| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2004 08:14:37 AM |
| Object: |
OT: The British system isn't working |
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government. Where parliament remains passive,
the government, clothed in ancient monarchical authority, exercises
unbridled prerogative powers - to wage war, to make binding treaties, to
control the civil service and to issue or withhold passports.
Post Hutton and Butler, provided that ministers act in "good faith",
ministerial responsibility for gross errors of judgment is written in
water - except at election time.
There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.
Ever since the American and French revolutions, British political
leaders have rejected the idea of entrenching fundamental rights in a
supreme constitution. For 40 years British governments have exported
written constitutions to new democracies across the former empire while
opposing any proposal to place themselves under similar constraints at
home.
The two principles of the unwritten Victorian constitution under which
we are governed are parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law. But
parliamentary supremacy usually means executive domination. As for the
role of the independent judiciary, it is essential in ensuring that
governments do not act lawlessly or use their powers to excess, but the
courts are subordinate to an executive-dominated parliament: lions under
the throne, and even their independence can be undermined by political
interference.
For British governments, power is delightful, and absolute power is
absolutely delightful. Parliament may pass a human rights act, but a
future parliament could repeal or emasculate it. In 1968, parliament
enacted emergency legislation to deprive 200,000 British Asian passport
holders fleeing from racial persecution in East Africa of their right to
enter and live in their country of citizenship. The statute was racially
motivated, but there was no remedy in our courts because parliament can
use its law-making powers as it (or the government) pleases. Recently,
the government came close to persuading a supine parliament to pass a
law depriving vulnerable asylum-seekers of access to judicial review to
challenge abuses of Home Office powers. It was only the threat of defeat
in the Lords that induced them to abandon this measure.
The systemic failings of the British system will not be cured by
exhorting parliamentarians to meet the challenge of the democratic
deficit, or even by creating a better voting system for parliament. We
need more fundamental reform: a written constitution that defines the
nature and limits of the powers of each arm of the state, and provides
legal protection against the misuse of legislative as well as executive
power. Instead of relying upon the European convention on human rights,
we would enjoy the protection of a British bill of rights, designed to
meet British needs.
A British constitution would identify the core values of our liberal
democracy within the wider European context. Armed with a British
constitution, our negotiators in Brussels would have stronger bargaining
powers in their dealings with EU institutions.
Those core constitutional values would provide a better basis for the
civic education of each new generation of British citizens than David
Blunkett's clumsy attempts to induce a sense of "Britishness" and
loyalty to the state among Britain's alienated ethnic and religious
minorities.
A written constitution would replace the present mass of verbose and
indigestible devolution legislation. The single statute regulating the
mayor of London and the GLA is far longer than any written constitution
for an entire nation. The new legislation for regional assemblies in
England and Wales will add further incoherence to the existing mess.
A written constitution would confer discretionary powers on the
executive and leave leeway for a dynamic interpretation by a modern,
fairly chosen judiciary.
The time is over-ripe for Britain to join the rest of the democratic
world by placing government under the supreme law of a constitution
approved by the British people as a whole.
· Lord Lester QC is a Liberal Democrat peer and practises at
Blackstone's Chambers.
_________________________________________________________________
This is the bit that rubs me up.....
'There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.'
We sign up to the European Human rights act....but it turns out we
don't actually have any recorse to it !!!
Bloody typical !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 11:27:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue 03 Aug 2004 09:49:44a, "kathryn" <bob@bob.com> kicked back with a
beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then
fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
Yes really.
On the other hand we don't really need one IMHO - Ive never felt my
basic civil and political rights were impinged on and even the Prime
Minister acknowledges that "people have a right to protest".
Something written down is very restrictive, and at this point I feel
we're more "free" than the US.
