Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best
RETURN to Critical Thinking

Logic Law

Questor,(c) the Author, apologizes for any infelicities in this work, for which he takes responsibility of authorship, but NOT for use or misuse. It is free, for study purposes,and not permitted to be sold or used commercially except perhaps in legal argument that involves no reward.

The Bill of Rights; BoR, how it was removed as protection for the British public and is repealed, but neither express or impliedly, -- simply de - facto.

There are currently three arguments on this issue at PATAS, they may be examined later.

Frankly they are irrelevant to the arguments here, because they are in the author's view a misdirected focus that persuades and leads the reader away from the principles, and into the world of sophistry and arts of specious persuasion that become untenable when confronted with sound argument or logic. Away from the woods, and into the trees, if one see the analogy, so one cannot see the woods for the trees! The writer doesn't want to confuse the issue by wading into and dismantling the methodology used; at this time, that relies on false emphasis of differences where similarities are far more overwhelming.

In short, the Bill of Rights, is dead, it remains as a piece of constitutional law, to impress and mesmerize the reader into false belief. Each attempt to re-examine the issue as a legislative construction with consequence fails, because it no longer exists at the same location in the societal structure with the same controls.

The principle in the bill; ie the rights granted to the British people, has moved from the Crown, to the Councils, but more importantly has become the new mischief and abuse by councils, that was formerly that of the Crown before the bill. The principle that remains in the Bill of Rights is no longer in sharp focus because the goalposts have moved, and each attempt to identify where, is met with the standard answer, “that was the Crown prerogative”, where it should be, “that is now the council prerogative”, simply that.

What parliament deplored in 1688, it permits today, and looks upon benignly because, allowing the prerogative to go unfettered with the councils, aids its central funding issues. This eases pressure on central funding, where it can now be collected locally, in a manner that is in many cases unlawful. The whole problem is enshrined in far more complex civil law, such that very few solicitors will even get involved with unless a major claim is possible. Target driven systems create structures that put spiritual values well behind those overriding targets. Then ask if this is the will of Parliament or the will of the people expressed through parliament.

What was located at the Crown level, is now at Council level, and the controls in the hands of the perpetrators of abuse, so they decide if an appeal comes close to the ambit of a 'court'. Codes of conduct drawn up by councils; like duty, honesty, integrity, transparency, and open to public scrutiny derived from local government acts, are flags waving at half mast so entrenched that internal dissent is pariah; at pain of losing one's job, and integrity compromised, overflowing into whatever 'court' it comes in to contact with, compromising that body as well. This is not hearsay.

Crown mischief in short, is now Council mischief in tort.

With the abuse part of the Crown Prerogative thwarted by the Bill of Rights in 1688-9, and the similarity between fines and civil penalties, being blurred by false emphasis as a distinction suggesting they belong to difference classes, the prerogative abuse that WAS thwarted is now very much alive in England today.

Parliament; crowning itself with 'parliament is sovereign' re-using those powers by conferring the prerogative on its children of some hundred councils, giving them the appeals process to control or NOT, their own mischief and abuses, the Bill of Rights is now more important and more relevant than ever before.

The only difference is that when the prerogative was abused against a few wealthy; prior to the 17^th century, it is now abused against the majority of weaker members of society with ring fenced semantic schemes and procedural rules in tribunals permitting councils to compromise the integrity of each judicial body it comes in contact with.

The Bill of Rights is an argument proper for the manifesto of a party of integrity to seek a mandate for election to the next parliament. Very little other parts of a manifesto are relevant to the similarities in ideologies that make little difference to the lives of the ordinary people.

The Bill of Rights granted in principle, FREEDOM from fines and forfeitures, ( civil penalties and distraints ) to all individuals, BEFORE conviction at a trial or hearing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The system relies; for achieving successful results, on two reversed principles of integrity.

1. Implied consent.

   1. We received your payment, therefore you consented and this closes the case.

      • Recognise this?

      • A kind word AND a threat is so much more efficacious than a kind word alone.

      • Beat your partner or threaten to do so, and submission under duress is transformed into consent, how amusing.

