http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weJXQwyqvbk from 1.20 seconds in.
2 very important points:
1) Is George Galloway right when stating in this recent film that the Royal Family are only supposed to perform ceremonial functions? Are the Royal Family really not supposed to get involved at all with affairs of state? Says who? Where does this incorrect information come from?
George – YOU ARE WRONG!
The monarch and the government are supposed to work as a balancing-out mechanism which prevents tyranny from either side. Clearly not working at present, is it?
Albert Burgess, http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/ well-read scholar of the English Constitution, and his colleagues in the British Constitution Group http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/ are trying to actually provoke some kind of reaction/dialogue from our monarch! It is clear to PRACTICALLY everyone in Britain and the Commonwealth that the political systems and judiciaries of Great Britain and the Commonwealth have been hi-jacked by evil, brutal criminals. People are naturally now turning to the monarch whose constitutional role is to protect the people from the tyranny of corrupt government just as, in the past, the government has had to step in to protect the people from corrupt monarchs behaving brutally and illegally.
All letters written to HRH Queen Elizabeth 2nd are actually being answered by her Senior Correspondence Officer, a certain Mrs Sonia Bonici, who appears to be our Proxy Queen! Whether the Queen actually reads any letters sent to her by her subjects is anyone’s guess? This is a dangerous constitutional situation and she should change her correspondence arrangements before too many people lose faith with her – that’s my advice! Is she really as uncaring and out-of –touch as she is appearing lately?
http://www.tpuc.org/node/281 Recorded conversation between Brian Gerrish and Mrs Sonia Bonici.
Mr. Galloway. There are many in Britain and in the Commonwealth who WANT THE QUEEN TO DO HER DUTY UNDER THE CORONATION OATH AND GET INVOLVED MUCH MORE WITH AFFAIRS OF STATE!
2) In relation to your comments on Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall, why should the Royal Family’s affairs come under The Freedom of Information Act 2000? Bearing in mind that the Third Sector, which is now taking-over from the Public Sector and performs a multitude of tax payer-funded, non-profit Public Sector roles (involving £billions of our money) is still NOT COVERED BY THIS ACT?
So why should the Duchy of Cornwall be declared a public authority instead of a private estate, and have to fall under the Freedom of Info Act? When nobody else has to?
http://www.mindwideopen.org/articles.html ‘Cuts and Coincidence from the Cabbage Patch.’
The Freedom of Information Act must be extended to cover the Third Sector.
“….Although the Prince’s lawyers may well appeal in an attempt to keep the secrecy…” Galloway.
The use of the Chatham House Rule within the Third Sector needs to be reconsidered.
Ah ha! Here we have a public figure admitting on tv that if an organisation does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is highly likely to have SECRET ACTIVITIES (PARTICULARLY FINANCIAL ONES) AND ALL SORTS OF DODGY STUFF GOING ON!!!!!!!!! Well done George, for drawing this to our attention.
And has this judge had a Common Purpose-type training course? Hmm! :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/03/prince-charles-duchy-environment