Mercy

Thank you for this

😂😂 that's absolute rubbish tho can parliament change the Bill of Rights? Or Act of settlement? Or Crown and parliament recognition act? The answer is simple NO we have a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY England. Parliament isn't sovereign at all they've tried to make themselves sovereign but they definitely are not

Tggphsfu👨‍💻👩‍💻👌🇨🇮🇭🇷🇭🇷

All of the ECHR is irrelevant because all those rights have been guaranteed by UK law fir years, even centuries.

✊✊✊✊✊✊✊✊✊✊🇮🇳🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏😊😊😊😊

❤❤

The monarch can veto a bill passed by Parliament so how is Parliament sovereign?

This is awesome😁 Some Americans thought it was cool to treat me inhumanely and like a savage....inspite of me not doing anything to them. When I read that it was a human right being violated, imagine how disgusted I was that Americans allowed it!

What a load of rubbish! Although we live under this explanation you have given, it's wrong, it's never been tested, it is a lame argument that has no logic. Parliament is not the supreme Law maker and cannot make any law they want. So how exactly did Parliament become Sovereign Law maker? The Law is our birth right not statute and we the people are Sovereign, Parliament and the head of state are here to serve not be served. Parliamentary Sovereignty is usurped power, enforced u der the color of law with threats and extreme violence. Just show us how Parliament became this powerful after 1688/9 when the Declaration of Rights was produced as the settlement terms, it lists what the Kings did wrong and the remedies for those wrongs, the devine right of Kings was not passed to Parliament, why would they even consider doing it!

You have limited human rights under a psychiatrist and the doctor should realise this.

