You need to read the Wikileaks document to see what i mean, this is just small example that shows us how the British taxpayer money is being spent,

this is trivial compared to things like the RBS for example, a failed bank who was bailed out with some 85 bn GBP of taxpayer money, and probably mostly printed money, devaluating the currency and adding to the humongus state debt, now the RBS board are demanding 1.5 bn GBP in bonuses,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6942789.ece

listen to this and note the debt exposure of the Britsh banks, 50,2 bn $ belongs to UK banks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jUQGaZNyD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSWSwhn-AWc

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/photo_galleries/article5846074.ece?slideshowPopup=true&articleId=5846074&nSlide=5&sectionName=PhotoGalleries

Jim said “Democracy doesn’t require a constitution. For example, England has been a parliamentary democracy for hundreds of years, but it doesn’t have a constitution.”

England is a monarcy, not a real democracy, nothing defends your basic rights, if some politician decides to change our constitution general elections will have to be held, a desicion to join the EU for example goes against the constitution, there for no social democrats will be involved in the gov that sends that matter to a referendum, if England had the same system we have you would have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, no politician could have promised a referndum and lied to the nation,
our system gives us a opportunity to control the country even if the gov is corrupt in important matters.

It’s more dignified to admit when you’re wrong than to flog a dead horse! LOL…

“A constituion is there in many ways to protect the right of the minority from the majority which otherwise would trample over them”

Yes, I agree. But you don’t need a constitution to transpose those rights into law, as English law demonstrates.

A constituion is there in many ways to protect the right of the minority from the majority which otherwise would trample over them.

Jim, England do have a constitution. It is just that it is an unwritten one.

It is parliament that likes to give the idea that they are all powerful. But in fact they are part of a constituional system that is meant to balance against the powerful monarch UK Crown and representatives in House of Lords.

A written constitution is actually better in some way like the US has and other country because it is difficult then to ignore it because it is written and people have copy of it.

>It’s not the sacred word of God that defines ultimate truth on earth.

New Labour has tried it best to dismantle the English and so UK constitution since it came to power so this what you say is a popular idea with them.

But then it would be wouldnt it :

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/11/13/swedish-samaritan-jailed-for-saving-assaulted-woman/#comment-102910

The Post office charges for postcode information. Wow.

The Government also charges for Mapping information from the OS. In fact many governments charge businesses for use of public assets. Use of the roads with a road tax and fuel tax for instance.

Why is this in anyway abnormal or wrong?

Democracy doesn’t require a constitution. For example, England has been a parliamentary democracy for hundreds of years, but it doesn’t have a constitution.

“no law, no agreement and no politician is above the constitution”

A constitution is just a law that defines the functioning of government. That’s all. It’s not the sacred word of God that defines ultimate truth on earth.

I am sure it does, everything Brown does conflicts with the word of God, and he is dragging Britain to hell with him , some people just dont want to see it, its called being in denial,
it will dawn on you guys when you start feeling the flames licking your toes, just hope it will not be to late.

The constitution is the bible of any true democracy, it defends our rights and our country, its the base everything else is built on,
if someone decides to ignore the constitution a civil war would brake out, the icesave deal can not be interpreted by either side so it goes against the constitution, that must be perfectly clear,
no law, no agreement and no politician is above the constitution.

I didn’t see that one coming! Iceland’s lawyers are getting creative. It wouldn’t surprise me if, tomorrow, Iceland’s priests start saying the Icesave bill conflicts with the word of God; just read the Holy Bible to see it never states that Icesave obligations should be paid. And Icelandic muslims could claim that interest payments conflict with Islamic law. This is getting easy…

How things work in Britain, the model society.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Britain%27s_postal-code_database_online_at_Wikileaks:_produced_at_public_expense%2C_not_owned_by_the_public

it will be interesting to see how badly British banks are exposed to the 100 bn $ Dubai credit pile

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSGEE5AS0AH20091130