Latest / UK Column Radio / UK Column On Location: Bristol—Clare Wills Harrison

Transcript

UK Column On Location: Bristol—Clare Wills Harrison · UK Column Radio

0:07
Speaker 1: Claire Wills Harrison went into the legal profession because she
0:12
Speaker 1: saw it as a mechanism by which people should be protected.
0:17
Speaker 1: Twenty five years later, involving having had her own practice,
0:22
Speaker 1: she has had a different view of it, and she
0:26
Speaker 1: is going to talk us through how that has come
0:29
Speaker 1: to pass. But now having closed her practice, she is
0:33
Speaker 1: concerned with the subjugation of a population via taxation, something
0:39
Speaker 1: she wants to do something about. So we're very glad
0:43
Speaker 1: to have Claire Wills Harrison here to talk to us.
0:46
Speaker 2: Now.
0:47
Speaker 1: Thank you, Claire, Thank you.
0:56
Speaker 2: Hi everyone. I hope you're all well. I'm afraid you've
0:59
Speaker 2: got means, said a Sonya, So I hope you'll give
1:02
Speaker 2: me forty minutes of your time. It's really nice to
1:05
Speaker 2: be here in person. And I just want to say
1:07
Speaker 2: right now that from my point of view, in person gatherings, meetings,
1:11
Speaker 2: discussions are one of the most important thing going forward.
1:16
Speaker 2: Notably they can't be tracked, but we do need to
1:19
Speaker 2: make connections with each other. And I've already met a
1:22
Speaker 2: couple of people here that are only an hour down
1:24
Speaker 2: the road for me that I would never have known about.
1:27
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to talk to you today about
1:29
Speaker 2: taxation that's really boring. I'm going to talk to you
1:31
Speaker 2: about something else that's really boring, and that's about the law.
1:38
Speaker 2: I will say that I've never climbed a mountain neither,
1:40
Speaker 2: and I've also not bumshuffle. But I'm absolutely terrified of
1:43
Speaker 2: that man's sign that says end right now. So I've
1:46
Speaker 2: got my stop watch on. Okay, So my name is
1:50
Speaker 2: Claire will Harrison if you don't know me, But the
1:52
Speaker 2: only relevant thing that you really need to know about
1:55
Speaker 2: me for now is that presentation supposed to be up there, Mike,
2:00
Speaker 2: if I hit it, okay, fine, sorry, there we go.
2:05
Speaker 2: So the only relevant thing that you really need to
2:07
Speaker 2: know about me for this presentation is that I was
2:09
Speaker 2: a practicing lawyer, as Childs said, up until the end
2:12
Speaker 2: of August this year, but after twenty five years in
2:15
Speaker 2: the legal profession, I have now left, and that was
2:18
Speaker 2: mainly because my perception of how the law, its creation,
2:23
Speaker 2: and the legal system itself have been weaponized against you
2:27
Speaker 2: the people. So I'd like to spend a little bit
2:29
Speaker 2: of time talking about that today, and you'll see the
2:33
Speaker 2: title of my presentation up there, Reflections on the law
2:37
Speaker 2: being used as a sword instead of a shield, and
2:40
Speaker 2: I'm going to discuss that from the perspective of anti
2:42
Speaker 2: free speech legislation, but just spend a little bit of
2:45
Speaker 2: time on that, as I want to take your focus
2:49
Speaker 2: to how a lot of our modern law is now
2:52
Speaker 2: created and why I feel that that's a weaponization of itself.
2:58
Speaker 2: Then I'm going to look at the traveling the legal system,
3:01
Speaker 2: and I'll give your heads up right now it's not good.
3:04
Speaker 2: But I am just going to look at one thing
3:06
Speaker 2: in particular that I think sinister and that i'd like
3:09
Speaker 2: you to all know about, look at during nullification in
3:12
Speaker 2: that context, and then end with what actually is a
3:15
Speaker 2: real constitutional crisis in this country, and that is magistrate's courts.
3:22
Speaker 2: So I really want to make the point that what
3:24
Speaker 2: I'm presenting about today does need to be considered in
3:27
Speaker 2: light of our constitution. We do have one, folks, and
3:31
Speaker 2: the rights that arise therefrom Now, I don't have enough
3:35
Speaker 2: time to cover all of that today. Forty minutes isn't enough.
3:38
Speaker 2: When I started this presentation, it was ten thousand words
3:41
Speaker 2: and even I can't bear to listen to myself for
3:43
Speaker 2: that long, so I've had to cut it down somewhat.
3:47
Speaker 2: So I am scratching the surface with this, but I
3:50
Speaker 2: do recommend that you go and look at UK columns,
3:53
Speaker 2: A guide, a dissidence guide to the Constitution. You can
3:55
Speaker 2: listen to other constitutional commentators too, and you'll be able
3:59
Speaker 2: to frame what I'm presenting about in light of the
4:03
Speaker 2: constitutional aspects that really interconnect with what I'm saying. And
4:08
Speaker 2: it's really important that we take it back to this now.