Britain 2023 : Andd.... let's remove it

😍😍😍🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼✨

It seems to me that describing experiences is helpful and welcome and one thing - but societal facts are by equal measure absolutely necessary to absorb. Now, this is what has happened - in other words, just consider these facts perfectly indisputable. At the time of me tapping letters on an inferior keyboard to two decades prior on a massive plastic and metal contraption called an office computer. The year is 2022 and people in our shared emvironment, commonly described as society - have smartphones. So you have that development in little over a decade from the time of today - 2022. Now, you then get simultaneously an informal but paradoxically kind of formal social contract between citizen and state evaporate. This means people en masse once digested some utter BS notion that community exists and society itself and duty and this bizarre phraseology from David Cameron - 'we are all in it together' - as the statistical data shamefully concludes otherwise. You then have this replacement (not far disaligned from the advent of the internet of things - specifically the smartphone) cultural insertion into the day to day existences of people that is best described as being - the era of the diminished human being in every way from intellectually - through to emotionally that has created a new paradigm of - not a social contract but an individual hybrid en masse without physical glass and plastic and metal and led lighting (yet) but hybrid nonetheless. I exist in the transformative era of humans become hybrids - the software and programming is perhaps defined as conditioning and conformity and sedatedness. So you get that as well. Now, the ability to function (lawfully, although even unlawfully is closer to impossible) in society, as in procure essential items and products - intake pleasurable activities like a movie or holiday and nevermind just ordering some food, well that all mandates in the year 2022 the surrender of what was once known as your private details - this is called in the year 2022 an advancement. You could get most things you required or did not around a decade and a half ago without your entire privacy being handed over in the process. As usual not a single word said in countenance to the new paradigm and safeguard concerns. So you have that as well. You have a tidal wave of choice and it is unfiltered and it is lightening speed delivered into day to day life and you have newspapers and TV and butchers and bakers and variance on the high streets all diminish very profoundly. The new paradigm is via your new third hand - the smartphone is the new TV - Newspaper - Shopping Centre - Supermarket - Bank - Public Services like Pensions and Welfare and everything. This is now an atomised arranged collection of individuals inside a shared environment that is an urban formerly human now human/hybrid experimentation. The rapidity of change surpasses even that description, as at the time of expressing facts and opining the smartphone is also a tiny watch, and will inevitable evolve in formulation if not character retaining its surveillance necessity. Now, just consider that inside every home and building and outside in every street and open space you have cameras of varying kind. You have microphones and recording of nearly every type. That is a paradigm a new born child is arrived to confront and as that child reaches just a few years it is confronted with glass screens and away that child goes into its only known environment. Now consider a teenager of the old world or an adult of the old world confronted with enforced surveillance on even a trip to the toilet? The idea that a woman might have a smartphone watch on as she enters the toilet is i think less understood as to the risks to her civil liberties - yet they exist. The risks to anyone in once formerly very private pose are now eradicated without a single word said, except millions of illegally obtained pictures and videos circulating on the internet of things - but how so if no such safeguards (lack of) are present? The smartphone or watch is by no means the only way to illegally steal anothers privacy - just as phones evolve - so does the discreet cameras and microphones that infiltrate the former privacy now abandoned en masse without a shot fired. This all occurs and you get intermittent posturing on BBC Panorama about cracking down on surveillance and infringements of civil liberties as the social media and Apps circulate illegally obtained images. The former gatherings of teenagers gradually subside as online gatherings replace physical life activities. This occurs throughout society. You then find rather a lot of people start having diabetes or a massive stomach. These are some of the factors that arise during a period that human beings - formerly that is, are systematically manipulated and harmed by exploitative types - who weaponise the data stolen (effectively, it isn't obtained via paying humans money) to squeeze more money and consumerism out of them. You then have people perplexed at being maltreated in the online sphere - varying examples exist, ranging from women complaining of stolen images of them (and men) - teenagers threatened very meaningfully and repeatedly - and even overt forms of discrimination that pertain to employment - finance - educational - wellbeing issues that simply contrevene UK law. These very same people then report to the authorities - and find out what its like to be dismissed and made to feel like shit for daring to describe something seen as unprovable or a waste of police time - a eupherism for not being an adrenaline rush in investigating stolenly obtained images and data and allegations of maltreatment and bullying. If you consider that as these changes come in, and legal counsel evaporates for millions, just as income and wealth disparities widen it coincidently happens to be an era where suddenly a great many people are now - 'mentally ill' - because of apparently increased awareness. The big fat con trick is simply a scintilla of insight into how changes occur on a scale and magnitude unprecedented in humanity (it is that severe and i defy anyone anywhere to challenge such view outside of the advent of the nuclear bomb - the mobile and internet are at least to that magnitude) are inserted into humanity without anything closely resembling a war. Once you consider these facts - you might find yourself asking both - who benefits from such a new paradigm and also, are you safer and improved as a consequence of this new paradigm? You need not ask of course if you are wealthier - the calculus confirms that during the magnificient boom period of growth - precisely a fat zero of the working class are with assets or disposable incomes akin to the generations before them. It is true that millions have fake certificates and diplomas and an army of workers have tongue twisting job titles earning £10 hour. The masses of blue collar folk are financially poorer - laden with debts - have the privacy relative to past eras to that of the average North Korean - have been subjected to public services targeting citizens discriminatingly and illegally so - and frankly stigmatised as mentally ill for providing an argument the apparently superior folk in central authority sphere - cannot answer. It is reasonable and plausible to conclude at some point people in the literal sense of the word either want money for the theft of their rights and privacy and make that known manifestly so, or as well, they invoke themselves to remove the means of stealing privacy and civil liberties and the discrimination commited cowardly online that has no technological stipulation to facilitate. The description i give is staggering in this sense - imagine that in the Korean peninsula and China and Africa and Russia and literally everywhere in past episodes of humanity - think, what occured with equal severe changes to culture and society and you find it is war. That is hypocrisy if you think about it, that we the UK lecture others on their shortcomings whilst a period of revolution has occured here and not a single word said by anyone or an action of meaning in defiance of such staggering thefts of citizens precious rights and safeguards - not a shot fired and yet it happens anyway. Ask yourself this - has that alteration been to the detriment and disgust or the benefit and delight of the central authority and there masters often called the deep state?

