2023-04-13
UK Column explores the not insignificant issue of the deployment of 77th Brigade of the British Army to monitor (and interfere with?) the free speech and communications of British citizens.
"Nobody was spared: even MPs and a former Supreme Court Justice were targeted"
OK, they were not targeted by cavalry on horseback with sabres slashing, but there is no doubt that they were deployed against the British citizenry - and the ancient laws don't differentiate between violent and non-violent deployment.
It's not the first time that "our" government has deployed troops against the people either.
I'm sure that our readers can think of other occasions too, but bad precedent doesn't lawful make.
Is there is a get-out? If the government obtains the consent of parliament, such deployment may be lawful.
Certainly they did not explicitly seek consent.
But I would expect lawyers to argue that as the deployment was revealed in parliament via a question to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, then parliament, by subsequently taking no action, gave implied consent.
For such a blatant and serious abrogation of the law, is such an interpretation valid in the circumstances?
"The Law Commission just happens to be calling for the common-law offence of misconduct in public office to be repealed"
Call me old-fashioned, but can a common-law offence be repealed by Act of Parliament?
Regardless, the most serious problem with parliament is that they do not represent the people. In practice, they represent whoever controls the political parties (a relatively recent innovation, on historical timescales). That is the true crime of parliament.
It may be unwise to hold one's breath for an outcome.