4:10
Speaker 2: This is our time to do that. So I recognize
4:15
Speaker 2: that I'm scratching the surface, but I hope that I'm
4:17
Speaker 2: going to give you some food for thought. I do
4:19
Speaker 2: just want to make the point I am speaking to
4:23
Speaker 2: things from a UK perspective, but I recognize as that
4:27
Speaker 2: slide says that this is a global issue. For the
4:29
Speaker 2: reasons that I've stated on there. I don't need to
4:31
Speaker 2: tell you what they are. All of you sitting in
4:34
Speaker 2: this audience know what the issues are. But I hear
4:38
Speaker 2: time and time again from people, oh, you know, it's
4:42
Speaker 2: happening all over the world. There's no point in having
4:45
Speaker 2: a look at what does happening in the UK. Now,
4:47
Speaker 2: if everybody in every single country said that about their
4:51
Speaker 2: own country, we'd have no resistance to anything whatsoever. So
4:57
Speaker 2: we have to know what's happening in our own local
5:00
Speaker 2: jurisdictions because it affects us, but it allows us to
5:04
Speaker 2: open up discussions about it, educate about it, pushback campaigns, etc. Etc.
5:13
Speaker 2: So perhaps a good place for me to start with
5:15
Speaker 2: all of this is this chap And he's already been mentioned.
5:18
Speaker 2: That's Aristotle, in case you don't know who he is now.
5:21
Speaker 2: He asked questions about the state, how it should be organized,
5:27
Speaker 2: how it should pursue its ends, because he believed the
5:30
Speaker 2: answers to these questions were fundamental to citizens achieving happiness.
5:36
Speaker 2: In his writing politics, he explored different types of state organizations,
5:42
Speaker 2: and he tried to describe the state that would lead
5:45
Speaker 2: to the most fulfilled citizens. He ended up rationalizing that
5:50
Speaker 2: the only true form of government are those in which
5:53
Speaker 2: the one, the few, or the many govern with a
5:58
Speaker 2: view to the common interest, and that governments which rule
6:03
Speaker 2: with a view to the private interest, whether to the
6:07
Speaker 2: one or the few or the many, are perversions. And
6:10
Speaker 2: you can see his quote. He said, whenever men rule
6:13
Speaker 2: by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many,
6:17
Speaker 2: that is an oligarchy. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is
6:21
Speaker 2: what we have today, and it is a perversion and
6:25
Speaker 2: it's one that exists for the benefit of private corporate
6:28
Speaker 2: interests and agendas and their accumulation of wealth and power. Now,
6:33
Speaker 2: the law and the legal system just two mechanisms that
6:36
Speaker 2: assist with this. So what we're seeing around the world,
6:40
Speaker 2: how is it manifesting in the UK? Well, there's mister police,
6:44
Speaker 2: stay up there. We've got the state actively intervening in
6:49
Speaker 2: every aspect of our lives and society, influencing outcomes through law, regulations,
6:57
Speaker 2: behavioral psychology. We're seeing restricts on fundamental freedoms of expression
7:03
Speaker 2: and protest. We're also being told we have no right
7:06
Speaker 2: to engage and what our children are educated about, what
7:09
Speaker 2: energy we should use, even what food we might be
7:12
Speaker 2: allowed to eat in the future. And recently we have
7:15
Speaker 2: seen some of the most racronian health proposals in Northern
7:18
Speaker 2: Ireland talking about forcing people to have a vaccine. Do
7:23
Speaker 2: you know what I say to that, we're in charge.
7:27
Speaker 2: We're in charge. Okay, now, mister police, states up there,
7:33
Speaker 2: because you've probably all seen that. We've now even got
7:36
Speaker 2: pre crime. Pre crime in the UK used to be
7:40
Speaker 2: the subject of Tom Cruise films. We've actually got it
7:43
Speaker 2: now rolled out and you've probably all seen the police
7:47
Speaker 2: going around knocking on people's doors and they're saying to
7:51
Speaker 2: them this post that you've put on social media. It's legal,
7:57
Speaker 2: but you know it might be a bit hurtful. I
8:00
Speaker 2: hurt somebody's feelings. Now, of course, this isn't what policing
8:04
Speaker 2: should be about, doesn't represent the Pelium principles upon which
8:09
Speaker 2: modern policing was founded. And on the right of the screen,
8:13
Speaker 2: I have put some information about Harry Miller. You may
8:17
Speaker 2: or may not know him. He's an ex policeman that
8:20
Speaker 2: won his case in twenty twenty one about the recording
8:24
Speaker 2: of non crime hate incidents. Now, the court ruled in
8:31
Speaker 2: his case that the recording of the same amounted to
8:35
Speaker 2: interference with his Article ten human rights. Thank you, Alex.
8:42
Speaker 2: But more importantly is that the operation of the College
8:46
Speaker 2: of Police ins twenty fourteen hate crime guidance results in
8:52
Speaker 2: an unjustified chilling effect on freeze speech. So the chilling
8:57
Speaker 2: effect is when people just don't speak. They don't talk
9:00
Speaker 2: about anything, even though it's legal to. They're too frightened
9:03
Speaker 2: to in case this guy comes knocking on your door
9:07
Speaker 2: for thought crimes. So Harry Miller's up there. Why because
9:13
Speaker 2: his case has been virtually ignored by the police who
9:18
Speaker 2: continue to record non crime hate incidents in accordance with
9:22
Speaker 2: their guidance. We've all seen the videos. It's still going on.