If you have absorbed Professor Guy Standing's book - 'A guide to a Universal Income' - something like that, or maybe it was the book on the charter predating the Magna Carter, that was very superior with specific regard to this thing called - 'rights' - as in citizens/subjects/peoples rights. Then, at first what happens is your brain effectively computes a fair amount of this argument (that is to say PGS point of view) is inpractical, if not, almost insane. As an open minded living thing, it then becomes a case of thinking in the critical sense and testing your biases (cognitive) to get beyond what seems unachievable. As you progress through your thinking (which is not straightforward at times) you discover the Professor both has a point and is advanced as an advocate of rebalancing a unsafe and unequitable state of affairs. Now, that doesn't mean pitching up tent en masse in some forest to effectively claim land and create a permanent Glastonbury. But it does mean to my mind two primary things, that i happen to believe are essential to a civilised and advanced humane arranged society within a shared environment. First - the literature is precious and supreme because no coherent message is afforded to the great underclass in the UK in the year 2022. That fact alone is very significant and so to have an academic devote time - effort and research into a cogent argument for the great unwashed (regardless of the merits or lack of) is primarily very trememdous. Now, secondly the fundamental point is crucial to precisely identify and then digest - which is that the notion of rebalancing this country (which translates as people - that is to say rebalancing peoples lives) is not solely financial alone. The fundamental injustice of people is borne out of the foundation from which all else is laid - namely, the equivalent of what the breakaway former colonalists did in America, which means the rights of man as quite clearly stipulated in the founding fathers constitution. That is too say, the PGS argument is simply inseparable from what i have always stated as fact, but never been listened to, namely, the solid foundation of civil liberties - freedoms - rights - which if implemented facilitate all the upshoots of human growth - financial prosperity and intellectual attainment and exploration and effectively we are talking about everything. So, I think in the real and authentic and purest sense of the word if you had that today in society, you would not have coercion and distortions and malevolence and skewed disparities in the collective which is made up of individuals of staggeringly different existences and this sort of talk frankly frightens people. It frightens people who want power - it frightens people who believe (i have thought about this and i am confident i am correct) this country is compatible to some strip of land in the desert far away. In other words - the sort of shift away from political nuance and dinstinction between policy agendas is over a period of time (as an actuality) that simultaneously sees journalists effectively morph into groupthink - no different to politicians - no different to medua personnel - no different to civil servants, not least teachers and this is the sort of prerequiste for a central authority to impose unequitable 'things' - which i believe is conducive to some places far away - but not to my kinship and the UK. That will become clear one day - i have no doubt. So, that to me is precisely why the left for example are effectively devoid of anything at all to put forward in policy terms - in any terms on this matter. It is because there is no left - there is no nuance and there is a very determined central authority that desires and mandates the shift towards a very arranged society is necessary and superior. I think it might very well be - if you live in the Middle East or Asia - this is England and i think that is profoundly different. Therefore, PGS and a few other academics/authors are the nuance - that is where you have variance and depth of thinking and countenance and frankly choice for open minded creatures to validate or not. This is my point - I am trying to express that the UK is incompatible with 1984 and Brave New World - this is simply not understood in the central authority - it will be though. It is essential that regardless of the credibility or not of the arguments made by PGS and others, in other works of literature, the fact they produce an argument is testiment to my argument, which is that humanity (the UK specifically, as i live here) is incompatible with mass conformity and intellectual sterilisation that follows from subliminal methods and very grotesque subversive serfdom and deprivation and working poor and the undeserving poor and divide and rule.

I will make one prediction - I am certain that at some futuristic point, all that I at this juncture know, and attempt to espouse/articulate, will in fact become most cognisant with a great many people, who finally articulate clearly with unity that their anger (of each and every varying kind) stems from (is inseparable from) their civil liberties that pertain to treatment - it is that simple. The entire animosity of splinter direct action groups is in some way, linked to some anger of a non-political person who has a small business or some OAP or even teenager or mistreated employee or just someone who finally finds out that their lack of success is down to circumventing UK law on treatment of people - which i think is inevitable but potentially hazardous for the state to say the least. I predict that will occur one day and i don't think this country has many people that trust the status quo as it is, the threshold of trust is already low and that to me is why i think it is vital to have shared experiences openly and publicly inquired into - if not - why not?