Kathryn
But it may be that the US can't handle that much freedom. Right now, if
we abolished the Constitution, I'm pretty sure we'd be a hardcore
theocracy in very short order.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 03:16:07 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in
news:n18vg0lsnc2t2guh2pfcgjis03nupau4df@4ax.com:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have
no charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative,
executive and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=546109
Bridgewater pair ordered to pay for jail 'lodgings'
By Martin Hickman
30 July 2004
Two men wrongly jailed for the murder of the newspaper boy Carl
Bridgewater were ordered yesterday to pay "board and lodgings" for the 18
years they were in prison. In a ruling condemned as "sick" by prison
campaigners, the Court of Appeal agreed with a Home Office-appointed
assessor that the cousins Michael and Vincent Hickey should lose a
quarter of loss-of-earnings compensation for their free food and
accommodation inside.
The verdict means the Hickeys, victims of one of the worst miscarriages
of justice in post-war Britain, will lose £60,000 each, about £60 for
each week they were locked up.
In a third case, the court ruled that Michael O'Brien, another wrongly
convicted man, should pay his "saved living expenses" for the 11 years he
spent in prison after he was convicted of the murder of a Cardiff
newsagent.
A lawyer for the Hickeys, who endured repeated intimidation and beatings
from fellow prisoners, said they were outraged by the "palpably unfair"
ruling.
The Hickeys were jailed in 1979, with James Robinson and Patrick Molloy,
after they were convicted of killing 13-year-old Carl at Yew Tree Farm,
Wordsley, West Midlands, a year earlier. The boy died from a shotgun
blast in a break-in at the farm.
During a 25-day trial at Stafford Crown Court, the Crown's case hinged on
a "confession" from Mr Molloy, fraudulently obtained by police who showed
him a fabricated confession from Vincent Hickey. Molloy died in prison
aged 53.
After a long campaign for justice, involving a 144-day hunger strike by
one of the cousins, the "Bridgewater Three" were freed in 1997 when the
Court of Appeal quashed their convictions. In 1998 the CPS said that none
of the seven police officers alleged to have made up evidence would be
prosecuted.
Michael Hickey, 42, was awarded £990,000 compensation and Vincent Hickey,
49, £506,220 by the Home Office's independent assessor, Lord Brennan QC,
who said living expenses should be taken off. A High Court judge, Mr
Justice Maurice Kay, ruled last April that the deductions were wrong but
Lord Brennan appealed, saying his decision was "lawful and reasonable".
Yesterday the Home Office stressed that the decision to deduct money for
lodging lay with the assessor and did not set a precedent for other
cases.
Susie Labinjoh, solicitor for the Hickeys, said her clients were
"extremely disappointed". She said that while in prison, the cousins had
the stigma of being known as child killers and were subjected to
appalling conditions, including their food being regularly adulterated
with phlegm and glass.
Ms Labinjoh said: "They could not comprehend how anyone aware of the
circumstances of their imprisonment could suggest that they profited from
it in any way."
Mark Leech, editor of The Prisons Handbook, said: "It has to be the
sickest of all sick jokes. Can you imagine Terry Waite getting a bill for
the living expenses he saved during his five years wrongly held in the
Lebanon?"
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 10:07:58 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
Yip, all we have is the Magna-Carter...
But Tiny Blur made such a fuss of us signing up to the European Human
rights act... then we find we can't actually use it !!!!
'the government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to
take complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political
rights to the UN human rights committee.'
WTF is that all about ?????
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 10:16:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:07:58 +0100 in episode
<410faa49$0$6447$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com> we saw our hero Jez
<iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com>:
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
Yip, all we have is the Magna-Carter... But Tiny Blur made such a fuss of
us signing up to the European Human rights act... then we find we can't
actually use it !!!!
'the government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to
take complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political
rights to the UN human rights committee.'
WTF is that all about ?????
Sounds like a tactic being deployed frequently over here. You "have" a
right, you just can't *use it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 11:10:36 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
Yes, it is. No constitution in the UK.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:25:14 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
For the most part, yes. The one binding, written document is the Magna Carta.
(http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/magna-carta.html) Everything else is
royal decree, parliamentary consent and judicial interpretation.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
If it is the act of a traitor to speak out against the
unConstitional acts of my government, to excercise my
rights guaranteed by that Constitution -- the right to
publish my opinions and speak my thoughts, the right
to petition for a redress of grievances, the right to
be secure in my person and property against search and
seizure without due process of law -- then I am a traitor.