9:27
Speaker 2: So we have advanced in tyranny being installed across the UK,
9:30
Speaker 2: not only through the use of our laws to restrict
9:34
Speaker 2: freedom and expression. Freedom of speech and expression, but we've
9:38
Speaker 2: now got a police date that is ignoring court judgments. Okay,
9:42
Speaker 2: it's time to say no more. So let's have a
9:46
Speaker 2: look very quickly at some of the legislation that restricts
9:50
Speaker 2: our speech and expression. There's eight pieces up on the screen.
9:55
Speaker 2: There's more I could have put him. We have some
9:58
Speaker 2: of the worst legislation as regards this, and there's a
10:01
Speaker 2: lot that crosses over with what's up there. But the
10:05
Speaker 2: acts on the right of the screen particularly are just
10:08
Speaker 2: the recent iteration and what most people know about. So
10:15
Speaker 2: I don't think that it's important for me to go
10:19
Speaker 2: through in intricate detail the provisions of these acts. It
10:24
Speaker 2: would send you to sleep, and it's not necessary because
10:28
Speaker 2: that all that is necessary is for me to point
10:30
Speaker 2: out that there's a common themes running through all of
10:33
Speaker 2: this legislation. Now those themes are wide rageing powers for
10:38
Speaker 2: the state to come and take your right to speak
10:41
Speaker 2: away from you about policies that you think are harming you.
10:47
Speaker 2: And the other common theme is that that is achieved
10:50
Speaker 2: by the use of broad language. Okay in these acts. Now,
10:56
Speaker 2: I wrote a post on our telegram channel at the
10:58
Speaker 2: end of September. I do write a lot on there,
11:00
Speaker 2: and I often swear, so I apologize if anyone here
11:03
Speaker 2: actually is subscribed to that. But I stated broad language
11:07
Speaker 2: in new laws is the mainstay of dictatorial regimes. Loose
11:11
Speaker 2: word in avoiding narrow interpretation in laws made is there
11:16
Speaker 2: for one reason only, and that is so that laws
11:20
Speaker 2: can be bent and interpreted for the benefit of those
11:24
Speaker 2: that want to strip away our rights. It's happening all
11:27
Speaker 2: the time, and it's sinister. Now stand by that post.
11:39
Speaker 2: I'm going to show you some of the language that
11:42
Speaker 2: I'm talking about. So up there you'll see I've asked,
11:48
Speaker 2: what have they all got in common? These acts? Excessively
11:52
Speaker 2: broad language. So we've got words like nontrivial psychological harm
11:56
Speaker 2: in the Online Safety Bill. What does that eve mean?
12:00
Speaker 2: What does it mean to you? What does it mean
12:04
Speaker 2: to me? Probably two different things. What does it mean
12:06
Speaker 2: to the person sitting next.
12:07
Speaker 1: To you.
12:09
Speaker 2: Who decides? Who decides? We've also got likely audiences contained
12:17
Speaker 2: in that piece of legislation as well. Well, I don't
12:20
Speaker 2: know what a likely audience is. Who gets to determine that?
12:25
Speaker 2: Does it even matter now with this law whether you
12:29
Speaker 2: intended anybody to be an audience and to get hurt?
12:35
Speaker 2: This is part of the problem. They've taken intent away.
12:40
Speaker 2: Now in the anti protest legislation, we've got unacceptable protests.
12:44
Speaker 2: Well what are those? Is a protest that follows the
12:48
Speaker 2: narrative acceptable, but one that doesn't is unacceptable? Who decides?
12:55
Speaker 2: So the main thing about these laws that is the
12:59
Speaker 2: issue is that they're left wide open so that police officers,
13:04
Speaker 2: the judiciary, and the state can interpret them as they
13:07
Speaker 2: want in given situations, and that has therefore resulted in
13:11
Speaker 2: an uneven application of the law to people as you're
13:15
Speaker 2: seeing play out. Okay, I just want to sidestep a
13:20
Speaker 2: little bit here, because I think it is necessary for
13:25
Speaker 2: us to recognize that even with these laws and everything
13:31
Speaker 2: else that they're doing, the state, the government in the UK,
13:36
Speaker 2: would have absolutely no mechanism to be able to enforce
13:43
Speaker 2: all of this without a significant proportion of people going
13:47
Speaker 2: along with it. Quite simply if enough of us say no,
13:51
Speaker 2: this doesn't work. And part of the problem that we've
13:54
Speaker 2: had is that we see particularly professionals, if you want
14:01
Speaker 2: to call them that, in the legal profession, the medical profession,
14:05
Speaker 2: the police, as well as shopkeepers if we think back
14:08
Speaker 2: to twenty twenty, wouldn't wouldn't let people in without a mask.