Not a single word in parliament or the media over the untold harm committed to people and you get 67 views! The algorithms are conveniently in alignment with government resistance to rebalancing disparities in society - economic - social and fundamentally, the injustice of even being heard. It is not that harm is caused - this i know - the issue is that support that is - confidential - accessible and available to victims is simply not present. The entire political class and media are comfortable with paying lip service to their real masters. The millions of poor sods without any meaningful support (essential public services either decimated or unfit for purpose) are at some point going to get what they want and have been ignored over. On the other video with a lady called Carilyn - she prioritised provision over legislation, i think that the lay man would concur, as the fineries of the texts are best left to legal practitioners. That said, you cannot have provision if the providers (the state via taxfunding) are effectively hostile to such a development. I believe very firmly that provision should occur of course, but to my mind a public enquiry is the only safeguard to people who can share experiences safely and shame the state in doing so for facilitating organised bullying of innocent citizens that are shamelessly stigmatised as unworthy - not to be trusted - or ill in some way because they dare to accurately describe experiences before an inquiry - that as it happens (like so often before) it turns out, there are an awful lot of similar experiences which comes from masses of unrelated and unknown testimonies - they were all wrong at the Levenson Inquiry? The state is to my observation certainly not governed by those puppets in parliament. The chasm between what struggles people (lots of different ones - in income - occupations - religious or not - backgrounds etc) actually encounter and endure versus the ink dried statute books enshrining protections (often espoused publicly as sacrosanct) and chatter in parliament and the print and visual media is reflective of the unsustainable state of affairs. The ability for a power structure (a state one or not a state power structure in the strictest sense) to inflict harm on people and places and things has never been more simple to achieve. Why is there such apathy towards people, if not very sophisticated vitriol that claim hardship of vary kind that pertains to there phone calls accessed without their permission perhaps - emails - severe questions over the inside of their home - their job applications sent and uninvited text messages and emails and fishing and scamming of very personal ID - their ability to find a lodger free from interference on advertising sites - their private relationships and appointments - their private photos and videos and ID accounts on cloud - it is a pretty big list, by front line essential services such as the police? It is one thing to have poor provision with specific regard to accessing legal support perhaps - it is quite another thing to be told you are ill and taken from your home after reporting on an A road a vehicle pull up to you with a man handcuffed in the back of a range rover by the police. For simply reporting overt intimidation of which the veracity can be ascertained inside minutes by an police force worth its salt - yet it does FA, why? You then get a plethora of incidents close to your home and you have CCTV to verify such claims - again you get nothing but apathy and resistance from those duty bound to treat citizens in accordance with defined stipulations. The facts are that until it is understood that a person can be victim and illegally treated both overtly and conventionally and seditiously and via cyber space, specifically with view to appointments, emails, job applications and obtaining services and support, well, until it is understood as to the provenance of the harm caused then nothing is understood and anything that follows is corrupt. The options available to a citizen who claims wrongdoing are as follows - you report to the police and get apathy and resistance, if not ridicule - you attend the premises of your local authority as they hold a duty of care to your relative in a state paid nursing home, you spend an entire day trying to speak to someone and get once again, resistance and upon listening to thr phone calls, spoken to like excrement - you then try to access legal provision or communicate confidentually with a trusted and genuine and capable journalist to articulate your inhumane treatment and threats and abuse and death of your parent - whereupon you are subjected to either a derth of anyone resembling a journalist or it is a twitter dump on social media. There is nothing that remotely constitutes support for the vulnerable in society - Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn and many others spoke of the sentiment i have attempted to describe. If this occurs to me in London - it should be reasonable to conclude i would argue that in more impoverished parts of the UK - the harm to people caused by no access to support is simply and literally - untold. Some will have a myriad of complaints and experiences - others it will be lack of provision of some kind and i think some will be denied access to ill relatives in the covid period and have grievances. I think some will be suppressed in some way and put together the picture i describe is one of interference and power structures that have power over individuals and those sorts of actualities are thought to belong to the third world or corrupt China and Russia. It is happening here - it is provable and avoidable and it is unclear if committed by state power structures alone but it is inhumane and unlawful. I urge anyone that is thoughtful on this subject to consider the benefits to ordinary people of a public enquiry - from my observations it is literally a couple of handfuls at most of politicians who do care about this injustice and Clare Fox is another one and i think it is despicable that job applications and public services are used as weapons against people and i content i experienced what others have also. Public enquiry into civil liberties and coverage of technological means and ways that facilitate intruding on peoples privacy and life unlawfully. That is i can assure you required and not that expensive to arrange and infinitely an improvement to society from where we are today.

