Brit/pol/ - Breakfast edition

Make the thread you lazy cunts.

>Cabinet 'united' over EU transitional deal (including ongoing free movement)
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40680738

>UKIP loses control of its only council
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40691149

>Goldman Sachs boss says a "significant" EU transitional deal required ASAP
bbc.co.uk/news/business-40677329

>Vince Cable: WE MACRON NOW
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40680626

>Baroness Hale appointed as UK's first female top judge
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40679293

>Government borrowing went up last month
bbc.co.uk/news/business-40679277

>Five-year-old girl fined £150 for lemonade stand
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40679075

>EU won't sign trade deal if the UK moves to deregulation after 2019
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-trade-deal-workers-rights-tax-haven-michel-barnier-environmental-legislation-a7851761.html

>Crime in England and Wales has seen its largest annual rise in a decade
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40665733

Previous thread

Other urls found in this thread:

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=73 UMKC L. Rev. 1073&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=fba30894f359a24b5d6adab64d9dd0a8
youtube.com/watch?v=JgBwq_2e1XY
youtube.com/watch?v=0Rj3DBt-Rqo
twitter.com/MayaGoodfellow/status/888101504791584769
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(UK)
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4722056/Government-plans-allow-transgender-pick-gender.html
twitter.com/_coinz/status/888885496117694464
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

First for Based Triplords

Find me Luke Nash-Jones

Essential reading for non-immigrants.

>the Magna Carta (1215), the Provisions of Oxford (1258), the Provisions of Westminster (1259), the Statute of Marlborough (1267), the Welsh Acts of 1535 & 1542, the Petition of Right (1628), Instrument of government (1653), Humble Petition & Advice (1657), Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701), and the Act of Union (1706), Acts of Union (1800), Reform Acts (1832, 1867, 1884), Representation of the People Act (1928, 1949, 1969), Parliament Acts (1911, 1949), Government of Ireland Act (1920), Irish Free State Act (1922), Irish Free State Constitution Act (1922), Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act (1927), Statute of Westminster (1931), His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act (1936), Life Peerages Act (1958), House of Lords Act (1999), European Communities Act (1972), European Union Act (2011), Northern Ireland Constitution Act (1973), Human Rights Act (1998), Scotland Act (1998, 2012, 2016), Wales Act (1998, 2006, 2014), Northern Ireland Act (1998), Freedom of Information Act (2000), Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act (2000), Civil Contingencies Act (2005), Constitutional Reform Act (2005), Constitutional Reform & Governance Act (2010), Fixed-term Parliaments Act (2011), Succession to the Crown Act (2013), For Scotland, Laws of the Brets (1124), the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), the Claim of Right Act (1689) and for Wales, the Statute of Rhuddian (1284).


>Darcy v Allein (1603), the Case of Prohibitions (1607), Bushnel's Case (1670), Cf. Rex v Filer (1722), Bluet v Needs (1736), Rex v Gardner (1739), Malloch v Eastly (1744), Wingfield v. Stratford, (1752), Entick v Carryington (1765), Wingfield v. Stratford (1752), cf. Rex v. Dewhurst (1820), Tulk v Moxhay (1848), Hadley v Baxendale (1854), Rylands v Fletcher (1884), Foakes v Beer (1884), The Moorcock 14 P.D (1889), Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893), Rex v Meade (1903), Rex v. Smith (1914),

...

>...Dunlop Pnuematic Tyre vs Selfridge and Co. Ltd (1915), A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1920), Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947), Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), Hedley Byrne v Heller (1963), Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969), Ramsay vs IRC (1982), Furniss v Dawson (1984), Factortame case (1990), Revill v Newbery (1996)

>Other reading: A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of tthe Constitution, (8th Edn., London 1931), Edward Coke, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1628; this edn. London 1747), William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford 1765), Cf. S. Halbrook, That Every Man be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque 1984), James Pateson, Commentaries on the Liberty of the Subject and the Laws of England Relating to the Security of the Person (London 1877), Craik-Henderson "The Dangers of a Supreme Parliament", Statute of Northampton (1328), 1908 Pistols Act, and the 1920, 1937, 1968, 1988, and 1997 Firearm Acts.

dead country

wtf is that seafood substance doing in that image?