14:12
Speaker 2: So we see people going along with it and we
14:16
Speaker 2: scratch our heads and we say, well, why are they
14:19
Speaker 2: doing it? Well, of course we've got the excessive use
14:24
Speaker 2: of propaganda via mainstream media, but we've also got this
14:29
Speaker 2: insidious organization that I don't need to explain to you
14:34
Speaker 2: because as regular watches of UK Column you will no
14:38
Speaker 2: doubt have seen UK Column cover the Nudge Unit in
14:43
Speaker 2: depth very well. But you can go and look at
14:47
Speaker 2: the Institute for Government if you want to read up
14:50
Speaker 2: more about what is nothing other than a state propaganda
14:53
Speaker 2: regime indulging in dangerous tactics. Now, of course the nudge
14:59
Speaker 2: Unit part of the strategy of tension political tactics. Tactic
15:04
Speaker 2: just use to make people very very afraid all the time,
15:08
Speaker 2: lurching from crisis to crisis. Does that remind you of
15:11
Speaker 2: anything at the moment. Why is that important to them
15:16
Speaker 2: if we want to call them them, Well, they want
15:18
Speaker 2: you to seek authority in them in the state, and
15:23
Speaker 2: they want you to beg for the authoritarian measures they
15:26
Speaker 2: want to roll out. They want people to ask for it. Okay,
15:31
Speaker 2: because when you ask for it yourself, you're not going
15:34
Speaker 2: to complain about it. But do you know what this is?
15:39
Speaker 2: Do you know what this is and what the Nudge
15:42
Speaker 2: Unit and their tactics arguably are anyone, I'll tell you
15:50
Speaker 2: it's terrorism. It is terrorism within the definition of their
15:55
Speaker 2: own legislation. Okay. So the Terrorism at two thousand and
16:00
Speaker 2: defines terrorism for US and it says the use or
16:04
Speaker 2: threat of action designed to influence the government or intimidate
16:09
Speaker 2: the public for the purposes of advancing a political, religious,
16:14
Speaker 2: or ideological clause. So we've got the UK state indulging
16:18
Speaker 2: in terrorism against its citizens. Can we draw any historical parallels?
16:25
Speaker 2: Yes we can. I am not going to go through
16:28
Speaker 2: this slide in detail because Charles Mallett did a brilliant
16:31
Speaker 2: job at the Heritage Party conference about this. I've come
16:36
Speaker 2: up with six points which you can see on there.
16:39
Speaker 2: But I particularly want to take your focus to number six,
16:43
Speaker 2: because this is all ties in with how our laws
16:45
Speaker 2: are made, and that's what I'm coming onto. So I've
16:48
Speaker 2: enlarged number six there and you'll see nineteen thirties germany
16:53
Speaker 2: erosion of civil liberties, the Enabling Act of nineteen thirty three,
16:58
Speaker 2: so it effectively allowed the power structure at that time
17:03
Speaker 2: to enact law without parliamentary consent, no democratic checks, no scrutiny,
17:10
Speaker 2: no oversight. And look what happened in the UK today
17:16
Speaker 2: we have the tactic of law making through secondary legislation
17:20
Speaker 2: and Henry the Eights powers dismantling democratic checks and balances,
17:26
Speaker 2: with a primary influence really to erode civil liberties and
17:29
Speaker 2: fundamental freedoms. There is a clear correlation here, folks, but
17:34
Speaker 2: it's actually been going on for a long time, and
17:37
Speaker 2: that's why I once to talk to you about how
17:38
Speaker 2: our laws are made. So how is most of our
17:44
Speaker 2: modern law made. We've got primary legislation, which most of
17:49
Speaker 2: you probably know about Acts of Parliament. We get about
17:53
Speaker 2: thirty a year. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it
17:56
Speaker 2: actually is quite a lot when you consider the term
17:58
Speaker 2: of a government's normally four or five years. So you're
18:01
Speaker 2: looking at one hundred and twenty to one hundred and
18:03
Speaker 2: fifty pieces throughout a government's term. We've got secondary legislation,
18:08
Speaker 2: which i'll discuss with you is really law made by
18:12
Speaker 2: the executive rather than the legislature in clear contravention of
18:17
Speaker 2: the separation of powers. And then we've got these things
18:20
Speaker 2: that hardly anybody's ever heard of, and they're called Henry
18:23
Speaker 2: the Eighth Powers, and I'm going to explain to you
18:26
Speaker 2: what they are. I suspect Alex Thompson knows what they
18:29
Speaker 2: are very well. I can see him giggling. We do
18:32
Speaker 2: have some other law making powers in this country that
18:34
Speaker 2: I'm not going to cover by laws orders in Council.
18:36
Speaker 2: We're just going to cover those three bullet points. Okay.
