with Parliament belonging to the Crown and the Government being part of the Crown [27:00].
He mentioned the court system, with the implication that people need to understand their rights and the system to navigate it effectively [27:10].
A jury in England, once sworn in, operates under their own conscience and has the power to nullify all law, including common law, the King’s law, and parliamentary law, making them the only people in England with this authority [27:28].
When a jury delivers a “not guilty” verdict, it is final and cannot be appealed, although a misdirected jury can be appealed [27:55].
As members of a jury have the power to nullify all laws, it makes them sovereign, a right that comes from England’s ancestors and should be passed down to future generations [28:16].
The English Constitution, Race, and Social Justice
The English constitution does not mention colour or race, and the English are not racist, but they will stand up for their nation and laws [28:50].
The common law of England is considered the number one social justice system in the world, which is why communists seek to defeat it, as stated by Karl Marx [29:05].
Marx mentioned that every communist revolution has been “shipwrecked on the rock of England,” specifically referring to England rather than Britain [29:18].
The Importance of English Identity and the English Constitution
Moore again emphasised the distinction between being English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh or British, encouraging people to identify as English rather than British [29:32].
He stressed the importance of Englishmen understanding and standing up for the English constitution [30:09].
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News
[…] Go to Source Follow altnews.org on Telegram […]
Laws are.immutable. What the powers that shouldn’t be call ‘laws’ are not laws at all- they are policies. That’s why we have police officers. Police comes from the word policy-they are policy officials.
https://www.paulstramer.net/2024/09/international-public-notice-legislative.html
We have often been treated like we were crazy. Tin Hats. Sovereign Citizens (a blatant oxymoron). And even accused of being incompetent (mentally) and “frivolous” — as if we had no basis for what we were asserting and claiming.
What we are asserting and claiming is that Great Britain, a Company formed in the aftermath of the English Civil War, has further extended it’s degree of abstraction to create “the United Kingdom, Incorporated” operating in Admiralty jurisdiction, and then also created another corporation otherwise known as the UNITED KINGDOM or “UK”, which is a British Crown Municipal Corporation with many subdivisions and franchises of its own operating in the commercial jurisdiction of the air.
In support of these changes from the traditional government of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales and their constitutionally limited monarchies and unincorporated Parliaments, we have asserted that fraud and impersonation in breach of trust have been applied to people on an individual basis, so as to latch onto their assets for use as collateral backing the debts of the aforementioned corporations.
Using this process of “enfranchisement” as in creating McDonald’s franchises, living men and women have been the unwitting victims of institutionalized personage fraud carried out against them by these commercial and municipal corporations in breach of trust and under color of law.
We say that while this gargantuan fraud scheme and resulting debt enslavement racket began in Britain during the later reign of Queen Victoria, similar processes were employed not only in the British Homeland, but throughout the British Territories and the associated Holy Roman Commonwealth system — and by violent fraud also against the people of The United States.
Our country was entangled in this vile web by a British Bar Attorney, Abraham Lincoln, who ran for a private office as “President” of a British Territorial corporation calling itself “the United States of America” — Incorporated, and misrepresented this as being the same as the Public Office of President of our unincorporated Federation of States doing business as The United States of America — Unincorporated.
Lincoln was assisted in this Great Fraud by a consortium of foreign banks, principally owned by the Rothschild family, and foreign, mostly British and Scottish business interests, which sought to control our money, purloin
You can include “The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA INC.” registered in the Chicago Securities Exchange (CES.) Recently offered for sale btw
Perhaps the English can now get their heads round the fact that the Scots are Scottish and not English or British, and that we too have a very clear ”Bill of Rights” called the Declaration of Arbroath which pre-dates the English Bill of Rights by several centuries.
I agree, paddle you own canoe if you wish to. Never saw any of this in the RAF in the 50’s, Jock Taffy snd Mick were just service mates without rancour now at 89 I ask where has all this hatred come from since Scotland asked to join the union and we all agreed.
Perhaps some saw advantages? I don’t know. Was it seen as just a common market I wonder?
Scotland did not ”ask to join the Union”. It was foroced to sign literally at the point of the gun with the English army massed on the Scottish border should the Parliament not agree. There was also wide spread bribery of hard up nobility – many hard up because of the failure of the Darien Scheme which had no chance of success when English interference ensured immense difficulties. And no, I do not have a chip on my shoulder which is the usual response when these facts are presented: I merely know my history.
During a sitting of the 1688 Convention Parliament it was the Prince of Orange that informed Parliament of Scotland’s request for a union.
Friday 26th March 1689.
Part of the King’s speech to both Houses of Parliament.
‘I must recommend also to your consideration a Union with Scotland. I do not mean it should now be entered upon; but they having proposed this to me some time since, and the Parliament there having nominated Commissioners for that purpose, I should be glad that Commissioners might also be nominated here, to treat with them, and to see if such terms could be agreed on, as might be for the benefit of both Nations; so as to be ready to be presented you in some future Session.’ [King William III – Debates In The House Of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1694. vol.x. p.3]
Thank’s that’s as I understood matters, but I feel now let em go and stop the barnet rip off.