>Cabinet 'united' over EU transitional deal (including ongoing free movement)

50 YEAR TRANSITIONAL DEAL

Reminder that Labour will never win another election and that Corbyn's career is finished.

Where do I buy a kekistani flag lads?

Did you add reville v newbury? It's quite important in regards to self defence and premeditation

fuck off

what the fuck is that gnarly rancid fish doing there

Revill v Newbery (1996)
Yeah, it's the last one but spelled it wrong. Fixing it. I was phone posting last night which is probably why. I had all the Statutes down as Statues.

Its bait

Keep it up lad, legitimately going to read up on it.

The absolute state of this country.
>The fact of the case: On 12 March 1998 around 2am two men aged 21 and 14 attempted to break into the property, a brick shed in his allotment, of the defendant. The claimant were aware of the belongings that the defendant kept in his shed and were of the value to them. The defendant was an elderly man of the age of 76. His property had been attempted many a times in the past for the purpose of burglary and in order to protect the property the defendant kept an air rifle and a shotgun on the premise and slept in the property. When the defendant was awakened by the noise of the breaking into the shed, he shot one of the claimants through a small hole at a short distance. The claimant was hit in the right arm and through it the bullet lodged into his chest.

>The claimant brought an action against the defendant on the basis of assault, negligence and a breach of duty under 1 the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984.

>The defendant defended his action on the grounds of self-defence, ex turpi causa – defence of illegality (the claimant was injured while performing a criminal act). The defendant also counterclaimed for the distress and shock he had suffered.

>The court overruled the defendant’s argument and held that he had a duty of care to the claimant as he could not have been treated as an outlaw as per the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 and owed the claimant a duty of care. However the court also held that the claimant was contributorily responsible for his injury and his compensation was reduced by two third due to his involvement in the criminal act under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.

...

Why is he such a fucking retard?

The more I read the historical bits of legislation and common law, the more I realize how dead we are.

He's Douglas Carswell.

he got angry when the paki store didnt accept his ugandan shillings

We are stronger than ever. We have a right-wing government and the Labour cucks have been eternally BTFO. Show Theresa May some respect.

Because he's CIVIC

D E A D C O U N T R Y


>I. PROLOGUE


>The poorest man may in his courage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! 1


>A law-abiding woman living alone is suddenly awakened and confronted in her bedroom by a serial rapist. She reaches for her pistol only to find it locked and unloaded as state law requires. She is raped and stabbed. Finally the rapist leaves. The woman manages to dial 911, but bleeds to death on her bedroom floor.

>Suppose that, contrary to the state law, she had kept a loaded firearm in her nightstand, resisted the rapist, and shot and killed him when he turned his back to her. She could then face conviction under firearm control laws for having illegally possessed the firearm. She would also face prosecution for using force that was not "immediately necessary for the purpose f protecting [herself] against the use of unlawful force by [the rapist] on the present occasion." 2

litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=73 UMKC L. Rev. 1073&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=fba30894f359a24b5d6adab64d9dd0a8

Medieval and early modern Englishmen had more rights than modern Brits. How does it get so bad?

You a law fag?

Because back then they had to actually come and physically violate your rights, take away everything you own, etc.. Nowadays, some fat nigger cunt on a KOMPUTAH can freeze all your assets, declare your licenses null and void, and have your shit fucked up before the police even get the call.

Our rights are only as safe as the government is efficient. Modern technology makes it easy for them.

Nope, not as a profession. Just a neet with a passion for law.

Exactly. In the year 1702, you could stop the King of England entering your property using force if neccersary. In the year 2017, you can't prevent the TV license guy from coming in without a scuffle.

It gets worse, Europeans living in the uk have the protection of two states.