And God grant us many, many more traitors, for we are in
dire need of them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 08:56:06 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:26:02 +0000 in episode
<n18vg0lsnc2t2guh2pfcgjis03nupau4df@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have given
birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for the
branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:28:47 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have given
birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for the
branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman
Rule? When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
06 Aug 2004 05:50:13 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have given
birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for the
branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman
Rule? When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
Britain never did break free of Roman rule (except briefly in AD 68 or
69, but Vespasian reimposed it when he became emperor) - Rome left, in
AD 410 or so. They had their own problems at home, what with getting
sacked by the Visigoths and so on, so they left the Brits to their own
devices and they quickly got invaded by the Anglo-Saxons instead.
--
Patrick Brown
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the
surface of a gas-covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90
million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some
indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be" Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
07 Aug 2004 09:16:31 AM |
|
|
Patrick Brown wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have given
birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for the
branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman
Rule? When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
Britain never did break free of Roman rule (except briefly in AD 68 or
69, but Vespasian reimposed it when he became emperor)
Did it have anything to do with the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem around that time?
- Rome left, in AD 410 or so. They had their own problems at home, what
with getting sacked by the Visigoths and so on, so they left the Brits to their
own devices and they quickly got invaded by the Anglo-Saxons instead.
But the RCC and its Pope still held some kind of power over some of
the kings and queens after that, as far as I can tell.
From:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page19.asp
"The second half of Henry's reign was dominated by two issues very
important for the later history of England and the monarchy: the
succession and the Protestant Reformation, which led to the formation
of the Church of England.
Henry had married his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, in 1509.
Catherine had produced only one surviving child - a girl, Princess
Mary, born in 1516. By the end of the 1520s, Henry's wife was in her
forties and he was desperate for a son. The Tudor dynasty had been
established by conquest in 1485 and Henry was only its second monarch.
England had not so far had a ruling queen, and the dynasty was not
secure enough to run the risk of handing the Crown on to a woman,
risking disputed succession or domination of a foreign power through
marriage.
Henry had anyway fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the sister of one of
his many mistresses, and tried to persuade the Pope to grant him an
annulment of his marriage on the grounds that it had never been legal.
(Royal divorces had happened before: Louis XII had been granted a
divorce in 1499, and in 1527 James IV's widow Margaret (Henry's
sister) had also been granted one.) However, a previous Pope had
specifically granted Henry a licence to marry his brother's widow in
1509. In May 1529, Wolsey failed to gain the Pope's agreement to
resolve Henry's case in England. All the efforts of Henry and his
advisers came to nothing; Wolsey was dismissed and arrested, but died
before he could be brought to trial."
Is it wrong thinking to consider Rome as having power over things
at that time, since a Pope was involved? Why should the nobility give
a rat's ***** about what some Pope said?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
07 Aug 2004 07:42:04 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman
Rule? When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
Britain never did break free of Roman rule (except briefly in AD 68 or
69, but Vespasian reimposed it when he became emperor)
Did it have anything to do with the destruction of the temple in
Jerusalem around that time?
Yeah, I think that was part of Vespasian reasserting control after the
year of civil war that followed Nero's death. It was during that civil
war that a little-known guy called Venutius as good as forced the Romans
out of Britain.
- Rome left, in AD 410 or so. They had their own problems at home, what
with getting sacked by the Visigoths and so on, so they left the Brits to their
own devices and they quickly got invaded by the Anglo-Saxons instead.
But the RCC and its Pope still held some kind of power over some of
the kings and queens after that, as far as I can tell.
A wee bit, but most of Britain fell under the control of the
Anglo-Saxons, who were pagans, and Papal influence had to be
re-established by St Augustine (not the "make-me-chaste-but-not-yet"
one) in 597. So after the Romans invaded in AD 43, Britain was mostly
free of Roman power for a year in 68 and then 187 years between 410 and 597.
