The Mail on Sunday has published an important article based on the Through the Looking Glass report (full disclosure I have known something about it) which details part of the non-neutral social transitioning scaffolding in primary education which Cass recommended dismantling( she wants such things to be under medical supervision only) The government agreed hence para 72 of the new RSHE guidelines and the new KCSIE guidelines which scream ‘don’t do it’ https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15987667/Trans-lobby-hijacking-school-reading-sex-change-propaganda.htmlhttps://archive.ph/9Vxof
Take your time on the "constitution" issue. When you do would you kindly address this, which is from a response to a query from Duck Duck Go, my search engine:
"Search Assist
The United Kingdom has a constitution, but it is uncodified, meaning it is not contained in a single document. Instead, it consists of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties.
....
Existence of a Constitution
The United Kingdom has a constitution, but it is uncodified. This means it is not found in a single document like many other countries' constitutions. Instead, it is made up of various sources.
Components of the UK Constitution
The UK constitution includes:
Statutes: Laws passed by Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Conventions: Established practices that are followed, though not legally binding.
Judicial Decisions: Court rulings that interpret constitutional principles.
Treaties: International agreements that have constitutional significance.
Characteristics of the UK Constitution
Flexibility: The uncodified nature allows for easier amendments compared to codified constitutions.
Historical Development: It has evolved over centuries, responding to various political and social changes.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament holds the ultimate authority to create or abolish laws, which is a defining principle of the constitution.
In summary, while the UK does have a constitution, it is unique in its uncodified form, relying on a combination of written and unwritten elements.
Wikipedia
UCL - University College London"
Fair warning: unless you can explain why anyone should believe that such a gaggle of sources, uncodified as they are - and maybe unknown in totality until Parliament or the Supreme Court declares something to be part of of it - meets the ordinary lay definition of "constitution ", I expect to declare that UK folks are using that word but I don't think y'all know what it means. To paraphrase a cinematic wag from 'The Princess Bride".
It is because the UK or rather England is the Mother of all Parliaments. Churchill does have a brilliant and readable explanation -- 3 chapters from volume 1 History of an English Speaking Peoples which serve as an appendix to his Great Republic. E1 declared that English Common Law begins with Dick 1. But it really begins Henry II. It is about the primacy and interpretation of law. Hence the term 'rule of law'
In general a constitution is a set of principles by which is a country is governed. It includes all the institutions that are responsible for running the country and how their power is kept in check. Unlike the US or France, Britain has never had a 'revolution' which led to a permanent new system of government, but rather there has been an evolution over time and everything is based on precedent or building on the foundations which were laid in Henry II (although some of the institutions date from before then). The US Is going the way of Britain which is why you have this tussle in the Supreme Court over those judges who are foundational like Barret and those who opt for a more precedent model/English common law one.
Well, Michelle, you and I seem to confirm that “we are two peoples separated by a common language.” You accurately describe the OED definition of the word. But in that very definition lies the issue: the lack of a clear, coherent, source document which sets forth the basis for government. In the English manner it is a set of laws, acts, legislations, statements of monarchs, Acts of Parliament, etc. - it is a shelf of documents, books, reports in the library of Parliament, a compilation of some court cases in the law libraries of Old Bailey, even the Magna Carta secreted in the British Museum. That is not “a Constitution” even while all those things comprise of together constitute, what the English - or the UK if you prefer - call a constitution. It is all subject to modification by judges, by Parliaments and no doubt by others. When I wrote of the lack of a Constitution, however unclearly I stated it, I was referring to a formal document setting out the basis for government. And in our case the basis by which the people consent to have a government, especially as one of limited powers. The UK version of governance starts from a different end, a different view of the rights of people. People are not called subjects for no good reason. A monarchical system starts from the premise of rule by a birthright king, anointed by god, who heads state and state church and lords and knights etc. However much England has modified the prerogatives of kings, it is a vastly different conception of a state or nation than the retention by people of their natural rights surrendering only limited elements of those rights to government. In America we have a Constitution that I probably could read out the full text thereof in about an hour, probably much less. In the UK if I started today, I could not complete the task by a week from today and probably would not be certain I’d gotten to all those papers, books, and documents. So it is a Constitution versus a constitution, perhaps.
