Anti-corporatist protesters seize town hall, citing Magna Carta



How civil :wink:


Yeah, I’m afraid the Magna Carta was legally superceded long ago.

And that doesn’t even get into problems with interpretation and language, stemming from the differences in English that have cropped up over most of a millenia.

[quote=“Glitch, post:3, topic:43330, full:true”]
Yeah, I’m afraid the Magna Carta was legally superceded long ago.[/quote]

And clause 61 hasn’t been in force since sometime in 1215, so almost 800 years.

It’s the British equivalent of the American freeman on the land types, who tend to quote invalid or repealed statutes without understanding what does apply and how it does.

(Clause 61 was only found in the original 1215 charter, which was effectively only in force from mid-July 1215 until sometime in the fall of that same year when the First Barons’ War broke out. Subsequent implementations of the charter, starting with the one from 1216 onwards, didn’t have it. It’s actually the 1297 version of the charter that made its way into British law, and Wikipedia tells me that only 3 clauses from it are still valid. Of course, it didn’t have clause 61 to begin with, so…)

Edit: Just noticed this bit in the original submission: “which some say was later revoked in 1297”. I can not eye-roll hard enough.

Love it, the cops and protesters are just sitting around having a chat.

Protesters: “So what we’re doing is seizing the building […] There’s a duty to stand with lawful rebellion.”
Police: “Well, what are you rebelling about?”

1 Like

Yeah, Glastonbury’s like that.

1 Like

C’mon though. 41 minutes and nobody offered anyone a cup of tea?
I’d have evaporated.


Johnny: “Whaddyagot?”


It would have been horrid, herbal tea that tastes like hippie’s bathwater.

1 Like

So, looking a bit further:

The reason these groups think that Clause 61 of the 1215 charter applies is because they believe that the 1215 charter is permanently part of British law and can never be repealed, invalidated, or superseded, being “a peace treaty between the king and his subjects”—those being the words of someone presenting this argument, not words from the charter itself.

(Any time you hear something about an ancient law being unrepealable and in force for perpetuity, you should start looking at claims side-eyed.)

The “25 Baron in 2001” was a number of hereditary peers — by this time, long since kicked out of the House of Lords — who sent a letter to Queen Elizabeth about the Treaty of Nice. Of the major players behind that, a good number of them have gone on to support or join UKIP. (As should be unsurprising, given what prompted the letter.)

So I take what I said back. This isn’t “essentially the British equivalent of American freeman on the land types”. These are British freemen on the land arguments; no “essentially” needed.


The Luddites smashed the weaving looms - and yet the Industrial Revolution continued.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.