--
Patrick Brown
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the
surface of a gas-covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90
million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some
indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be" Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:57:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:28:47 +0000 in episode
<mebvg0tr3fk6sdgb4sm5itu90coip181ls@4ax.com> we saw our hero Elroy Willis
<elo@airmail.net>:
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have
no charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative,
executive and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have
given birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for
the branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman Rule?
When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
That's not really my "area." I don't have much of an opinion to offer.
Though things I have read suggest there wasn't really a "fall" in the
sense of some sudden implosion. The decay seems to have gone on for some
centuries. And the British were pretty far out on the edges of the empire.
Did it take a battle or did the influence of the "foreigners" just fade
over time?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 01:07:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:28:47 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in alt.atheism
we saw our hero Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
It's true. Kind of ironic considering their way can be said to have given
birth to written constitutions with explicit powers and limits for the
branches of government but they, themselves, have never adopted one.
Do you see some point where Britain actually broke free from Roman
Rule? When did Rome fall, in your opinion? Some certain battle?
There are several dates that you could pick for the fall of the Roman Empire.
The western empire could be said to have fallen on the first sack of Rome itself
in 410 CE. A more popular date for historians is the forced abdication of
Romulus Augustulus (the "little" Augustus) in 475 CE when the imperial regalia
were sent back to the eastern capital of Constantinople for the last time.
Some place the transition from the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire
in the reign of Heraclius, where Syria, the Middle East and Egypt were lost to
the Islamic invasions, although it should be noted that the empire based in
Constantinople continued to call itself "Roman".
The remains of the Eastern Empire were severely weakened by the fourth crusade,
which treacherously turned its attentions to Constantinople instead and
installed a series of Latin emperors. These were expelled and the empire limped
on until Constantinople finally fell the to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II on May
29th 1453. The reigning emperor, Constantine XI, died defending the city - his
body was never found.
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early in the 5th
century and England played no further part in the history of the empire.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 04:11:55 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early in the 5th
century and England played no further part in the history of the empire.
Didn't the RCC still have religious authority in England up until the
1530's?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 06:58:55 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:11:55 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early in the 5th
century and England played no further part in the history of the empire.
Didn't the RCC still have religious authority in England up until the
1530's?
The RCC wasn't historical Rome.
The Romans in Britain weren't Christian. It was an insignificant
outpost of the Empire which supplied tin and slaves. The believed in
the traditional Roman gods, some of the military were Mithraic and the
Britons had their traditional mythology.
But most people simply got on with their own lives without too much
concern about religion. Neither the earlief beliefs nor the Roman ones
were particularly push.
The elite were Roman (civil rulers, administration and military) but
over time they mixed to create the Romano-British who remained after
the elite left. Rather like Anglo-Indians remaining in India after
independence. When they left they too what serious belief in the Roman
gods there was, with them.
The Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc filled the vacuum bringing their own
beliefs. So in Britain at the time you had the pre-Roman beliefs, plus
the new beliefs in the areas the Anglo-Saxons colonised
The Roman withdrawal was a slow process over decades, and started when
Rome went into decline. Part of the decline was Constantine's founding
of a second Capitol in Byzantium/Constinople away from the incursions
of the Germanic tribes.
Legions were recalled from the periphery to defend more important
parts of the Empire.
Which in the case of the ones withdrawn from Britain, meant Rome.
The RCC was originally established by Constantine in the Eastern Roman
Empire and Rome (the ie the Western Roman Empire) remained largely
pagan. They were effectively two separate, autonomous empires.
The Western one drew in on itself even more, with incursions from
Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Vandals etc that caused the legions to be
pulled back even further. Roman citizens who didn't want the fighting
moved to Constantinople. Until Rome itself was sacked and there was
only one Roman Empire left, in the East. Which became the Holy Roman
Empire.
I'm not sure when thre City of Rome was "re-founded" or when the Holy
Roman Empire's HQ moved back from Byzantium/Constantinople.