It is something which has frustrated me in the past and I have had shouting matches about it with people including my husband so I understand your frustration. It is very much a difference in culture but you need to understand that the UK's foundations are buried deep, starting with the Magna Carta as the keystone. It is why the Lammy's attempt to remove trial by jury from most cases was so shocking and deeply unpopular. Simon de Montefort (amongst others) builds on that keystone because the building of the first enduring parliamentary system did not happen overnight. There was no blueprint unlike there was when the framers of the US Constitution assembled. They were able to see what worked and what could be improved with the British constitution. ANd indeed some of the fights in Britain re the 'rights of man' happen just after the American revolution. They are about contiguous with the framing. The Radicals were determined to have a free press etc. Nearly 250 years on, the US also has a series of precedents based on the US Constitution because sistuations have arisen which the framers did not really consider.
Well, I kinda do get that England has a long history and that, per the popular mythology, the Magna Carta is one of the seminal documents of its history. But perhaps you put a tad too much weight on the notion of English history as providing the framework for the USA. Certainly, it provided examples of what not to do. Jefferson and Franklin along with others were quite familiar with Europe and France, for example. All of Europe showed errors with its religious wars and history of birth-entitled position. So I would suggest that the roots of the two countries while similar, are really as different as first cousins - there is other DNA involved. The jury system, of course, is likely a borrowing from English experience. But I am not enough of a student of ancient Greece and all that the Enlightenment brought to know whether those notions of the rights of the people were not first heard outside England. I do not think the English invented this stuff. It is easy to look to one's immediate forebears to lay credit or blame.
But, to your point of whether you all have a "Constitution" (cap C). If Lammy could have the power to eliminate in part the jury system, I submit that closes the deal, answers the question. You do not have a Constitution, simply a set of practices, perhaps written down in some dark and dank library, that are generally accepted but are subject to the whims of individuals in power, rather than the people. How hard must the wind blow if it can take down structure or are structures so solid that no wind, short of revolution, can ?
Lammy has not succeeded in overturning the jury system. His reforms never made the House of Lords etc. There are reasons why they were bitterly opposed and they would have fizzled out. Lammy tried, but as he should be removed today, and Burnham has indicated that he wants the plug pulled on the 'reform', he failed.
The Magna Carta serves in many ways of the foundational document but things have altered considerably since it was first formulated. Simon de Montfort's rebellion ushers in the concept of a parliament.
The US has the jury system and 'innocent until proven guilty' -- this derives from English Common Law, not Roman Law.
The Roman Law tradition which is followed in France etc is inquisitorial -- innocence must be proved. It is a slightly different emphasis.
The notion of 'the rights of man' comes from Thomas Paine. Paine's work helps to fuel the French Revolution as does the work of Jefferson et al. It is opposed to the rights of the sovereign or the barons. The US is really the country which embraced the notion and built on it. Universal male suffrage happens earlier in the US(1870) than in the UK (1919) for example.
And es the US was trying to marry a number of different concepts to create its own system of government. And the US is currently grappling with how 'independent' are the independent agencies like the FCC. What are the limitations of power for an executive order etc. which the Constitution is not precise on. It is why case law and precedent (which derives from English Common Law) is important.
But the fact is that Lammy might have done it — simply by edict or with a vote in Parliament. Thus, it would not be accurate to say that jury trial is a constitutional right. Merely a tradition that has been in place sort of since the Magna Carta. That is my point.
I would like to cross-post your UK vs U.S. systems essay on JiP whenever you write it.
Yes not a problem. When I have a moment to breathe.
Hello Northumberland! Good to see You again this fine Friday.
Burnham and Khan are quite a pair.
I'm glad Phillipson finally got to work.
That's shameful Amnesty defamed You and all the others. That report was truly despicable.
That's nice of the Queen.
I'm sorry about Ann Widdecombe and the terrorist.
That's great the counterterrorism group was successful.
Glad to hear the bees are doing well, and Paddy looks great.
TY, as always, Michelle. Appreciate it.