2. Presumption of guilt.

   1. Either you did not appeal to the Notice to Owner or you did not pay.

• Recognise this? It reverses the presumption of innocence in the UD HR & EU HR fundamental rights. In this writer's case, BOTH the presumptions were false, the deplorable response of increased threat was proved false and the presumer backed down.

• If you didn't understand the rules, then they can even rope you into the scheme under false presences of manufactured evidence and then throttle you; with a kind word and a rule.

1. Either you did not file a SORN or you did not re-licence your vehicle, ( on expiration of the previous licence ).

• Recognise this?

Forget about Either we did not receive your appeal Or did not receive your payment. They are building a database where every confirming instance; or absence of a challenge, makes the nation guilty on the balance of probabilities.

• Depressing? Of course, it depresses the recipient, and for some, amuses the conferrer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A short index,

The main issues: this will be changes as the piece progresses. (there are about twenty five pages being proof read).

1. The Crown Prerogative (1)

2. The real difference between a fine and a civil penalty is as much as between a forfeit and a possession order, very little, almost nothing. (2)

3. The BoR Tenet 12. Fine, Forfeiture,Next particulars, civil penalty and distraint, the words historically through time.

4. The watered down equivalent between Tenet 12 and the EU HR act Protocal 5 article 6.

5. Why it is invidious to water the principle down, - the irreversibility of damage.

6. The removal and usurpation of that principle, using the semantics of parliament is sovereign or supreme.

7. The cause and effect of the principle when the bridle to its abuse is placed under the control of the very abuser of the principle.

8. Why Parliament had to remove the privilege from the Crown, due to the 'mischief' -- establishment terminology --, being done, and what Parliament saw in its use that it could take advantage of for its own purposes.

9. Why our forefathers were better off under these penal systems when the were removed, than now when they are reinstated. The march of progress? Certainly not in this area.

10. Class concepts the simple introduction.

The first can be treated very easily, 'ceteris paribus', all things being equal, and taking for granted that de-jure meant correspondence with de-facto.

1. The Crown Prerogative

1. What is the Crown prerogative. Language used in reference to the Crown is usually chosen to exalt, where for an ordinary person, to say one has a prerogative is unusual. A prerogative, however one colours or shades it, means it belongs to the class concept of a privilege.

   1. Relevant would be the definition; OED 2. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by a person, or a body or class of persons, beyond the common advantages of others; an exemption in a particular case from certain burdens or liabilities.

2. We all have some rights, de jure; in law and when it comes to determining if they are upheld, one sees if they are de facto, actually upheld. This distinction can be minimal but in many cases vast and constitutes when they are so, false representation, a term in the Fraud Act 2006.

3. So one can say it was the privilege of the Crown to confer a judgement on an individual or group, that either subtracted from them or awarded to them some thing; some times subtracting from one and awarding the forfeitures to another. Hence when Parliament halted the privilege, because it deplored the abuse or 'mischief' ( A DVLA term in use ), being done, people who had crossed the boundaries of regulated exchanges had to be tried before a court of law before judgement as to fines or forfeitures. (Historical usage of these terms will be added later).

   1. This bridle or fetter on the prerogative was placed on the Crown in 1688 BoR, and later codified further in the Declaration of Rights 1689, the difference is immaterial here.

4. To round off this part, the prerogative, or privilege, is a power to do something not available in general to all.

   1. A book 'New Despotism' by the then Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart published in 1929., alerted some people to an awareness of changes leading to despotism, -- absolute authority, and this tendency has been fertile with the growth of democratic principles.

   2. When the 'mischief' is unchecked it defeats principles of justice, equality, fairness, proportionality, and so on.

   3. One of our basic rights still remaining is Magna Carta, (40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice, 'hangs' in the balance.

   4. Prior to 1688 unjust usage was permitted only if employed under the Crown Prerogative. After that, injustice was prevented by compelling such acts to pass through due process, and a court had to determine if a person was guilty before they could be submitted to a fine or forfeiture. Fines and Forfeitures belong to the class concept of conferring a detriment; treated later, and they have varying degrees of gravity.

   5. The separation of punishment from the Crown, by way of passage through a court was essential to ensure some form of justice to; at that time, a few wealthy, but inevitably became understood to apply to all. It put in place a process whereby the individual could appeal before his punishment was conferred.