Fair enough, just done my first year and haven't read half the stuff you've posted but need to.

i didnt get why the tories didnt use diane abbo, mcdonnel and rayner in their leaflets.
I live in a ultramarginal that went labour(croydon central) and their campaign was atrocious.
On the last they knew they was fucked and sent out a badly made leaflet saying Nigel said corbyn will cancel brexit. Vote Tory!!

That's why all my money is buried in a chest in my garden,

Good luck with that mate, much of the case law and acts of parliament are something law students would have to know I'd imagine, but then also a lot of it is rather irrelevant in our day & age and hold value only historically.

>In the year 2017, you can't prevent the TV license guy from coming in without a scuffle.
just tell him to fuck off
they cant force entry

>No knife of the table
Truly a british breakfast

and yes I came here only to shitpost this, thank you for your time

They can when they call the police, a female officer shows up who doesn't know her job, and basically threatens to arrest the homeowner if he doesn't let him in. I never answer the door for him if thats relevant lel.

youtube.com/watch?v=JgBwq_2e1XY

reminder not to buy nestle products

Yeah I will do, just the introductory phase so far so not massively in depth yet.

You the baker?

*eats kitkat*

No

thx 4 tellin me idiot, my digger drone r arriving rn lol thx 4 the cash :^))))

(((Fairtrade)))

>tfw no happening in nearly two months

This but replace happening with sex

>""Whereas the late King James the Second, by the Assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers, employed by Him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom..(b)y assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, without Consent of Parliament....(b)y causing several good Subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same Time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law...(a)ll which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm..... the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious Consideration the best Means for attaining the Ends aforesaid, do in the First Place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare,....That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law."
- Bill of Rights 1689

tfw no sex ever

ive forgot what they feel like

>not being a 24 year old virgin

it's okay ameribro, I'm sure some fat nigger will get shot and then your entire nation will explode into
"BREAKING NEWS, NATION ON THE BRINK OF CIVIL WAR"
and you'll look stupid :^)))

Its only a matter of time until another Muslim goes and kills some people. Plus we had the acid attacks.

>criminal breaks into your shed
>shoot them
>you get punished

The fucking state.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Rj3DBt-Rqo

Seen it but going to watch it again. It's a fucking relief to find anybody even remotely pro-gun in the UK.

"he fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

t. The Guardian, The Independant, and The Canary
I'd say it's easily 30% of the country is pro-gun to a degree, and certainly pro-self defence.

Almost all people in rural areas support it.

twitter.com/MayaGoodfellow/status/888101504791584769

Why haven't you had your proper anti-racist education yet, Brit/pol/?

Everybody is pro-self defence. If the circumstances arise, do you think the law matters?

But 30% is an alright figure. I doubt 30% believe in the Second Amendment and whats laid out in English law prior to 1920. But 30% seems a realistic figure for people who want to see firearm laws loosened.

Pretending, for whatever reason, that the UK is even remotely pro-gun is intellectually dishonest though. We have the worst firearm laws in Europe. Even Germans can own handguns.

Gee, thanks for making it easier for HIV infested faggots to donate blood to our great ENN AITCH ESS, Ms. Greening (who is a lesbian herself)

but wait...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted_blood_scandal_(UK)

>The tainted blood scandal is the issue of around 4,670 British haemophiliacs[1] being infected with hepatitis C and in many cases also HIV, through contaminated clotting factor products, supplied by the National Health Service (NHS) in the 1970s and 80s, and the subsequent government and corporate reaction.[2]

>At least 2,400 were killed by the tainted blood and many others are terminally ill.[3][4] Of the 1,243 haemophiliacs who were co-infected with both hepatitis C and HIV, less than 250 remain alive as of 2017.[5] No government, health or pharmaceutical entity in the UK has admitted liability for the scandal and no damages have been paid to those infected or affected

>"taught properly"

I remember when the normies believed that was true. It converted atleast 1000 people away from Republicanism.