The Mail on Sunday has published an important article based on the Through the Looking Glass report (full disclosure I have known something about it) which details part of the non-neutral social transitioning scaffolding in primary education which Cass recommended dismantling( she wants such things to be under medical supervision only) The government agreed hence para 72 of the new RSHE guidelines and the new KCSIE guidelines which scream ‘don’t do it’ https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15987667/Trans-lobby-hijacking-school-reading-sex-change-propaganda.htmlhttps://archive.ph/9Vxof
Awful. TY Michelle.
So good to see you JT -- sorry for the late posting as I was busy trying to corral my MP as he'd initially refused the meeting.
Take your time on the "constitution" issue. When you do would you kindly address this, which is from a response to a query from Duck Duck Go, my search engine:
"Search Assist
The United Kingdom has a constitution, but it is uncodified, meaning it is not contained in a single document. Instead, it consists of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties.
....
Existence of a Constitution
The United Kingdom has a constitution, but it is uncodified. This means it is not found in a single document like many other countries' constitutions. Instead, it is made up of various sources.
Components of the UK Constitution
The UK constitution includes:
Statutes: Laws passed by Parliament, such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Conventions: Established practices that are followed, though not legally binding.
Judicial Decisions: Court rulings that interpret constitutional principles.
Treaties: International agreements that have constitutional significance.
Characteristics of the UK Constitution
Flexibility: The uncodified nature allows for easier amendments compared to codified constitutions.
Historical Development: It has evolved over centuries, responding to various political and social changes.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament holds the ultimate authority to create or abolish laws, which is a defining principle of the constitution.
In summary, while the UK does have a constitution, it is unique in its uncodified form, relying on a combination of written and unwritten elements.
Wikipedia
UCL - University College London"
Fair warning: unless you can explain why anyone should believe that such a gaggle of sources, uncodified as they are - and maybe unknown in totality until Parliament or the Supreme Court declares something to be part of of it - meets the ordinary lay definition of "constitution ", I expect to declare that UK folks are using that word but I don't think y'all know what it means. To paraphrase a cinematic wag from 'The Princess Bride".
It is because the UK or rather England is the Mother of all Parliaments. Churchill does have a brilliant and readable explanation -- 3 chapters from volume 1 History of an English Speaking Peoples which serve as an appendix to his Great Republic. E1 declared that English Common Law begins with Dick 1. But it really begins Henry II. It is about the primacy and interpretation of law. Hence the term 'rule of law'
In general a constitution is a set of principles by which is a country is governed. It includes all the institutions that are responsible for running the country and how their power is kept in check. Unlike the US or France, Britain has never had a 'revolution' which led to a permanent new system of government, but rather there has been an evolution over time and everything is based on precedent or building on the foundations which were laid in Henry II (although some of the institutions date from before then). The US Is going the way of Britain which is why you have this tussle in the Supreme Court over those judges who are foundational like Barret and those who opt for a more precedent model/English common law one.
Well, Michelle, you and I seem to confirm that “we are two peoples separated by a common language.” You accurately describe the OED definition of the word. But in that very definition lies the issue: the lack of a clear, coherent, source document which sets forth the basis for government. In the English manner it is a set of laws, acts, legislations, statements of monarchs, Acts of Parliament, etc. - it is a shelf of documents, books, reports in the library of Parliament, a compilation of some court cases in the law libraries of Old Bailey, even the Magna Carta secreted in the British Museum. That is not “a Constitution” even while all those things comprise of together constitute, what the English - or the UK if you prefer - call a constitution. It is all subject to modification by judges, by Parliaments and no doubt by others. When I wrote of the lack of a Constitution, however unclearly I stated it, I was referring to a formal document setting out the basis for government. And in our case the basis by which the people consent to have a government, especially as one of limited powers. The UK version of governance starts from a different end, a different view of the rights of people. People are not called subjects for no good reason. A monarchical system starts from the premise of rule by a birthright king, anointed by god, who heads state and state church and lords and knights etc. However much England has modified the prerogatives of kings, it is a vastly different conception of a state or nation than the retention by people of their natural rights surrendering only limited elements of those rights to government. In America we have a Constitution that I probably could read out the full text thereof in about an hour, probably much less. In the UK if I started today, I could not complete the task by a week from today and probably would not be certain I’d gotten to all those papers, books, and documents. So it is a Constitution versus a constitution, perhaps.