18:40
Speaker 2: First of all, I want you to know, all right,
18:43
Speaker 2: the question we're asking is, is the very act of
18:47
Speaker 2: creating the law via both the primary and the secondary
18:50
Speaker 2: legislation process, and is the use of Henry the Eighth
18:54
Speaker 2: Powers actually where the weaponization is? Does it start there
18:57
Speaker 2: at the base level? I would argue it does. Okay,
19:01
Speaker 2: So please be aware we have four to five thousand
19:06
Speaker 2: active Acts of Parliament in the UK. Put your hand
19:09
Speaker 2: up if you've read them all. Okay. We've got fifteen
19:14
Speaker 2: to sixteen thousand pieces of secondary legislation currently in force
19:18
Speaker 2: in the UK. We have been virtually redundant in the
19:24
Speaker 2: making of this law, all of it. Put your hands
19:28
Speaker 2: up if you think that's wrong. Okay. So there's no
19:35
Speaker 2: conceivable way that any of us could even look through
19:37
Speaker 2: this law to read it to see what we're supposedly
19:40
Speaker 2: bound by. So we have a legal system that's operating
19:46
Speaker 2: with laws that we don't even know about. We don't
19:48
Speaker 2: even know if we're breaking the law. So the law's
19:52
Speaker 2: not clear or accessible. That's the foundational principle of equality
19:58
Speaker 2: under the law. Out of the window, folks, I mean,
20:00
Speaker 2: I think we probably all know that with what we've seen.
20:04
Speaker 2: But there is no justice, fairness, or impartiality if you
20:07
Speaker 2: don't know what the law says that you are supposed
20:10
Speaker 2: to do or not do. So you see two useful
20:15
Speaker 2: idiots up on the screen there, I'm sure you recognize them.
20:21
Speaker 2: They're up there because if you raise this point, like
20:24
Speaker 2: I do all the time with people about acts of Parliament,
20:29
Speaker 2: I get the standard. Well, you get to move every
20:32
Speaker 2: five once every five years. That's how you're meaningfully involved
20:36
Speaker 2: in how your law is made. And of course it's
20:40
Speaker 2: absolute nonsense. Anyone here that still votes will know that
20:45
Speaker 2: their candidate that they're going to tick the ballot for
20:49
Speaker 2: is never going to be able to tell them that
20:51
Speaker 2: those one hundred and fifty bills that are going to
20:54
Speaker 2: go through perhaps for to become Acts of Parliament before
20:57
Speaker 2: they get voted in, they just can't tell you. They
21:01
Speaker 2: don't even know themselves half the time. That means that
21:05
Speaker 2: the only process is post a general election for us
21:09
Speaker 2: to be meaningfully involved in the primary legislation, making our petitions,
21:17
Speaker 2: campaigning and lobbying of our MPs. Why am I going?
21:25
Speaker 2: Because all of them are subverted, aren't they at the
21:28
Speaker 2: state level to one degree or another. And most notably
21:31
Speaker 2: that's by the whipping system. So it doesn't really matter
21:34
Speaker 2: what you ask. Your MP's whipped into compliance by this
21:38
Speaker 2: ridiculous system that we have that says if they don't
21:41
Speaker 2: go along with it, they lose the whip. That's its
21:44
Speaker 2: withdrawn gone. And these two useful idiots are up on
21:49
Speaker 2: the screen. Because even if we accept that not everybody
21:54
Speaker 2: in politics is bad, and I won't accept that everybody's bad.
21:58
Speaker 2: I think there are people that are trying to do
22:00
Speaker 2: good things. I think there are people that are just
22:03
Speaker 2: people that think they're trying to do good things and
22:06
Speaker 2: they're just not helping. Okay. So even if we accept
22:10
Speaker 2: that with primary legislation when it goes through its passage
22:14
Speaker 2: through the Commons and the Lords, it starts off as
22:17
Speaker 2: a bill when it goes around and there are some
22:18
Speaker 2: good people that are going to look at it and say, well,
22:21
Speaker 2: that doesn't seem right and that that must come out
22:24
Speaker 2: and that can't stay. But we have to acknowledge that
22:28
Speaker 2: that process itself is brought to some degree by this,
22:33
Speaker 2: and that's lobbying, Okay. Now, lobbying is done by corporate interests,
22:40
Speaker 2: think tanks and electic groups, all the same suspects, and
22:45
Speaker 2: they're buying political favor. Our laws are being bought and
22:51
Speaker 2: they are being paid for, and it's wrong and it
22:55
Speaker 2: has to stop, and we can make it stop now.
22:58
Speaker 2: I couldn't find figures for lobbying paid to the UK
23:03
Speaker 2: government in twenty twenty three, and you will be unsurprised
23:05
Speaker 2: to know those figures aren't readily available. But I can
23:09
Speaker 2: tell you that the UK lobbying industry is substantial and
23:15
Speaker 2: the amount of money paid to the lobbying industry, because
23:19
Speaker 2: it is an industry it's a business, is around two
23:23
Speaker 2: billion pounds annually, and that there are four thousand lobbyists
23:29
Speaker 2: operating around Westminster and Whitehall. So it's a business. It's
23:36
Speaker 2: a business, and we need to get our noses into
23:38
Speaker 2: that and we need to stop it from happening. Now,
23:42
Speaker 2: the two useful idiots up on the screen are laughing
23:45
Speaker 2: because they're laughing about the last lobbying scandal in twenty
23:48
Speaker 2: twenty three, which was Conservative MP Scott bentm So you
23:53
Speaker 2: can go and have a look at that if you
23:54
Speaker 2: want to. There's many many lobbying scandals that you'll come across.
24:00
Speaker 2: So let me just move to here. Let's go on
24:05
Speaker 2: now to secondary legislation. So I've already got a problem
24:08
Speaker 2: with primary legislation, which is supposed to represent the democratic process.