So sad that this video has no views and nobody (myself included) had any feedback into proposed changes to matters so very vital. I have subscribed willingly. I wonder if many people that are (or would be if asked on the subject) interested in civil liberties, are effectively stigmatised and frankly, discriminated against - most commonly, as being either, lonely, weird, negative, having an anxiety disorder, or broadly just being mentally ill. It seems it couldn't be possible that very great harm occurs to people via means less easy to understand without meaningful safeguards and provision (legal) in place in society to support grievances from people en masse. I think it is remarkable that at the time of me writing now, it is difficult to say the least to both ascertain what civil liberties exist as safeguards for citizens, and the provision that supports citizens. I think that i will look into your organisation and offer my support in any way i can. I do know that if you cannot obtain legal counsel in London (and i certainly could not this year) for grievances, then it seems probable outside the capital it will be nearly impossible. I think that the most notable organisation with at one point, even a very prominent position in society, was Liberty. The organisation was on the radio and in the media generally, arguing for citizens to be safeguarded from excessive state powers. It is noticeable that both that former actuality and the lack of views on your video has coincided with an extremely well funded and promoted prioritisation of mental health parity to physical health. The harm that has been caused to people during such a transformative phase in our society is untold, and as such it is to my mind an inhumane development that way exceeds any notion of regressive. I can know like millions of others about consumerism promotions and sport and various other daily aspects of life - but not why it is so the state has powers that are disproportionate and obtained by unimity inside parliament and the entire media? The country is not democratic if people are either not offered a genuine opportunity to consider the merits or not of legislative change, or they are unamiously ignored wilfully by parliament. My father died this year in Barnet hospital after circumstances that led up to and including his demise that fully warranted investigating and nothing occured. I myself have endured very horrific treatment and nothing close to support has been afforded to me either. There are others also who have been genuine victim to very inhumane treatment. My father was an incredibly tolerant and decent man - just like me, for all my imperfections. It is clear to me that what i describe is by no means an isolated case - the fact that human rights lawyers are booked up and the press (a poor name for what they do) are silent on the entire issue, supports my sense that a great many people would be genuinely and meaningfully safeguarded and supported by organisations like Liberty and perhaps yours. I think that opportunists have conspired to swipe powers during a time of relatively speaking, political uncertainty and instability, that has seen from Brexit, PM's come and go at a rate almost unparalelled in recent times. You also has the war on terror and a power grab from temporal powers that expanded and become permanent. If you then consider the advances of technology simultaneously it becomes very clear just how impoverished people have become. I deeply resent the idea that people who dare to oppose such circumstances are ill in some way because they don't comply with illegal/legal intrusions into family/personal lives/relationships and jobs and freedoms of varying kind. In the aftermath of processing my fathers demise - a tolerant, hardworking and widely respected man over the years despite his imperfections as a husband and at times as a father, i could not even obtain his ashes in the local crematorium where he was cremated. I think what has happened to me and other people who were banned from even touching their relatives during covid in nursing homes snd hospitals is akin to the addage of the victors write the history of war. The victors are the state authorities and as such, you will get profound distortions about the actual truth of this period - the very same period i happen to have lived through and experienced. This is how past inhuman crimes have been covered up and distorted - by the very same power structures. You tend to find exaggeration from the point of view of the states narrative - and a profound underplaying of the genuine victims who are either wholly umheard or falsely tainted in some way as to amplify the virtiousness of the victors who write the narrative. The final thing i can share with you is that the political left, who are contemptable on civil liberties, are not going to meaningfully safeguard citizens and invoke a guarantee for all citizens to obtain meaningful legal counsel. That was only possible under Jeremy Corbyn - like so much of his proposals the theme was empowering human rights and citizens from structural biases snd harm. Whatever anyone thought of his broader views and agenda - it is all too clear to observe right now, that had he had his proposals implemented the most vulnerable in society and the blue collar masses of the working poor would have been far better off and safer today. That is the sobering fact and millions of people know that - instead it is a guy with half a billion £ serving food at a Christmas voluntrary hub for status of some kind. The insincere rich and puppet PM as opposed to the sincere and prioritising PM of the masses we were all deprived of, it is sickening but it happened.

