vResistance Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 Can we believe what they say though? They are the sort of people who remove pages from official documents to hide where they have been or possibly to hide the fact that they had been denied entry to other countries. I'll find out what I can about the missing pages, I would ask, can we really believe what the police are saying ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I would ask, can we really believe what the police are saying ? Ahead of two people who believe some old bloke's claim that he's the messiah - I don't think you need me to answer that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 Someone overtook me on the motorway the other day doing a 100mph plus. Nobody in officialdom saw them to accuse them of committing an offence as far as I know, but it still doesn't alter the fact they did it. Thank-you then it is safe to say the authorities acted unlawfully as they broke their own rules.(like that speeding car, it happened) Ahead of two people who believe some old bloke's claim that he's the messiah - I don't think you need me to answer that. How small minded of you. So because you do not share somebodys religious beliefs you assume them to be lying criminals. Our "government" lie to us all the time yet you defend them Might I suggest that someone invests in a solicitor who is expert in these matters, and who could draw up a letter that has some vestige of credibility? Saying 'That's The Law' does not mean anything. Personally, the tone of the letter and various turns of phrase puts me in mind of the nigerian scam letters. Unfortunately, quoting from the Bible also rather damages the credibility of the defence. Something not quite right here. "Unfortunately, quoting from the Bible also rather damages the credibility of the defence." What a ridiculous statement,since british law is supposed to be the law of God. So using the law as a defence loses you credibilty ? The "Queen" swore an oath on the bible to maintain those laws and all Judges have sworn an oath to uphold those laws too. (see the video in my signature for proof) That is/was the point in having a monarch ,as she/they have broken their promise to us it makes them pretty pointless and should no longer be our Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Thank-you then it is safe to say the authorities acted unlawfully as they broke their own rules. In what way? They were refused entry - see the section "Without Entry Clearance". http://www.justlanded.com/english/UK/Articles/Visas-Permits/Entry-Refusal They were not deported as you have to have entered the country first. Two different animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 "Unfortunately, quoting from the Bible also rather damages the credibility of the defence." What a ridiculous statement,since british law is supposed to be the law of God. So using the law as a defence loses you credibilty ? The "Queen" swore an oath on the bible to maintain those laws and all Judges have sworn an oath to uphold those laws too. (see the video in my signature for proof) That is/was the point in having a monarch ,as she/they have broken their promise to us it makes them pretty pointless and should no longer be our Queen. Wrong. British statutory law is made by Parliament - not the Queen or the sky fairy. The Queen took an oath prescribed by Parliament under the Act of Settlement (1701). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 So they stole their boat and are now selling it. Way to uphold the "law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 In what way? They were refused entry - see the section "Without Entry Clearance". http://www.justlanded.com/english/UK/Articles/Visas-Permits/Entry-Refusal They were not deported as you have to have entered the country first. Two different animals. They were asked to return to this country. They were held in this country, in cells against their will. They were deported. They could have been asked to leave on their boat/home but because of why they were here got the treatment as described. Obvious. The 'powers that be' can't stand this man that is telling the truth of 7/7 and isn't afraid of them that put him through 150 days in jail and a trial. They used a stupid excuse to punish three men that support him also ,because they support him. Obvious. What do you think they fear about him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Wrong. British statutory law is made by Parliament - not the Queen or the sky fairy. The Queen took an oath prescribed by Parliament under the Act of Settlement (1701). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701 So you agree the queen has broken her promise and has no reason or right to be queen. She wears the crown 'n that but she hasn't done the job she promised at her coronation. You can't have God's law (which she promised to maintain) and British statutory law made by Parliament . It just doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 They were asked to return to this country. They were held in this country, in cells against their will. They were deported. They could have been asked to leave on their boat/home but because of why they were here got the treatment as described. Obvious. The 'powers that be' can't stand this man that is telling the truth of 7/7 and isn't afraid of them that put him through 150 days in jail and a trial. They used a stupid excuse to punish three men that support him also ,because they support him. Obvious. What do you think they fear about him ? a) They were not deported. They were refused entry. Two separate animals. b) If refused entry it is the norm to immediatley send people back to their home country - ie New Zealand and South Africa. Again - read the section "Without Entry Clearance" http://www.justlanded.com/english/UK/Articles/Visas-Permits/Entry-Refusal c) Hill / Muad/Dib / JAH / the sky fairy / isn't feared by anybody - but he has a history of grossly offending people with his fantasies - like telling the parent of someone killed on a bus on 7/7 she was murdered by the security services at Canary Wharf - without a single shred of evidence. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/national/7_7_bombers_were_innocent_patsies_1_3366635 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 So you agree the queen has broken her promise and has no reason or right to be queen. She wears the crown 'n that but she hasn't done the job she promised at her coronation. You can't have God's law (which she promised to maintain) and British statutory law made by Parliament . It just doesn't work. ??????????????????? No - the Queen has fulfilled her role by giving assent to all Acts of Parliament. There isn't any "God's Law". All "God's Laws" were written by men or women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.