24:12
Speaker 2: So I'm going to have a problem with secondary legislation.
24:15
Speaker 2: And I hope you're catching my drift and you're feeling
24:18
Speaker 2: that you're going to you've got problems with it too.
24:22
Speaker 2: So secondary legislation, as I've said, there's almost four times
24:26
Speaker 2: as much secondary legislation in force as primary legislation. Now
24:31
Speaker 2: given in this country that it is the legislature that
24:34
Speaker 2: is supposed to make law, and that secondary legislation is
24:39
Speaker 2: made by the executive, government ministers, other bodies as well.
24:45
Speaker 2: What does that tell you? What does it tell you? Okay, Now,
24:50
Speaker 2: as I've said, it's typically made by government ministers through
24:54
Speaker 2: statutory instruments. But you can have regulatory agencies that make
25:00
Speaker 2: secondary legislation. And this is the issue that we're seeing
25:03
Speaker 2: with regulatory bodies. And I could wax lyrical about this
25:08
Speaker 2: in the legal profession, and I'm sure doctor Malick probably
25:11
Speaker 2: could in the medical profession as well. Local authority is
25:14
Speaker 2: your local council. They can also make secondary legislation. So
25:20
Speaker 2: what are the criticisms of it? Well, first of all,
25:22
Speaker 2: it's of course the executive getting involved in business, which
25:25
Speaker 2: it shouldn't be. And if you don't believe me, believe
25:31
Speaker 2: Baronish Cavendish. She said the increased use of secondary legislation
25:37
Speaker 2: has led to the situation where governments are ruling by
25:40
Speaker 2: dictat Well, she's quite right, isn't she. Perhaps we should
25:44
Speaker 2: have invited her along. We've also got the House of Lords,
25:49
Speaker 2: Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee they've expressed concerns about
25:54
Speaker 2: what they call the democratic deficit, because basically what's happening
25:59
Speaker 2: is your MPs that you vote for are supposed to
26:03
Speaker 2: be involved in the process of making law through the
26:06
Speaker 2: primary legislation process, through looking at it, through voting on it.
26:11
Speaker 2: And here we have a situation in our country where
26:14
Speaker 2: we have four times as much secondary legislation where some
26:18
Speaker 2: ministers rolled out of bed on a Sunday night and
26:21
Speaker 2: decided to scribe up whatever he has in the form
26:24
Speaker 2: of regulations or statutory instrument. Now, the problem with secondary
26:29
Speaker 2: legislation is challenges to it. We can challenge it apparently,
26:34
Speaker 2: but it's really expensive. I haven't got two hundred and
26:37
Speaker 2: fifty thousand pounds, which is kind of what it will
26:40
Speaker 2: cost at a minimum, because believe you meet, the government
26:43
Speaker 2: will throw the big guns at you when you try
26:46
Speaker 2: to challenge it. You only need to go and look
26:47
Speaker 2: at the Dolan judicial review during COVID for that was
26:50
Speaker 2: a million pounds. It's also got really narrow grounds and
26:55
Speaker 2: short time limits, so you know, it's pretty much out
26:58
Speaker 2: of the window to challenge it. So let's come on
27:03
Speaker 2: to Henry the eighth Powers. Who's heard of Henry the
27:06
Speaker 2: eighth clause. Just a few of you, so s that's good, okay,
27:12
Speaker 2: So Alex is probably going to correct me here. Henry
27:16
Speaker 2: the eighth clauses are a specific type of secondary legislation.
27:20
Speaker 2: There are claus that's included in some primary legislation when
27:25
Speaker 2: it's drafted up, and it typically says that the government
27:29
Speaker 2: can come along and change or repeal an Act of
27:33
Speaker 2: Parliament without the need for a new act, without the
27:36
Speaker 2: need for it to go back through any democratic oversight,
27:40
Speaker 2: Parliament having a look at it. So they bypass parliamentary
27:44
Speaker 2: scrutiny once again and allow the government to change law.
27:50
Speaker 2: And you will know this because it happened to all
27:52
Speaker 2: of us in twenty twenty, various regulations under the Public
27:57
Speaker 2: Health Act nineteen eighty four were made by Henry the
28:01
Speaker 2: eighth use of Henry the eighth clauses. Now, the government
28:05
Speaker 2: will always argue for this clause to be put into
28:08
Speaker 2: primary legislation should be no shock to anybody, And they
28:12
Speaker 2: say it's because it's necessary in case we've got an
28:16
Speaker 2: emergency or a crisis. You know those things they keep
28:20
Speaker 2: propagandaizing us with. So Lord Judge when he was Lord
28:24
Speaker 2: Chief Justice of England spoke strongly against these clauses, and
28:27
Speaker 2: he said, you know what, when the government says that
28:30
Speaker 2: these need to be introduced, they will always be said
28:34
Speaker 2: to be necessary. I think he was onto something and
28:38
Speaker 2: on the screen, love him or hate him is pick
28:40
Speaker 2: the younger. And he said, necessity is the justification for
28:44
Speaker 2: every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants,
28:48
Speaker 2: the creed of slaves. I think we can all agree
28:50
Speaker 2: he was right. So I just want to quickly move
28:53
Speaker 2: on to what's on the horizon in the legal profession.