5. Parliament, embodied in the concept of the 'will of the people', began to look around for less unpopular fiscal measure, and dispatched penal regimes away from themselves, to raise revenue, outside normal statute, focussing on special activities that may be described as controlling functions. The purpose was achieved by regulating activities subsumed under class concepts that would meet with immediate consent of shall we say inconvenient or unacceptable activities that could be easily slotted in to syllogistic reasoning, to make such penal regimes acceptable in principle.

   1. Motoring is just such a prime target for revenue, except what makes it even clearer that revenue is at the heart of it, is the irrational reasoning behind its penal enforcement. Cars cause congestion by parking? Interestingly enough congestion is caused when more cars are on the move than are parked.

   2. When wardens come along like dogs among pigeons, to scatter them back into the traffic flow one has more congestion, and more CO2 also, both unnecessary and undesirable consequences of such a rationality. But the rationale was originally nicely framed, before revenue went ahead of the spirit of the law. Raising revenue from driving, and relaxing parking costs would be far more appropriate an argument for CO2 and congestion reductions. But this affects 'fuller employment' that sounds so much better, even if that means the system becomes a parasitic and non productive tumour feeding on the body electorate, eventually stifling its very life force.

   3. Parliament now; in the judiciary is regarded as 'Parliament is Sovereign' or 'Supreme'. Shall we say it has just crowned itself, like Caesar, and forget that it prefers to hide that its power derives from the electorate and officiated on by the Monarch. You only glimpse this supposed illusory side of its reliance on the people, when the politicians come around with their lamb faces on, to re-invite one to re-elect them.

6. So in its 'wisdom' it came up with; among other things, a penal regime for parking not driving.

   Now here s where the 'transfer of power' becomes clear.

7. It conferred the previous Crown Prerogative powers it derogated or disliked, on all the children in the councils, so now we have about a hundred prerogatives being used, diversely. It provided a system of nice semantic ring fenced challenges through bodies that were unaccountable like PATAS, NPAS, Local Government Ombudsman and so on. So people could vent their follies in anger, let off steam, provided that a few got through to ensure their appearance was independent and impartial.

   1. The appeal process however was also given to the council with time out feature, so that if one suffered injustice, and came to late, it was 'out of time' and justice denied, Magna Carta's last remaining tenet 40 just got thrown out..

   2. The representations process was strictly controlled by those same councils, so that in their 'wisdom', one could only appeal if one was sent an appeal form or statutory declaration at relevant stages where the ambit of the process when it comes close to a court in Schedule 6, or CPR 75. Now one does not expect a doctor to be familiar with this process, as one equally doesn't expect an adjudicator to be familiar with medicine. The only difference being that one could trust a doctor, he took something called the Hippocratic oath, but some adjudicators took the Hippocritic oath; not hearsay, I will prove it soon, irrefutably.

8. To conclude this part, when next confronted by the argument, the Bill of Rights was a C-rown prerogative, you can reasonably riposte, yes I am aware of that, but now it is a C-ouncil prerogative. Same penal powers, somewhat stronger, since the appeal process is also in their hands, that was not in the Crown's, and the so called 'courts' are not accountable IF one can get to them, and is prepared to make that challenge. The PRINCIPLE in the Bill of Rights conferred to the British public has been transferred to councils, and the name game begins with accountable bodies getting a make over change name every time their image gets tarnished, like Local Government Ombudsman now the Public service Ombudsman, The Police Complaints Authority now the Independent Police complaints commission, and the council that is presumably elected, is now the Local Authority which sounds more like they conquered than got elected. Getting the picture?

   1. This writer tried, and offered to pay the full amount, waiving his discount, his cheque was returned, and no appeal was sent him, preventing his arguing further, this too will be placed here in due course. Sound familiar?

   2. We have Think Tanks now, to work things like this out. Blink Banks may mean, when you blink, they bank.

2. The real difference between a fine and a civil penalty is as much as between a forfeit and a possession order, very little, almost nothing.

