Are our Civil Servants Breaking the law, the Magna Carta is still law today including the rights of the freeman.

[ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. ]

One wonders if there is any potential in invoking Magna Carta?

My (admittedly limited) historical knowledge suggests that those to whom the rights therein were granted has been argued for centuries. The Barons, who created Magna Carta, originally intended it to protect only the rich, upper class of the feudal system. It has been reinterpreted by many leaders (and politicians) long after it was created, and with each subsequent interpretation rights have been, at least theoretically, applied to more and more groups of people.

However, judging by the apparent omnipotence of the HD Committee, and the fact that they are clearly not bound by any rules or laws other than their own, it certainly appears that Magna Carta is STILL being interpreted, by some, as pertaining ONLY to the rich and upper class...


_________________
...................'Jock'
Paroi...Rasah...Batu Signals Troop.

Correct Paul, but how about - Her Majesty the Queen is the Constitutional Head of the country and relies on the advice of her Ministers. So if an elected member of Parliament advises Her Majesty the Queen and action is taken then it is a legal act.

If the Honours and Decoration Committee, who act in secret and are responsible to no-one but Her Majesty the Queen, then is the Queen acting in her capacity as the Constitutional Head of the country? The Queen surely is then acting as The Queen and acting on behalf of unelected Civil Servants and Senior Military Officers who have no legal right whatsoever to advise Her Majesty to make or implement rules, orders or commands upon the ordinary Citizens of our country. Citizens of our country abide by the rule of law and so should everyone else.

If this is correct, then all decisions and rules or commands given on recommendations from the Honours and Decorations Committee to apply to citizens of our land are not lawful and the fact that Ministers of the Crown are now saying they cannot police the non-wearing rule, and the individual has to decide whether or not they may wear it - without authority, suggests that they are not acting lawfully. So we are back to the question which has been asked time and time again 'WHO MADE THE ORDER THAT THE PJM WAS NOT A WEARABLE MEDAL?'. For some reason they will not answer this question and this leaves me with the feeling that they do not want to answer it because of repercussions, but the truth will be out some day.