Augustine arrived in England in AD597 to find the Anglo-Saxon
religion, and further north and west the older religions. Even then it
took a long time (decades, even centuries) for the country to become
Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
06 Aug 2004 04:12:21 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early
in the 5th century and England played no further part in the history of
the empire.
Didn't the RCC still have religious authority in England up until the
1530's?
The RCC wasn't historical Rome.
The Romans in Britain weren't Christian. It was an insignificant
outpost of the Empire which supplied tin and slaves. The believed in
the traditional Roman gods, some of the military were Mithraic and the
Britons had their traditional mythology.
I have read of temples of Isis in Britain at some time, but I can't
remember the dates.
But most people simply got on with their own lives without too much
concern about religion. Neither the earlief beliefs nor the Roman ones
were particularly push.
The elite were Roman (civil rulers, administration and military) but
over time they mixed to create the Romano-British who remained after
the elite left. Rather like Anglo-Indians remaining in India after
independence. When they left they too what serious belief in the Roman
gods there was, with them.
The Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc filled the vacuum bringing their own
beliefs. So in Britain at the time you had the pre-Roman beliefs, plus
the new beliefs in the areas the Anglo-Saxons colonised
The Roman withdrawal was a slow process over decades, and started when
Rome went into decline. Part of the decline was Constantine's founding
of a second Capitol in Byzantium/Constinople away from the incursions
of the Germanic tribes.
Legions were recalled from the periphery to defend more important
parts of the Empire.
Which in the case of the ones withdrawn from Britain, meant Rome.
The RCC was originally established by Constantine in the Eastern Roman
Empire and Rome (the ie the Western Roman Empire) remained largely
pagan. They were effectively two separate, autonomous empires.
Ah, I think this is where the start of my confusion arises.
The Western one drew in on itself even more, with incursions from
Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Vandals etc that caused the legions to be
pulled back even further. Roman citizens who didn't want the fighting
moved to Constantinople. Until Rome itself was sacked and there was
only one Roman Empire left, in the East. Which became the Holy Roman
Empire.
I'm not sure when thre City of Rome was "re-founded" or when the Holy
Roman Empire's HQ moved back from Byzantium/Constantinople.
Augustine arrived in England in AD597 to find the Anglo-Saxon
religion, and further north and west the older religions. Even then it
took a long time (decades, even centuries) for the country to become
Christian.
What was the major influence to make people want to become
Christians? Why didn't they just reject it and hold onto the beliefs
that were already established in those areas?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 11:55:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:58:55 GMT, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>
wrote:
The Romans in Britain weren't Christian. It was an insignificant
outpost of the Empire which supplied tin and slaves. The believed in
the traditional Roman gods, some of the military were Mithraic and the
Britons had their traditional mythology.
Although xianity mingled with the Mithraic cult and the traditional Roman gods.
I seem to recall that there was evidence of xianty in England as early as the
2nd century, although I don't have any references to hand. It was certainly very
popular after Constantine's edict of toleration (Constantine himself first took
the title of emperor while in York).
The Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc filled the vacuum bringing their own
beliefs. So in Britain at the time you had the pre-Roman beliefs, plus
the new beliefs in the areas the Anglo-Saxons colonised
Celtic (pre-Roman) beliefs had been largely extinguished in England by this
time.
Until Rome itself was sacked and there was
only one Roman Empire left, in the East. Which became the Holy Roman
Empire.
Sorry, that's not right. The "Holy Roman Empire" is normally the name given to
the empire of Charlemagne and his descendants. It was quite distinct from the
old Roman Empire and was created to some extent by the papacy in an attempt to
exercise political control over western states. The Byzantine emperors strongly
resented this usurption of their title as emperor (although they themselves no
longer used it).
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
05 Aug 2004 11:37:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:11:55 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early in the 5th
century and England played no further part in the history of the empire.
Didn't the RCC still have religious authority in England up until the
1530's?
The RCC is quite separate from the Roman Empire. After the departure of the
Romans, Christianity was largely pushed out into Wales and Ireland. Most of
England would have worshipped the Scandinavian gods.
