Horse 3489 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion IX

 35

No county court is to be held save from month to month, and where the greater term used to be held, so will it be in future, nor will any sheriff or his bailiff make his tourn through the hundred save for twice a year and only in the place that is due and customary, namely once after Easter and again after Michaelmas, and the view of frankpledge is to be taken at the Michaelmas term without exception, in such a way that every man is to have his liberties which he had or used to have in the time of King H[enry II] my grandfather or which he has acquired since. The view of frankpledge is to be taken so that our peace be held and so that the tithing is to be held entire as it used to be, and so that the sheriff does not seek exceptions but remains content with that which the sheriff used to have in taking the view in the time of King H[enry] our grandfather.

-

The strange thing here is that Clause 35 not only looks like it is trying to prevent justice from being served because it inhibits the holding of county courts, but it does so by operation. Why you would want to prevent justice from being served is a matter of who the barons and earls who made this list of demands, want it prevented from being done to.

If it wasn't already obvious, the earldom and barony of England, saw the imposition of what they saw was a Norman/French court ruling from the other side of the English Channel, as being arbitrary and burdensome. The earls and barons, do not want courts from making decisions that they disagree with; by limiting the power of the courts to rule from the outside, they hope to maintain their power in England. 

Also note here that the system of frankpledge and tithing, has nothing at all to do with the church or the clergy. Frankpledge was a system of mutual surety whereby small collections of ten to fifteen men (always men, remember women have no legal standing - see previous) were in theory, responsible for the policing of the rest of the group as a small collective. That's all good and fine in theory but in practice where you have one or two people who have the personality to self-appoint themselves as leader/bully, then they end up ruling the group by default.

Obviously the earls and barons of England would not like to be bound and tied by frankpledge to a Norman/French aristocracy; and so Clause 35 is the demand that things return to "held entire as it used to be" where the local sheriff was the one in charge of policing the hundred. Naturally this reveals an existing motive, that the sheriff who polices the hundred is appointed by the Earl, Baron or Knight; so as far as being a peasant, or villein, or free man, or slave is concerned, the dressing of who is above you near enough makes no difference at all.

36

Nor is it permitted to anyone to give his land to a religious house in such a way that he receives it back from such a house to hold, nor is it permitted to any religious house to accept the land of anyone in such way that the land is restored to the person from whom it was received to hold. If anyone henceforth gives his land in such a way to any religious house and is convicted of the same, the gift is to be entirely quashed and such land is to revert to the lord of that fee.

-

The church in England in 1215 is still catholic in the small-c sense in that it still part of the one universal church, and still Catholic in the large-c sense in that it still in communion with the church at Rome. This means that functionally it is part of the greater church at large but factionally it is a Franco-Ibero-Italian church. 

Internally in England there are three factional groups going on. The Monarchy and loyalists are aligned with the Franco/Norman part of what is now Northern France. The church is in tension with them but still nominally part of the same kind of cohort. The Barons and Dukes who penned Magna Carta and who made this list of demands, are nativist English who resent rule from outside; which includes both the church and the monarchy. 

This clause is in a weird tension point in that it forbids land holders from lending lands to the church with the intent of getting that land back, and at the same time it forbids the church from lending lands to individuals with the intent of getting that land back. In both instances, if the Barons and Earls find out about it, they state here that the land will revert to the lord of that fee.

37

Scutage furthermore is to be taken as it used to be in the time of King H[enry] our grandfather, and all liberties and free customs shall be preserved to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, Templars, Hospitallers, earls, barons and all others, both ecclesiastical and secular persons, just as they formerly had.

-

The word "Scutage" is related to the modern Italian word "Scudetto" which is a small shield. The winners of Serie A earn the right to wear the Scudetto on their kit for the next season. It should not surprise you then, that Scutage is essential "Shield Money" in payment for the defence of the lands,

Scutage is the practice of a knight paying their lord (either a baron or a duke) monies in exchange for getting out of having to do military service. They might also by way of scutage, send peasants or free men in their place, to serve in the military force in their stead.

Now I suppose that it could be argued that in the days of a professional standing army like we have today, that we all in fact already pay scutage but given that this was a specific call upon the knights, I do not think that this maps exactly one to one. 

