The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > King Bill?

King Bill?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
JMCC Peter is in fact a leaned legal practitioner.
Peter please, you need not have changed your name, it is clear you are in part right.
I am poorly educated, rough, proud of that last, honest truly hope so.
I too get it wrong, as you do, but will not hide behind another name.
I differ with you, often, never because you are a conservative, Liberal IN fact.
It is you stubborn refusal to see more humans, far more are not practicing Christians, than are.
Yet your God made us all/loves us all?
JMCC sorry I got you name wrong, I stand by my claim, great changes have been made from the days this quaint old lady had a privy council, in my adult lifetime.
Peter, you give the best reason for a republic I have ever seen, no way I will ever bend my legs to a royal.
Nore a God[again] that does not exist.
Born into a family from British stock, some convict, and into one loyal to Henrys invention the church of England, I claim solidarity with the rest of the world.
Those who do not want a life on their knees before a human like them or a dream that never was.
My country, lead by your mob or mine, is not threatened by change.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 23 January 2010 5:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly and others,
Nothing has or will change Once Liz goes we'll get that very un-special wastes Charlie and Prunella outside divine providence that is.

To me a figurehead needs to be someone special, someone worthy, after Liz there's nothing that remotely looks special about that lot.
Special to me, is earned not just a lucky birth.

I propose King Belly? pity about his political affiliations though
he's certainly done more that Will the dill who still hasn't grown up.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 23 January 2010 5:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with you examinator. I would far rather see someone with principles like Belly in such a job, than a now not so young Prince William who would only get there by virtue of his birth.

Peter Vexatious are you for real or are you just yanking our chains?
Hillsong sounds like a real blast, but I think I will pass on that type of group anyway.

How do you feel about the current push to stop Parliamentarians from having to say the lord's prayer before the commencement of parliament each day?

I believe that a christian prayer like this has no place in a secular parliament like we have today.
This is no time to look back several thousand years for inspiration from how it was done back then.
It is time to move on and think for ourselves.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 24 January 2010 2:10:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PV in my view is PTB and I have no doubt if he wished he could inform us about the privy council.
I contend the privy council we have now, and the laws of referral, are very much different than they had been early post ww2.
In fact up until 1972.
And more recently great changes have been made, some here can shed light if the want to.
Look I am in no way always happy with actions on both sides of the Aboriginal debate.
Both sides seem self interested , but in Pierson I see leadership and a GG well a president in fact.
Rudd in truth took the warm and comfy nice lady track, and she is a nice lady[ there Bill got over that rock ok?]
But Noel would make us so much better.
Hill song? 20.000 same day same country bet 200.000 went to our Beach's instead.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 24 January 2010 7:35:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Political Party that proposed the abolition of the Lord’s Prayer from Standing Orders, became history next election. Not a seat Zilch, none.

The Prayer Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, for 800 years was the basis of our legal system. The God we had was represented by a Justice we now call a Judge. These are mostly universally evil people, who inflict violence upon others, and in the words of Luke 11 Verse 46 lift not a finger of their own to help. This God had vested all judgment in the Son, John 5 Verses 22 and 23. Worth repeating. For the Father judgesth no man but has committed all judgment to the Son. That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

By sitting alone as a Judge, all Judges and Magistrates are defiling the memory of Jesus Christ and dishonouring the Father, Almighty God. It is no wonder they must receive $4000 a week up to $7000 a week, from a bribing government, to sell their souls to Satan for worldly wealth. Consequently unless we get a strong Christian Prime Minister, nine separate atheist churches will continue to worship themselves as sovereign, and insist that the Judges and Magistrates serve them and not Almighty God.

To be a Christian a Justice has to have a jury. Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of the Father, and as representing Jesus Christ, where two or more are gathered together in His name to be the judges of S 79 Constitution, we must have twelve people.

The only blasphemy Jesus Christ inflicts upon us is to deny the Holy Spirit. In Luke 12 Verse 10 Jesus said: And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but unto him that blasphemest against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. So every time you see Judges and Magistrates have pity on them. They are the cursed of society
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Sunday, 24 January 2010 10:07:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ROYAL PREROGATIVE
Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Ed) Volume 8 Constitutional law

The Royal Prerogative

(5) THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE LAW

The Crown as the Source of all Jurisdiction

943 Sovereign as the source of all justice. By virtue of the prerogative the Sovereign is the source and fountain of justice and all jurisdiction derives from her. Hence in legal contemplation, the Sovereign’s Majesty is deemed always to be present in court, and by the terms of the coronation oath, and by the maxims of the common law as also by the ancient charters and statutes confirming the liberties of the subject, the Sovereign is bound to cause law and justice in mercy to be administered in all judgments. This is however a purely impersonal conception, for the Sovereign cannot personally execute any office relating to the administration of justice nor effect an arrest and though all criminal suits must be brought in the Sovereigns name, she could not be non suited either in criminal or civil proceedings.

It is sad that all the Judges and Magistrates I have ever met are uneducated and will not receive instruction in their arrogance. This is not surprising because to be admitted as a lawyer, a person must graduate from the Houses of Evil staffed by atheists, they call Law Schools.

Even then they cannot get a licence to steal until they have spent a two year apprenticeship working for $20 an hour sixty hours a week, so a partner can charge their work to clients at $400 an hour. If they knew this and S 24 Australian Courts Act 1828 which provides that the Laws of England shall be applied to the administration of justice, we may be able to get some justice in Australia.

Blokes like Belly, honest hard working, with plenty of common sense, are the judges that the Constitution in S 79 contemplates. They are the judges because the Constitution was made subject to the Australian Courts Act 1828. In 1900 all judges were members of the common people. That was why it is the common law.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Sunday, 24 January 2010 10:45:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy