has spent a sixth night in hospital.
Buckingham Palace said there was no update on the 99-year-old’s condition, having previously said he was “in good spirits”. The reason for Philip’s stay has not been disclosed, although it is not linked to coronavirus. He was admitted last Tuesday “as a precautionary measure” after feeling unwell.
Philip received no further visits from royal family members on Sunday after his eldest son, the Prince of Wales, attended King Edward VII’s hos...the day before. Charles made a 200-mile round-trip from his home in Highgrove, Gloucestershire, on Saturday afternoon. The Prince of Wales was the first member of the royal family to visit the duke and it is understood that his visit was due to his father’s extended stay."
…
have begun, could sound the death knell of the UK’s reputation for climate lead....
If green groups are to be slung out with the anti-growth coalition, they may both be content at the prospect. But Burke warned it would also be “a betrayal of the British people”, the great majority of whom – consistently, according to opinion polls – want to see progress on the climate crisis, and who took pride in the UK’s role on the world stage.
“The British public really responded to Cop26, the business community did too & the scientists – there was a real sense that the UK was taking a leading role in the world on an important issue,” said Burke. “Even the Queen in her queenly way made it clear she thought something needed to be done. There was a broad sense that we were reflecting [at Cop26] the kind of country we want ourselves to be. This government is now betraying all of that.”
http://letschangetheworld.ning.com/profiles/blogs/telecommunications-1…
plicit consent is theft. A criminal act in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. So, it is timely to ask the question: to whom does the sovereignty of our parliament belong? Some would say it belongs to the monarchy. An absurd proposition for three reasons: such a claim is not written anywhere as we have no written consitution; the British monarchy lost supremacy when it was challenged and defeated in the Glorious Revolution and establishment of parliament, and thirdly, it is an untenable position to hold as one person, such as Hitler, may hold power in a fascist state but not in a democracy. The Queen may have the power to order a military coup and dissolve parliament but, frankly, I cannot see the people of this country, who stood firm against the Nazis, stand by and allow a German and her Greek husband to carry out a fascist coup of British democracy without resistance. I would also argue that sovereignty does not abide in the House of Lords as its members are appointed and not elected. Nor does sovereigny lie in the commons as members of parliament are mere tenants, allowed to temporarily occupy the commons with the permission of the voters of this country. MPs are leaseholders, not freeholders and therefore do not possess the sovereignty of parliament. Having dismissed the above charlatans, it follows that the sovereignty of parliament belongs to those who have the power to send and remove MPs from parliament and is irrevocably attached to the voting franchise and therefore belongs to every single voter in the country. And so it follows that if any politician wishes to give away the sovereignty that belongs to us, the voters, then they will have to seek our implicit permission to do so.
They have failed to seek that permission. The implications of this theft are far ranging. It means that Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Gordon Brown had no right or authority to enter into treaties and constitutions with third parties to give away the sovereignty which belongs to the voters of Great Britain.
It means that they fraudulently entered into those contracts and so, in turn, means that those treaties and constitutions are null and void and will remain illegal under British law until the permission of the owners of the sovereignty of our parliament, the voters, is sought and given. The consequence of that theft is that not only is a referndum on the EU a mandatory requirement but also that in the meantime any politician or civil servant who enforces EU regulations and fines is committing a criminal act as the imposition of such fines and regulations has no legal basis in British law. I hold these truths to be self evident."…