An English(or British) constiution?

[corydoras]

But doesn't the need for an explicit bill of rights come from the presumption that what is not expressly allowed is forbidden, whereas the presumption in English law is that what is not forbidden is allowed?

Hmm, I'm not sure that all of that still applies with the provisions for detention without trial or legal representation included in recent anti-terror legislation.

You could well be correct. The point is that it may as well not exist.

[Leon Roskilly]

I.E a single document setting out its citizens rights, and obligations.

 

 

We are a monarchy.

 

We are not citizens, we are subjects.

 

 

By the way, the translation of Magna Carta is at:

 

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html

 

(It's not very long, and worth a read just to dispel all the myths one hears)

 

 

 

I'm often told that it gives anglers the right to fish the beaches, but I can't find that bit.

 

 

 

They might have gone too far with this bit

 

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them.

 

This bit seems fair though

 

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

 

And I guess the bits about the inheritance of debts to jews would depend upon you have borrowed from a jew, or you are a jewish money-lender.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Walker]

I quite like the idea that every time parliament wants to create a new law, it has to repeal an old one...

 

Thing is, our system based on legislating for the needs of the day would work perfectly well if parliament behaved as if it were democratically accountable, if the people held their MPs to account and if it wasn't so damn hard to win back freedoms which have been legislated away. It doesn't help that people are so bloody willing to sacrifice any freedoms that they personally aren't using at the moment or which they personally find distasteful.

[captain cojones]

cheers everybody,some great opinions and comments.

i have to do a program on the spanish constitution,i had the idea of including the question regarding "why no english consitution".(its a live phone in)i reckon it would liven it up no end!!!

we have in spain a royal family, are citizens and have a parlimentary monarchy.

is it a constitutional monarchy in the uk?

 

I personally think magna carta has no relevence to everyday life now, thats why most of it has been repealed.i know that it formed the basis of many laws,but i do think there is a case for one single document,that is easily accessable to everybody,that sets out everybodies rights AND OBLIGATIONS..

.

Edited August 15, 2007 by captain cojones

[corydoras]

is it a contitutional monarchy in the uk?

 

I personally think magna carta has no relevence to everyday life now, thats why most of it has been repealed.i know that it formed the basis of many laws,but i do think there is a case for one single document,that is easily accessable to everybody,that sets out everybodies rights AND OBLIGATIONS..

.

Yup and so do I

[snakey1]

There is the 1689 english bill of rights bill of rights 1689 which included amongst other things the right to bear arms and the freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial however successive govenments have eroded this bill of rights down to virtually nothing.

Edited August 15, 2007 by snakey1

[Steve Burke]

that sets out everybodies rights AND OBLIGATIONS..

 

I'm glad that someone has mentioned the word "obligations". It's one that all too rarely comes up.

 

There's also much talk about the rights of the individual, but very little about the rights of other members of society and society as a whole.

 

There needs to be a balance here, otherwise society itself breaks down. In my opinion this balance in some areas is out of kilter, and too much in favour of the individual.

 

"Balance" is the operative word. In the past the rights of the individual were often taken away by society. There are still injustices, but now I believe that the balance has swung too far the other way.

 

One example that we've discussed here before is the right of the householder to defend his property against intruders. Thankfully the law has recently been clarified here.

 

Another is the rights of a convicted criminal. In my view there are certain circumstances where someone who has convicted a serious crime such as murder should be imprisoned for life. This is particularly the case where there is a risk that they will commit the same serious crime again.

 

In other words, in this instance the rights of society to be protected come before any rights that the criminal may have.

 

Life should mean life. No parole. Ever.

 

However this is rarely the case, thanks partly to liberal attitudes from certain sections of society, plus governments who are afraid that putting up taxes to protect society will cost them votes.

[Cranfield]

We don't need no legislation,

We don't need no thought control,

No dark sarcasm in the Parliment,

MP's leave them citizens alone,

Hey MP's, leave them citizens alone,

All in all it's just another brick in the wall,

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

 

With apologies to Pink Floyd.

[obe1]

The Magna Carta is not a proper constitution, nor to we have an equivalent of a Supreme Court to protect it.

 

 

The magna carta was a written document that outlined the rights and obligations of the people of britain including the monarchy and barons and is the basis of our legal system, isn't that a constitution?

 

Joe

[obe1]

I'm glad that someone has mentioned the word "obligations". It's one that all too rarely comes up.

 

There's also much talk about the rights of the individual, but very little about the rights of other members of society and society as a whole.

 

There needs to be a balance here, otherwise society itself breaks down. In my opinion this balance in some areas is out of kilter, and too much in favour of the individual.

 

"Balance" is the operative word. In the past the rights of the individual were often taken away by society. There are still injustices, but now I believe that the balance has swung too far the other way.

 

One example that we've discussed here before is the right of the householder to defend his property against intruders. Thankfully the law has recently been clarified here.

 

Another is the rights of a convicted criminal. In my view there are certain circumstances where someone who has convicted a serious crime such as murder should be imprisoned for life. This is particularly the case where there is a risk that they will commit the same serious crime again.

 

In other words, in this instance the rights of society to be protected come before any rights that the criminal may have.

 

Life should mean life. No parole. Ever.

 

However this is rarely the case, thanks partly to liberal attitudes from certain sections of society, plus governments who are afraid that putting up taxes to protect society will cost them votes.