28:58
Speaker 2: There are a lot of changes come in with AI
29:02
Speaker 2: and regulatory reform, but I've picked this one because it's
29:05
Speaker 2: really important. And you'll see a lawg AS article up
29:08
Speaker 2: there of June twenty twenty three selling us the benefits
29:11
Speaker 2: of juryalist trials. I mean, I just cannot believe the
29:15
Speaker 2: legal press has got the front to put this out. Okay, now,
29:20
Speaker 2: they used rape convictions statistics to sell this to the
29:25
Speaker 2: legal profession. And I will tell you something, when you
29:28
Speaker 2: see this kind of rubbish in the legal profession publications,
29:32
Speaker 2: you better believe that they're trying to sell it via
29:35
Speaker 2: the legal profession to you lot. They need us to
29:37
Speaker 2: agree Okay, funny thing about those statistics turns out that
29:43
Speaker 2: they were selective. So I think we can all recognize
29:47
Speaker 2: the manipulation of statistics modeling to sell us things that
29:51
Speaker 2: are very dystopian. So whenever you're looking at anything like
29:54
Speaker 2: this and you're looking at statistics, really have a look
29:56
Speaker 2: at them. Now, jury trials, of course, are an enshrined
30:01
Speaker 2: right of ours, a fundamental part of English common law,
30:06
Speaker 2: a safeguard against the arbitrary justice and government overreach. So
30:13
Speaker 2: the regime seeking to remove them should come as no
30:16
Speaker 2: surprise to you. Now I am pleased to say, wrong one. Sorry,
30:24
Speaker 2: this has been kicked into the long grass for now.
30:27
Speaker 2: Up there Scottish Legal News confirming that this has now
30:30
Speaker 2: been put back to twenty twenty eight. Now, this was
30:33
Speaker 2: fierce opposition from the legal profession but also the public,
30:38
Speaker 2: because we can't do it without you guys. It doesn't
30:40
Speaker 2: matter what we say. We need all of you on board.
30:43
Speaker 2: But this is a temporary reprieve and they are going
30:46
Speaker 2: to look at this again in twenty twenty eight and
30:48
Speaker 2: we all need to be vigilant to this. Now. The
30:53
Speaker 2: retention of jury trials has to be preserved at all costs.
30:58
Speaker 2: I hope you know why. There are last result to
31:01
Speaker 2: enable us to be involved in the process of law
31:04
Speaker 2: making in this country. They are atol to fight back
31:07
Speaker 2: against state overreach, and this is by something called during nullification. Now,
31:13
Speaker 2: this article on the stream screen goes into our constitution
31:17
Speaker 2: and during nullification in a lot of detail. Haven't got
31:20
Speaker 2: time to do that today, but you'll see I've put
31:23
Speaker 2: a quote from the author Ennulment by jury starts the
31:27
Speaker 2: process of removing unjust legislation by the statute from the
31:31
Speaker 2: statute books. This is the rule of law under the
31:34
Speaker 2: withheld British Constitution. He's absolutely right, simply put dury. Nullification
31:41
Speaker 2: overturns statutory law. It's therefore the antidote not only legislation
31:46
Speaker 2: with which we do not agree, but the weaponization of
31:50
Speaker 2: law creation itself. It reasserts our right to be involved
31:54
Speaker 2: in our law making process, and it's one of the
31:57
Speaker 2: key reasons that they want to get rid of jury.
32:00
Speaker 2: I will tell you that now. Now in twenty fifteen,
32:03
Speaker 2: there was this interesting position make it law to inform
32:07
Speaker 2: a jury of their powers of nullification. I am not
32:11
Speaker 2: going to make a comment about the signatures. I know
32:13
Speaker 2: it's a really strange number aside from to say it
32:17
Speaker 2: got a woeful response. I'm going to stand up here
32:22
Speaker 2: today and tell you that I am going to be
32:25
Speaker 2: resurrecting a similar position petition about during nullification, and I
32:30
Speaker 2: hope that I can rely on your support to get
32:32
Speaker 2: this debated and on the record for education purposes, if
32:36
Speaker 2: nothing else. I want everyone to know about it. Okay,
32:40
Speaker 2: So I hope you can all help going forward. Now.
32:43
Speaker 2: If you don't think it's real, there's two cases recently
32:46
Speaker 2: where it happened. It's not a five hundred, one hundred
32:49
Speaker 2: year old arcade principle extinction rebellion. Please don't groan. I'm
32:54
Speaker 2: not saying I like them, agree with them or their
32:57
Speaker 2: protest tactics. But the jury did FAMI. These defendants not guilty,
33:04
Speaker 2: even though they admitted to what they had done. They
33:07
Speaker 2: said it was necessary, and the jury agreed with them.