Emphasising a difference; in order to materially imply a falsity, and persuade the respondent that because a fine is a different word from civil penalty, then the two words; that relate to the same matter, are in different classes, when they are merely different type members of the SAME class concept of conferring subtractions!

It has the same flavour as;

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.,” (R&J)

where a fine by any other name would smell deceit!

Things that are subtractions = A = death penalty, B = bodily harm, C = forfeit, D = FINE that includes criminal consequence, E = CIVIL penalty that’s not criminal, F = Fines and Civil penalties that include criminal consequence, and G = defamation and so on until no value is conferred.

The dividing point, no value conferred, has on the other side,

Things that are additions =1 = smile of approval, 2 = smile and handshake with kiss, 3 = bottle of perfume, 4 = a credit in e newspaper, 5 = a large gift, say £50,000 , 6 = a large gift, say £50,000 AND an undisclosed lottery gift, say £??,000 and then, 7 = A lottery gift, 8 = 4 litre car, 9 = an undisclosed lottery gift.

It should be clear that each side has class members of different types in varying degrees of gravity.

It’s not possible for a civil penalty to belong to a benefit or a lottery win to a detriment. To emphasise a civil penalty as if it were so much better as to belong to a benefit is false emphasis, when the similarities are overwhelming an d difference a matter of degree. Where a fine and a civil penalty are the same value and only the consequence different and either will be paid anyway, the emphasis of difference is a deceit.

In the determination whether a type member belongs to a class, the principle is the same as scientific method, namely necessary and sufficient conations. The best example of a simple cause is: IF there is a simple cause of life; then the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life. Substitute water for oxygen and derive the same result, making the two causes both necessary and sufficient. Substitute Vitamin D, and discover its absence is not sufficient for the absence of life, only the absence of a quality or condition such as rickets. There one has a cause of rickets and so on.

In class immediate inferences, the same negative yield; sufficiency in the absence, is the important factor.

A type member belongs to a class when it meets the requirements of the defining characteristics of that class.

A class can be viewed as all those entities having a certain property of satisfying a certain pro positional function. This function defines or determines the class.. Members of the class are those significant values of the defining function that give rise to true propositions when substituted for the variable. For example, when values are assigned to the class ‘x is a detriment’ the result is in some cases a true or a false proposition. Those significant values NOT yielding false propositions constitute the members of that class. (The sufficient condition!).

If x is a gift of £500, it does not yield a true proposition for the class of detriments, it does however yield a true proposition for the class of awards. Simplify this further to make detriments = subtractions, and benefits = additions. Now when you have a council or government behaving ludicrously, they will attempt to describe a civil penalty as an award; and I will show just such a council letter doing precisely that, in

“You were awarded this Penalty Charge Notice because”.

What you have here is an attempt to place - (E) - above in the class of detriments, into the class of benefits. Either they are trying to make the distress appear less than it is, or simply, and more likely, having a laugh at one’s expense which is a disgrace, undermining the foundations of correspondence theory and truth itself..

Then you have a middle extreme when for example Justice Collins says “These are not fines, they are civil penalties”, where both fines and civil penalties clearly belong to the class of conferring subtractions, BUT the distinction with false emphasis attempts to materially imply that civil penalties, which are not custodial are of some benefit as to suggest they are awards in a more subtle sense. First this emphasises the distinction fails to show the overwhelming similarities of a Fine for £100, and a Civil Penalty for £100 being nil, if either is paid, and equally where a civil penalty comes with such provocation that one might become insulting in court, then one can get a custodial for another reason.

The important difference between a Fine and Civil penalty is merely that of degree in gravity, and there is very little difference in degree at this level.

Pointing to a distinction or difference between types or members of the same class concept is analogous to using synonyms or shades of meaning to lead one away from the heart of the issue. It’s like telling a child he has just received a little graze, when his knee cap is hanging off. Such false emphasis is totally unacceptable to an injured party, but it is he medicine that authority delivers to itself when describing its own faults.. First rarely if ever admitted; a serious fault in ‘culpa lata’, and second always choosing those soft terms that shades away from true correspondence with reality, persuading and misleading.

To tease this out further, one has to also look at the history of usage of the terms fines, civil penalties, forfeits and distraints.