The pope was initially acknowledged only as "first among equals" amongst the
five patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria,
and that only because of the prestige of Rome. He had no formal authority over
the other patriarchs. It is only with the loss of political power to the
patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as a result of the Islamic
invasions, that the papacy gradually began to fill the power vauum filled by the
demise of the Western Empire. It did so independently of the Eastern Empire, and
often against the emperors' wishes.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Holy Roman Empire, which as has often been
pointed out, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire and which certainly
never exerted any kind of political control over England (the failure of the
Spanish Armada finally saw to that). It is a medieval invention which at various
times consisted of parts of France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
06 Aug 2004 03:50:57 PM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Rome had abandoned England (they never occupied all of Britain) early
in the 5th century and England played no further part in the history of
the empire.
Didn't the RCC still have religious authority in England up until the
1530's?
The RCC is quite separate from the Roman Empire. After the departure of the
Romans, Christianity was largely pushed out into Wales and Ireland. Most of
England would have worshipped the Scandinavian gods.
I guess that's where my confusion arises. For some reason, I seem to
see the RCC riding along with the Roman empire as it spread out
and tried to take over the world.
The pope was initially acknowledged only as "first among equals" amongst the
five patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria,
and that only because of the prestige of Rome. He had no formal authority over
the other patriarchs. It is only with the loss of political power to the
patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as a result of the Islamic
invasions, that the papacy gradually began to fill the power vauum filled by the
demise of the Western Empire. It did so independently of the Eastern Empire,
and often against the emperors' wishes.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Holy Roman Empire, which as has often been
pointed out, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire and which certainly
never exerted any kind of political control over England (the failure of the
Spanish Armada finally saw to that). It is a medieval invention which at various
times consisted of parts of France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Like I said above, I think I confuse the RCC with Rome for some
reason. The RCC has never really fallen, since it still exists,
therefore I see it as a part of Rome that has never really fallen
completely, or something like that. I actually would like to see the
RCC crumble and fade away as a bad memory, but I don't think that
will happen any time soon...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 08:50:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:26:02 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
Because of this, eg the queen theoretically has enormous power - but
because of precedent she cannot use it. Her ancestor was beheaded for
wielding that power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:07:06 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:50:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:07:06 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
Eh? I think you need to check when the Romans left.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 03:47:55 PM |
|
|
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
Eh? I think you need to check when the Romans left.
You're making a very basic error. The Romano-British were overthrown by three
Danish and North German tribes who eventually took on the corrupted name of one
of them...the Angles, or English. The English were themselves overthrown by the
Norman French in 1066 and it is from Duke William of Normandy (aka King William
I) that the British monarchy is derived from, not the Romano-British or the
Kings of the Heptarchy.
English law, on the other hand, does derive itself from the common law of the
pre-invasion Angle, Saxon and Jutish tribes.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
04 Aug 2004 08:35:44 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
Eh? I think you need to check when the Romans left.
I need to check on more than that. My european history is all
screwed up in my mind, so it seems.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 12:43:06 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:07:06 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
Eh? I think you need to check when the Romans left.
The Brits were the modern Romans, complete with empire and all, at least
for a while before the Yanks took over the world, weren't they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 05:17:14 PM |
|
|
In article <K8QPc.206259$IQ4.50673@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:07:06 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based
on precedent and "fairness".
So Britain has never officially broken away from Rome completely?
If it did, when was it? If it didn't, then Rome never really fell,
did it?
Eh? I think you need to check when the Romans left.
The Brits were the modern Romans, complete with empire and all, at least
for a while before the Yanks took over the world, weren't they?
Dixit, AKA Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) does not
seem to have noticed that the world has not been taken over by anyone,
particularly not by America.
The attempts of America to take over Afganistan and Iraq can hardly be
called total successes.
