Comments by "sandgrownun66" (@sandgrownun66) on "How a 1000 years of our legal history was cast aside, just because of the Stephen Lawrence case" video.

  1. Because the populace allow them to. Forget government by the people, for the people.
    3
  2.  @rewdwarf123  They get paid twice too. A nice little earner for all involved, except for the accused, that is.
    3
  3. Simon has seen the concerted efforts to restrict the freedom of the English in recent years.
    3
  4. Diversity and yet the rise of the postage stamp consensus. Where daring to think differently is considered thought crime.
    3
  5. This is why a written constitution for the UK or England is needed. The problem is, it wouldn't include the inalienable rights already taken away.
    3
  6. The ability to sue for libel or slander already offered redress toi those defamed in speech, or writing. There was never any need for the recent restrictions on freedom of speech, short of incitement to violence.
    2
  7. Grievance mongers and the eternally offended, love the new UK.
    1
  8.  @lesley1174  Savile.
    1
  9.  @lesley1174  What do you mean "it"? Sa-vile was a Knight of the realm. Honoured by the Queen herself, at the behest of his friend and confidant. None other than UK Premier, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.
    1
  10.  @peterc.1618  They wouldn't. His name was Sir Jimmy Savile, not Saville.
    1
  11.  @lesley1174  Now you're just being facetious. Sir Jimmy, was a he, not an it. Whatever he did, can't change that fact.
    1
  12.  @lesley1174  "It is not a Sir either that was revoked." Wrong. An honour from the Monarch, such as a Knighthood, can only be revoked, if the person is still alive. So Sir Jimmy Savile, will always be a "Sir", long after you're dead and forgotten. What's worse than misinformation, is a lack of effort in researching the matter you're mistaken about.
    1
  13.  @lesley1174  There's a saying, that if you want to get out of a hole, then maybe, it's better to stop digging. Of course the use of a Knighthood ends when the holder dies. However, the honorific title remains, when referring to that person. "If it was still alive Cameron was going to set the procedure in process to strip it of the title." So you've just answered the question by contradicting yourself. If he was still alive when the revelations came out. Then Cameron could have removed his title. However, he wasn't, so the current prime Minister couldn't. There are several dozen people in the twentieth century alone, , who were honoured by a British Monarch. Who subsequently had titles they conferred removed. If you want their names. I can give them. Some examples are, Harvey Weinstein, Benito Mussolini, Anthony Blunt, Kim Philby, Ernest Brooks, Robert Mugabe, Naseem Hamed, Roger Casement, James Crosby, Jean Else, Rolf Harris, Vicky Price, Lester Piggott, Stuart Hall and others. In 2012, the Cabinet Office confirmed that there was no knighthood to revoke in Savile's case. Former Prime Minister David Cameron raised the prospect of Savile being posthumously stripped of the honour in the wake of the allegations of sexual abuse against young girls. However, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: "It's a living order and then you cease to be a member when you die. "There isn't an honour to revoke." Savile would have been stripped of his knighthood if his crimes were exposed during his lifetime. The Forfeiture Committee said: "The Forfeiture Committee can confirm that had James Wilson Vincent Savile been convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, forfeiture proceedings would have commenced." Knighthoods can only be held by a living person and fall away after their death, so they cannot be removed once the person has died. So there you have it. You can even check the Wikipedia article, about Sir Jimmy Savile. He will forever be referred to as Sir Jimmy Savile, whether you like it or not.
    1
  14.  @lesley1174  You don't learn, or give up do you? The title can only be rescinded, whilst the person is living. If they die first, the title still stays associated with there name. If those responsible, had removed his title before he died, then it would have been plain old Jimmy Savile. However, they didn't. So he's officially recorded as Sir Jimmy Savile. The same as with any other deceased Knight of the Realm. Such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Charles Chaplin, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Alec Guinness, Sir Bruce Forsyth. The list of dead Knights, goes on. Also, don't expect the Wikipedia article about Sir Jimmy Savile to change anytime soon, because whoever wrote it, is aware of the rules in respect to this, and is following them. The bottom line is that you can protest all you like, but there's nothing you or anyone else, can do about it. So just learn to accept, and live with it. You have no choice in the matter.
    1
  15. Bliar and his cronies threw away one thousand years of the English right to Free Speech. The most important of Human Rights, and they didn't give a damn about what they did. Also, the populace allowed it to happen too.
    1
  16. Bliar and his cronies were happy to throw away one thousand years of English history. It makes you sick. Worse, the populace stayed silent on this travesty.
    1
  17.  @BusbyTreeSurgery  Why does South Africa spring to mind? The whites and Indians down there, are sick to death of the sh!t going on there, and the basket case that country is becoming.
    1
  18. Don't forget. Cultural factors such as religion plays a role too. Belief in backwards Arabian desert cults is a sure fire no no.
    1
  19.  @EdMcF1  Yes, and "New" Loony Labour under Bliar, just stuck the other boot in. Against centuries old rights and freedoms.
    1
  20.  @jonbon8598  Which is absolutely ridiculous.
    1