IS THE GOVERNMENT CRIMINAL ?
THE ‘DUTY OF CARE’ APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
THE ‘DUTY OF CARE’ APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
It would appear that successive Governments have (knowingly) both acted, i.e. passed UNLAWFUL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (which are supposed to be enactments of the law) to allow "Un-necessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage and Destruction", and have omitted to control it, which they ought to have done according to law.
It would appear that successive Governments have (knowingly) both acted, i.e. passed UNLAWFUL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (which are supposed to be enactments of the law) to allow "Un-necessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage and Destruction", and have omitted to control it, which they ought to have done according to law.
Therefore it would appear that such Governments are manifestly reckless and CRIMINAL, by act and omission in their duty of care for us and our environment.
Therefore it would appear that such Governments are manifestly reckless and CRIMINAL, by act and omission in their duty of care for us and our environment.
The Government is voted in, and paid, by We the People to ENACT THE LAW, and thereby to serve the best interests of We the People.
The Government is voted in, and paid, by We the People to ENACT THE LAW, and thereby to serve the best interests of We the People.
To this end therefore the Government is the servant of the People, and the People are the Masters of the Government.
To this end therefore the Government is the servant of the People, and the People are the Masters of the Government.
It is UNLAWFUL for a "master" to employ a "servant" to commit a reckless act (the "vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant"); so if the British Government is reckless in it’s duty of care for the environment, then it is unlawful for the People to pay tax to the Government as long as the Government continues to be reckless.
It is UNLAWFUL for a "master" to employ a "servant" to commit a reckless act (the "vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant"); so if the British Government is reckless in it’s duty of care for the environment, then it is unlawful for the People to pay tax to the Government as long as the Government continues to be reckless.
Our intention is not to persuade people to withhold their taxes (desirable as that may be to a great many of us); to do so would hardly be seen as reasonable, prudent and well intentioned.
Our intention is not to persuade people to withhold their taxes (desirable as that may be to a great many of us); to do so would hardly be seen as reasonable, prudent and well intentioned.
It is our intention to inform the people of this country of the facts and thereby to exert as much political pressure as we may upon the Government to cease their apparent recklessness.
It is our intention to inform the people of this country of the facts and thereby to exert as much political pressure as we may upon the Government to cease their apparent recklessness.
The ONLY way the government can cease this environmental recklessness
The ONLY way the government can cease this environmental recklessness
is to provide:
is to provide:
ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR GREEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
ALL REASONABLY AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR GREEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
-anything less being an omission which is reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause further physical, emotional, mental and spiritual injury to us, the neighbours of the apparently reckless government.
-anything less being an omission which is reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause further physical, emotional, mental and spiritual injury to us, the neighbours of the apparently reckless government.
The question which then arises is `What are these “all reasonably available resources”?’
The question which then arises is `What are these “all reasonably available resources”?’
When asked, most people will agree that the threat of "Un-necessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage and Destruction" is of a similar magnitude to the threat of war, therefore, we may assert that the resources reasonably available to fight such a threat are of similar magnitude to those which would be made available if we were to have to fight a war.
When asked, most people will agree that the threat of "Un-necessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage and Destruction" is of a similar magnitude to the threat of war, therefore, we may assert that the resources reasonably available to fight such a threat are of similar magnitude to those which would be made available if we were to have to fight a war.
In other words, it would appear that according to law we should declare a state of national emergency in order to mobilise our collective resources to fight this most serious, REAL AND PRESENT threat to our well-being and security; after all, we cannot have a healthy economy when our workforce is suffering from the effects of an unreasonably unhealthy environment!
In other words, it would appear that according to law we should declare a state of national emergency in order to mobilise our collective resources to fight this most serious, REAL AND PRESENT threat to our well-being and security; after all, we cannot have a healthy economy when our workforce is suffering from the effects of an unreasonably unhealthy environment!
ReclaimTheLaw on PATREON ~
ReclaimTheLaw on PATREON ~
do you like the content ? ~ yes ? please donate if you can :)
do you like the content ? ~ yes ? please donate if you can :)