33:10
Speaker 2: It's not a defense at law. And do you know
33:13
Speaker 2: what the legal profession called this a perverse judgment? A
33:17
Speaker 2: perverse judgment. It's not perverse. It's a jury exercising the
33:22
Speaker 2: functions that they are enabled to do. So we've also
33:26
Speaker 2: got this recent case in September. This is a really
33:30
Speaker 2: interesting case because these defendants argued what I would argue
33:34
Speaker 2: for things if I'm going to get in trouble, and
33:37
Speaker 2: that is necessity. The defense of necessity. They're doing what
33:41
Speaker 2: they're doing, which is a crime. They're admitting it, but
33:44
Speaker 2: it's to stop a bigger crime from happening. This is
33:48
Speaker 2: how justice works in this system. The trial judge said
33:51
Speaker 2: you can't have that defense and removed it because it
33:54
Speaker 2: has to be looked at when you raise that defense.
33:56
Speaker 2: So they didn't have a defense at all, and they'd
33:59
Speaker 2: admitted to what they'd done. The jury can reach a
34:02
Speaker 2: verdict with them. I think it was around about half
34:07
Speaker 2: wanted to convict, the other half didn't. And unfortunately in
34:12
Speaker 2: this case there's going to be a red trial. We'll
34:15
Speaker 2: just have to see how that goes. Mister Mallet's frightened
34:18
Speaker 2: the life out of me because they's given me five minutes.
34:21
Speaker 2: So I just want to wrap up, and then with
34:22
Speaker 2: some court comments about magistrates' courts. You only need to
34:26
Speaker 2: need to really read what it says up there, and
34:30
Speaker 2: you can see that I've said they're an affront to
34:32
Speaker 2: our constitution. Now, they obviously have early origins nineteenth century,
34:37
Speaker 2: but I'm talking about their modern structure, which has come
34:40
Speaker 2: in under the Magistrates Court Act nineteen eighty. I've lost
34:45
Speaker 2: my piece of paper. Where has that gone? It's on
34:53
Speaker 2: the floor. Pardon me? So, in my opinion, magistrates courts
34:58
Speaker 2: are unconstitutional. Alex agrees with me. I see im nod
35:01
Speaker 2: in they shouldn't it be exists. I have no idea
35:04
Speaker 2: how they ever came got past the post in coming
35:07
Speaker 2: into being. Now they're unconstitutional because they contradict foundational, foundational
35:14
Speaker 2: principle of our constitution. Please put your hands up and
35:17
Speaker 2: tell me you know what that is? What is it? Correct? Absolutely,
35:27
Speaker 2: these things operate without a jury. You get a lay
35:31
Speaker 2: magistrate that has three days training but can take away
35:35
Speaker 2: somebody's liberty. The principle of trial by jury is a
35:39
Speaker 2: rite contained in Magna Carta twelve fifteen. And before you
35:42
Speaker 2: think I'm back mad, Sorry, I was going to swear
35:45
Speaker 2: then crazy for saying that. Because people think magnekata some
35:51
Speaker 2: old thing that doesn't exist Article thirty nine, it's still there.
35:55
Speaker 2: No free man should be deprived of liberty without a
35:58
Speaker 2: lawful judgment by his peers. So this underscores, this is
36:03
Speaker 2: our constitutional document. One of them underscores the importance of
36:08
Speaker 2: citizens being involved in the legal process. So I know,
36:12
Speaker 2: given that I've told you that, you're not going to
36:13
Speaker 2: let them take this away any further. Okay, I want
36:17
Speaker 2: to end this now by saying something really important to you.
36:21
Speaker 2: A we need to educate our peers about what I've
36:24
Speaker 2: just told you. But what's important is that when the
36:28
Speaker 2: law fails to acknowledge and uphold the right of individuals
36:31
Speaker 2: to resist lawlessness and oppression from the state itself through
36:38
Speaker 2: the mechanism of trial by jury, both justice and freedom
36:43
Speaker 2: are compromised. A government that determines which laws to enforce
36:48
Speaker 2: it its own discretion, will impose whatever it wants, when
36:52
Speaker 2: it wants, on whoever it wants. The only counter to
36:57
Speaker 2: this is legitimate resistance through trial by jury and peaceful
37:03
Speaker 2: civil disobedience, where juries are prohibited from assessing the fairness
37:09
Speaker 2: of government laws against citizens. The state has granted itself
37:13
Speaker 2: unchecked power. That's nothing other than slavery, folks, it's nothing
37:19
Speaker 2: other than dictatorship. And it's up to us now to
37:22
Speaker 2: step up and say enough is enough. I'll leave it there,
37:26
Speaker 2: thank you.
37:34
Speaker 1: A very serious subject, but that does not excuse us
37:46
Speaker 1: in any way from ignoring it, and I think I
37:50
Speaker 1: speak for everybody when I say that we have learned
37:52
Speaker 1: an awful lot, not just about the grim reality that
37:56
Speaker 1: is there, but where it's come from, how it has
38:00
Speaker 1: come to be at this point, but most importantly, what
38:03
Speaker 1: we can do about it and what we should be
38:06
Speaker 1: aware of. On a personal note, it's nice to have
38:09
Speaker 1: it confirmed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking
38:11
Speaker 1: about that some of the stuff I've reported on UK
38:13
Speaker 1: column is almost in the right place, So that's good.
38:17
Speaker 1: Claire Wills Harrison, thank you very much, indeed, for a
38:19
Speaker 1: fantastic talk.