Human rights are a joke. I have been trying to get help for my 6 British children and myself stranded in North Africa fter my British ex husband had abused us. Im Australian and my children are British. Human rights are only given to other people entering the UK because it makes the uk money. Prove me wrong and help my kids leave north Africa and return to the UK!!!!

BRING HIM BACK

my teacher made me watch this

These rights don't exist. I am proof of that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpm0Y2BubLeZkNE I wonder if you say it does it covers up that nothing is done when they torture.

These rights don't exist do they. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKnWk6dplpx-Y5o

No rights )) you can not even rent a property until you show that you have money, you have to bring all your bank statements and show them everything. What if i do not want show anybody how much i earn and the rest things! It is my private life!

Nice idea but not true. I mean a white child apparently doesn't even have the right to protection from police not to be gang raped by invaders.

Thank you for this great video. 👌🏻🌷

Hahah something that we won’t have anymore

You place a lot of Reliance on the government...lol I'm sure they will never abuse your trust by betraying you. 😐😑🙄😒 (sarcasm)...

this was super helpful thanks !

who is "Our"? Journalism, who what when where how.

They've made the forms very intimidating to your average person

Does this apply only to true blood humans,? Does this apply to all humanoid forms of life, naturally biomedical and humanoid not100% biological.?

The Act is not worth the paper it is printed on. Rather than telling people what to believe, invite them to think and workout what is. In every deal there are 3-7 parties and You, the one who pays has least power to control. You can be arrested or imprisoned for no crime or tort. As a victim you have no right to remedy. You are property of the corporation of crown and labeled as the subject. Put these to test.

God is above us the people NOT government! What a scam!!!

We've got a bill of rights already #scam

Well let's start with the right "Body Autonomy" that is the corner stone of "Human Rights" my body my choice ... the children rights stay with the parents, not the state ! Children ...need a law to prevent Male/Female circumcision or tattoos'/ piercings or gender

Well let's start with the right ..."Body Autonomy" that is the corner stone of "Human Rights" ...! my body my choice ... the children rights stay with the parents, not the state ! Children ...need a law to prevent Male/Female circumcision or tattoos'/ piercings or gender changing drugs until the age of Sixteen ... in line with the age of consent ... :)

What will the new Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill Of Rights mean for human rights now?

none of us have rights as they can be taken from you at any moment for just about anything as long as someone can call it justice

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYfUdIh3er6DqpY

lindo

I'm being harassed every day,and every night. I don't know what to do.

I have been accused of lacking capacity to manage money? What are my rights if I disagree and my entire family disagrees. .. A neuropsychologist has said I lack capacity to manage money? A social worker has also made a false statement claiming that my mother and the rest of the family agree with the neuropsychologists conclusion that I lack capacity to manage money! ..... My family have never said they agree with with the neuropsychologist ... What the hell can I do? .... I am pulling my hair out because of the hospital and their lies! ...........

A leaked memo shows the plan to push for a permanent lockdown, the destruction of human rights for all UK citizens and the end of free speech online stateofthenation.co/?p=69497

why is this funny xD

someone give this women an oscar