I have started reading this Ineresting (as usual) article and will listed. I looked through a few lines to get an idea and see that Mr Moore says that ancestirs of England, ie a while village in Baltimore, SOUTHERN IRELAND, was put inIto slavery etc. Since when are Irish people ‘ancestors’ of English people?! That has happened only when English/British state since 14th century looted, committed genocide in Ireland & forced native Irish off the land, forebade them under pain of death to speak their own language and left the country so poor that when a potato crop failed in the mid 19th century, millions of Irish people died of starvation. Also died from homelessness when mlions of families forced out of their homes by English landlords- often ‘absent’ ones living in luxury in England or Irish ones working for Britain. If Irish and English ended up living together back then it was forced on the Irish – whole families thrown out of to the road, the thatched roofs set ablaze by bailiffs, police, landed ie looting of Ireland. Multi millions died.many millions emigrated in crammed full boats where also many died. History books call it a ‘famine’still & unlike some countries Ireland does not blackmail the world to get never ending pity and guilt ( & money) for what happened – ie an Irish ‘holocaust’, ethnic cleansing. British establishment still owns North of Ireland. The English establishment ie royals and ‘aristocracy’ ( also rich from looting, genocide worldwide for centuries) have destroyed most of the world due to this insatiable. greed for profit and power – tge bombing to rubble of the Middle East by USA, Saudi Arabia. UK all using British military & weapons- tons of gold & other valuable commodities from thete now owned by UK royals and other corporations. British royals eg Charles, helped create the hlobakist Workd Econoc Forum decades ago where tge richest and most powerful people on earth openly saybthat billions of ‘Useless Eaters’ must die by using many methods; poverty, ‘wars’ ( lootings, genocide for profit), poisons in food, water, air ( also ‘vaccines’..).
UK royals also created Israel & current genocide in Gaza, West Bank, now Lebanon..This is for ‘Greater Israel” – I.order for Zionism( Rothschilds etc) to own the world.
Hi Neve, you say “Since when are Irish people ‘ancestors’ of English people?!” I think what Gordon Moore said is not coming across accurately because of the way I’ve summarised it. I was trying to make the article as short as possible while still highlighting as much as I could.
The English were transported for stealing a loaf, and hung for a sheep so perhaps times were unreasonably hard for all commoners. I’m not going to say sorry and pay compensation for sure that leads to more problems I would lay the blame on Internationalism and we no longer have an empire every one has independence as requested but still beg for more considering themselves entitled and British..
No ifs, buts, or doubts, my Birth certificate declares I am English
.I was never consulted about the abolition of my Country.
[…] Read more: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
I’m English but have lived in Ireland since 82 and I’m interested in preserving our unalienable rights in 2007 the Irish government revised and repealed a lot of old laws in its statutes book, interestingly they did not repeal the BOR which I’m sure they would have liked too but it is based on the 1688 declaration of rights and its repeal would be beyond their authority, thought I’d just let anyone know as an interesting piece of information
Rhoda, a very interesting article, a worthwhile read-thankyou for posting it, I have learned much.
I like Graham Moore’s quote, “Britain is an island. We share this island.” This is the truth!
Having said this, the water has got so muddied that the average person can’t see through it all to make any sense of what is really going on, he will carry on voting, and putting his trust in TPTB. I am well aware that there has in recent elections (especially the last one) been increased “voter apathy”; whereby people know there is something afoot, but have no line to fathom it, being suitably dumbed down.
Moore is right in what he asserts about Dr. Starkey, but there is NO political solution to the globalist one world agenda. God in Christ gave us the nations (Genesis 10:32), and it is He alone who will restore and rule the nations through His theocratic government upon His return. His resurrected saints/servants will be appointed their various cities to rule over (Luke 19:17ff).
There are many versions of secular history, and the vast majority are false and cannot be trusted, whereas the Bible is inspired and true. Granted, it doesn’t fill in all the details (we have to try and do that!), it only gives us the big picture.
Zechariah 14:16ff tells us that the nations in His soon coming millennial reign will only be blessed through their governors by their going to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts once a year to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Hi Islander, thank you. I agree with you that the Bible (brought to life through a personal relationship with God) holds the objective truth.
That is true, and I also know that not all believers have the same grasp of unfulfilled prophecy.
[…] Read more: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
The police, judiciary are as corrupted as Parliament therefore the English constitution and whatever rights it affords us is a worthless piece of paper
Said this at the time of the referendum.
I can be elected to parliament, parliament is sovereign therefore without never knowing it I am part sovereign.
Every English born person is sovereign by birth not by migration.
[…] The Constitution is under threat from those who want to destroy it as part of their goal to destroy the nation state, and it is essential to protect and understand it to counter this threat [23:13]. Read: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
[…] Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
[…] Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
[…] Relatif: Déclaration des Droits: Vous êtes Anglais, pas Britannique […]
Good to know there actually is an English constitution. The more I hear about it’s bits and pieces, the better it gets! Thank you!
Absolutely brilliant piece of reportage Rhoda! of Expose!
Hi SuziAlkamyst, thank you.
[…] Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
[…] Înrudit: Declarația engleză a drepturilor: sunteți englez, nu britanic […]
[…] Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]
[…] Relatif: Déclaration des Droits: Vous êtes Anglais, pas Britannique […]
[…] Related: English Bill of Rights: You are English, not British […]