How secure are our liberties in the UK? I notice when ever I bring up ideas of implementing an unchangeable document that serves as a primary foundation of law, outlining the inalienable rights of the individual; one that can never be repealed by parliament, I sometimes hear " never gonna happen." And yet, it was surely far more inconceivable once upon a time, to imagine the creation of an elected Parliament and its legislative supremacy, that curtailed the power of a monarch when u consider the long history of this country. What I've long been advocating for, IS controversial of course. It would fundamentally alter the system of governance in this country, but u should come to know why it is absolutely crucial, and that in reality , there can be no Parliament acting on your behalf without the knowledge that the sovereignty of the individual is primary. Flipped around , it would mean the state is primary, that liberties are secondary, a set of temporary privelages that can be potentially repealed or come into conflict with future acts of parliment ,that infringe on these liberties -should any group, majority or government demand it. If liberties come second, where does government get its authority to govern with consent in the first place? And is it right , that these liberties can be potentially vanquished by the peoples consent? It is time to move beyond empty rhetoric surrounding our liberties, that exist only in the form of statutory acts; and secure them indefinitely for future generations, as a check against tyrannical governments and yes-the tyrannical tendencies of the people themselves. Democracy is a system of experimentation where nothing is secure except experimentation itself . On the face of it that sounds all well and good, but is liberty- the right to life itself, only valid if the people will it? That should become legally void if a majority-or any number within a group can be convinced to abandon it? Ideas set the course of a culture, the culture determines and shapes the politics. To argue against the sovereignty of the individual, that democracy is supreme, is to accept the supremacy of multiculturalism itself, wether it comes from the mouths of the right or the left. A functioning multicultural society is only possible -if individual rights is the anchor, acting as the moral foundation of law. Multicultural does not imply multi-ethnic . As history will show you, individuals within a given ethnic group are not a bunch of robots that share identical beliefs that value the same things. People splinter into smaller groups because all individuals have free will, minds, and the capacity to change them. Groups are simply a number of Individuals. These factions can only truly come into conflict under a system where individual rights are absent, because it becomes the concern of those within each of these groups to increase their numbers, and suppress the growth of the others in fear of having a different set of beliefs & values imposed upon them through the political process itself -or worse -through the implementation of physical force.

So what do u mean by " this isnt the world we live in?" Whi h basically means ( as Ive heard a million tines by so called liberty & free market advocates) that because this system isnt fully realised at present, we cant afford to take those steps toward it ?

Any money this crackhead was telling his followers in previous years, that the intention of sprayed skies were to deflect sunlight & COOL the planet. Now he's had to pivot and actually repeat the official science to how trapping works. Bell end . 😂😂😂😂

I am, yes