And the stupidity with which those attempts have been carried out has
lined up much of the world against America.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 09:07:49 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:50:56 +0000 in episode
<kr5vg0htq5glpjjnpd2skqf1bj3k4vc2o0@4ax.com> we saw our hero Christopher
A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:26:02 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have
no charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative,
executive and judicial branches of government.
No way. This can't be true, can it?
There is no written constitution. Just 1500 years of common law based on
precedent and "fairness".
Because of this, eg the queen theoretically has enormous power - but
because of precedent she cannot use it. Her ancestor was beheaded for
wielding that power.
Which is considerable incentive to be real, real polite. <G>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
11 Aug 2004 01:16:50 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<410f8fb9$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
The British constitution is the relationship between the people and
the Queen and everything born from that relationship over the
centuries. It is the only propor monarchy left of its scale. Its not
like Holland, for example, where they only have to remove a couple of
paragraphs from their constitution for their monarchy to become a
non-entity. Britain is a social construct via the Queen.
Reforming the British constitution to a U.S.-style republic would take
decades.
I personally don't trust any body enough to let them write a national
constitution and would rather rely on the current idea of our
tried-and-tested time-honoured mish-mash of an establishment and be
glad that although it has its ups and down, Britain ain't half bad, in
so far as its not synonymous with London.
Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 10:05:54 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
_________________________________________________________________
This is the bit that rubs me up.....
'There was another example of the abuse of prerogative powers when the
government announced its decision not to allow British citizens to take
complaints of breaches of the UN covenant on civil and political rights
to the UN human rights committee. We are alone in the European Union in
this respect. What the government dislikes about giving us the right of
petition is that it would bring into play the covenant's guarantee of
equality without discrimination - a guarantee that is enshrined in the
written constitutions of the other European states. The government is
judge in its own cause, and we citizens can do nothing about this denial
of a basic constitutional right except to campaign for better government.'
We sign up to the European Human rights act....but it turns out we
don't actually have any recorse to it !!!
Bloody typical !
cough<<<< and recorse should have been 'recourse'...
my Bloody spelin
:)
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: The British system isn't working |
03 Aug 2004 08:55:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:14:37 +0100 the ET form known as
Jez<iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
The British system isn't working
Only a written constitution can prevent further abuses of power
Anthony Lester
Tuesday August 3, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1274757,00.html
Almost alone in the democratic world, we British have no written
constitution protecting our basic civil and political rights. We have no
charter defining the scope of the powers of the legislative, executive
and judicial branches of government. Where parliament remains passive,
the government, clothed in ancient monarchical authority, exercises
unbridled prerogative powers - to wage war, to make binding treaties, to
control the civil service and to issue or withhold passports.
<snipped>
In Oz we have a British Parliament approved constitution which
outlines areas of powers in the way the British virtual "constitution"
does not. There are flaws with it however such as the absence of any
real rights in the document. Such rights are a privilege of the
parliamentary process or by default what has not yet been legislated
against and what is inherited from British common law. The is section
116 which is a weak separation of church and state which has had its'
meaning changed into meaninglessness by the High Court by the DOGS
case. Leaders of both sides of the political spectrum desire to keep
rights out of the constitution citing "erosion of the democratic
process" as the reason. Of course these people enjoy the executive
power of government.
In Britain there are questions of the monarchy, peers, and the House
of Lords. Will there be a monarchy after Elizabeth? Charles may be too
unpopular and will probably be in his 70s before Elizabeth dies. Does
he want it? Does William want it? A British constitution would have to
deal with the question of monarchy or republic. The House of Lords
with peers of the realm is an anachronism. A constitution would have
to decide on its' future if it is to have one.
I don't think there is any chance of there being a written
constitution because enough people would want to keep the arcane
institutions but would not want to expressly say so on a piece of
paper. Being proud of the House of Lords and royal birthright
privilege is not not something to be said so loudly. It is a bit
embarrassing. Best for such foolishness is be an inherited tradition
about which the living have no "responsibility". Only the failure of a
royal succession would provide the opportunity because in that there
is little in the traditions to draw on but that is not an issue for
maybe 20 years if the queen lives as long as her mother.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