>homosexuality is a genetic disorder
>let's let them donate blood

and then we can legally nuke you fucking muslims to hell. :3

It's more original than the "lmao independence revocation!!!!" joke I've seen ten thousand times over two decades, at least.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4722056/Government-plans-allow-transgender-pick-gender.html

You can also pick your own gender without seeing doctors under new plans. That means we can all legally become women whilst still presenting as men and no longer be discriminated against for being white males.

No you can't you lard tard. If a Brit killed Donald Trump genuinely, half of your country would be celebrating. The absolute state of you.

So will we get out summer riots with this #JusticeForRash shit?
twitter.com/_coinz/status/888885496117694464

Seems like perfect conditions for it

>hot days proven to cause public unrest
>black person people will think was unlawfully killed regardless of the truth
>justicefor campaigns have proven to cause lots of protests
>people will feel entitled to be violent with police
>grenfell will just stoke the flames of anger even more
>tory government in charge just like last time
>labour are bound to make some kind of inappropriate comment for an ongoing investigation


We're going to get bigger riots than before I reckon.

*get our

Depends how rowdy the niggers in America are. They seem to set the trend for our negroes I've noticed.

I will be registering myself into a black female at the soonest possible opportunity.

Would certainly help your job prospects.

You have to wait a while to change race, it won't be long with the way things are going.

The only thing you don't be able to identify as is disabled because they won't give away the bennies.

"The long-term trend in the use of firearms in crime in England & Wales show consistent falls between 2003/04 and 2013/14 for both non-air weapons and air weapons, with a slight rise between 2014/15 and 2015/16:"

Hmm I wonder why that is.

Really makes one ponder.

What is it about newspaper that bongs find appetizing?

Also, what is this green shit? Is it relish?

Mushy peas.

>twitter.com/_coinz/status/888885496117694464
Black people will literally never figure out that resisting arrest is bad for them, it's wonderful

What are some redpilled towns, Sup Forums?

My pro Brexit city removed a hard Brexiteer Tory and replaced him with a black female Corbynista.

JUST

green shit is mushy peas

i haven't seen newspaper being used for fish and chips in 10+ years

They don't serve them in newspapers any more unless they're fake ones.

Why do they always resist?

>breakfast
>not getting a breakfast munchy box

Chip shop chips are almost always disgusting, greasy, short, not crispy, squashed. For best chips you need to get ones like McCains home oven chips that come with a batter on them and then deep fry then at home.

They believe in the anti-police victimisation/racism rhetoric shilled to them by rappers and black celebrities, who are the kinds of people with criminal records and gang culture "code of ethics" about opposing law enforcement constantly

Places use a sort of fake newspaper thing because back in the day a lot of chippies actually used newspaper to wrap your chips in. Health and safety stuff stopped that, sensible really since quite often you'd get ink running onto your chips.

None around here. Looks prime m8 but fuck you for sharing it. I'm fucking starving.

This is objectively the worst thing you've ever said Rightly.

>For best chips you need to get ones like McCains home oven chips that come with a batter on them and then deep fry then at home.

And here I thought I was the only one that disliked them.

Yeah and then they make a big deal of "in the black community we have to teach our children not to resist police because of oppression", as if that's not what most white children expect they have to do anyway because of polite society.

they have high time preference and are biologically incapable of understanding that their actions have consequences, they live in the moment like animals. if you've ever tried to get a pet into a box or something to take it to the vets and it refuses to go in, it's the same impulse.

I hear if you buy potatoes and cut them into long thin rectangular shapes and chuck them in the oven, you get something very similar to chips.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

...

I wasn't knocking it, I was saying that I agree with you on chip shop chips. They're greasy, recooked, squashed shit.

Why are there still Remainers having anything to do with Brexit and why aren't people more angry at this?

You wouldn't have an employee of company X negotiate for company Y with company X. It's a conflict of interest.

Looks delicious. Not a bad item in the spread. How much would that run?

These are hands-down the best supermarket chips available. They come individually encased in beef dripping - almost like mini roast potatoes - which means they have three times the fat of normal oven chips but when you bake them up til they're crispy....Jesus Christ can you taste the difference.