It is something which has frustrated me in the past and I have had shouting matches about it with people including my husband so I understand your frustration. It is very much a difference in culture but you need to understand that the UK's foundations are buried deep, starting with the Magna Carta as the keystone. It is why the Lammy's attempt to remove trial by jury from most cases was so shocking and deeply unpopular. Simon de Montefort (amongst others) builds on that keystone because the building of the first enduring parliamentary system did not happen overnight. There was no blueprint unlike there was when the framers of the US Constitution assembled. They were able to see what worked and what could be improved with the British constitution. ANd indeed some of the fights in Britain re the 'rights of man' happen just after the American revolution. They are about contiguous with the framing. The Radicals were determined to have a free press etc. Nearly 250 years on, the US also has a series of precedents based on the US Constitution because sistuations have arisen which the framers did not really consider.
"you need to understand ... " Hmmm.
Well, I kinda do get that England has a long history and that, per the popular mythology, the Magna Carta is one of the seminal documents of its history. But perhaps you put a tad too much weight on the notion of English history as providing the framework for the USA. Certainly, it provided examples of what not to do. Jefferson and Franklin along with others were quite familiar with Europe and France, for example. All of Europe showed errors with its religious wars and history of birth-entitled position. So I would suggest that the roots of the two countries while similar, are really as different as first cousins - there is other DNA involved. The jury system, of course, is likely a borrowing from English experience. But I am not enough of a student of ancient Greece and all that the Enlightenment brought to know whether those notions of the rights of the people were not first heard outside England. I do not think the English invented this stuff. It is easy to look to one's immediate forebears to lay credit or blame.
But, to your point of whether you all have a "Constitution" (cap C). If Lammy could have the power to eliminate in part the jury system, I submit that closes the deal, answers the question. You do not have a Constitution, simply a set of practices, perhaps written down in some dark and dank library, that are generally accepted but are subject to the whims of individuals in power, rather than the people. How hard must the wind blow if it can take down structure or are structures so solid that no wind, short of revolution, can ?
Lammy has not succeeded in overturning the jury system. His reforms never made the House of Lords etc. There are reasons why they were bitterly opposed and they would have fizzled out. Lammy tried, but as he should be removed today, and Burnham has indicated that he wants the plug pulled on the 'reform', he failed.
The Magna Carta serves in many ways of the foundational document but things have altered considerably since it was first formulated. Simon de Montfort's rebellion ushers in the concept of a parliament.
The US has the jury system and 'innocent until proven guilty' -- this derives from English Common Law, not Roman Law.
The Roman Law tradition which is followed in France etc is inquisitorial -- innocence must be proved. It is a slightly different emphasis.
The notion of 'the rights of man' comes from Thomas Paine. Paine's work helps to fuel the French Revolution as does the work of Jefferson et al. It is opposed to the rights of the sovereign or the barons. The US is really the country which embraced the notion and built on it. Universal male suffrage happens earlier in the US(1870) than in the UK (1919) for example.
And es the US was trying to marry a number of different concepts to create its own system of government. And the US is currently grappling with how 'independent' are the independent agencies like the FCC. What are the limitations of power for an executive order etc. which the Constitution is not precise on. It is why case law and precedent (which derives from English Common Law) is important.
There are pros and cons to both systems
But the fact is that Lammy might have done it — simply by edict or with a vote in Parliament. Thus, it would not be accurate to say that jury trial is a constitutional right. Merely a tradition that has been in place sort of since the Magna Carta. That is my point.
"On Monday Andy Burnham will be sworn as prime minister. "
You can acquiesce to being ruled by a usurper of do what England has done through the ages. Think Eddie Two, Chuckie One and Jimmy Two........
At the moment I am just pleased that I have secured an appointment with my MP who initially refused to meet me.
At least Burnham doesn't sound like a robot. I think he will be a disaster, but roll on 2029.
Roll on 2029 reminds me of the Zagreb and Evan’s song,
In the year 2525
IF man is still alive
Roll on 2029
If England still stands
Zagreb?
Zager and Evans. Autocorrect strikes again.
But if you knew the song, you’d know who sang it.
I do. 😁