The Undersigned:

All these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have granted to be held in our realm in so far as pertains to us are to be observed by all of our realm, both clergy and laity, in so far as pertains to them in respect to their own men. For this gift and grant of these liberties and of others contained in our charter over the liberties of the forest, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knights, fee holders and all of our realm have given us a fifteenth part of all their movable goods. Moreover we grant to them for us and our heirs that neither we nor our heirs will seek anything by which the liberties contained in this charter might be infringed or damaged, and should anything be obtained from anyone against this it is to count for nothing and to be held as nothing. With these witnesses: the lord S[tephen] archbishop of Canterbury, E[ustace] bishop of London, S. [recte Jocelin] bishop of Bath, P[eter] bishop of Winchester, H[ugh] bishop of Lincoln, R[ichard] bishop of Salisbury, W. [recte Benedict] bishop of Rochester, W[illiam] bishop of Worcester, J[ohn] bishop of Ely, H[ugh] bishop of Hereford, R[anulf] bishop of Chichester, W[illiam] bishop of Exeter, the abbot of [Bury] St Edmunds, the abbot of St Albans, the abbot of Battle, the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury, the abbot of Evesham, the abbot of Westminster, the abbot of Peterborough, the abbot of Reading, the abbot of Abingdon, the abbot of Malmesbury, the abbot of Winchcombe, the abbot of Hyde [Winchester], the abbot of Chertsey, the abbot of Sherborne, the abbot of Cerne, the abbot of Abbotsbury, the abbot of Milton [Abbas], the abbot of Selby, the abbot of Cirencester, H[ubert] de Burgh our justiciar, H. [recte Ranulf] earl of Chester and Lincoln, W[illiam] earl of Salisbury, W[illiam] earl Warenne, G[ilbert] de Clare earl of Gloucester and Hertford, W[illiam] de Ferrers earl of Derby, W[illiam] de Mandeville earl of Essex, H[ugh] Bigod earl of Norfolk, W[illiam] earl Aumale, H[umphrey] earl of Hereford, J[ohn] constable of Chester, R[obert] de Ros, R[obert] fitz Walter, R[obert] de Vieuxpont, W[illiam] Brewer, R[ichard] de Montfiquet, P[eter] fitz Herbert, W[illiam] de Aubigné, F. [recte Robert] Gresley, F. [recte Reginald] de Braose, J[ohn] of Monmouth, J[ohn] fitz Alan, H[ugh] de Mortemer, W[illiam] de Beauchamp, W[illiam] de St John, P[eter] de Maulay, Brian de Lisle, Th[omas] of Moulton, R[ichard] de Argentan, G[eoffrey] de Neville, W[illiam] Mauduit, J[ohn] de Baalon and others. Given at Westminster on the eleventh day of February in the ninth year of our reign.

- 

I live in Australia; so this means that an audience of the people who want to claim Magna Carta in my country, are probably unaware of the implication of the list of people here. There is literally no-one from "The North". About the furthest north that anyone gets here, is the Earl of Derby.

The other thing that is immediately obvious here, is that the list of people making the demands includes Abbots, Bishops, a constable, and a few Earls. Literally none of these people are elected to their office, and most of these people would have been sent by the Earl or Baron of their county/hundred, either in lieu of them going themselves, or possibly because they feared getting killed by the royal forces in case all of this went badly. Had John's army killed the clergy, then this would have been the pretense for kicking off another civil war in England; which over the next few hundred years, would happen all too frequently. 

The Confirmation:

We, holding these aforesaid gifts and grants to be right and welcome, concede and confirm them for ourselves and our heirs and by the terms of the present [letters] renew them, wishing and granting for ourselves and our heirs that the aforesaid charter is to be firmly and inviably observed in all and each of its articles in perpetuity, including any articles contained in the same charter which by chance have not to date been observed. In testimony of which we have had made these our letters patent. Witnessed by Edward our son, at Westminster on the twelfth day of October in the twenty-fifth year of our reign. [Chancery warranty by Hugh of] Yarmouth.

- 

12th October 1297 is not the 15th of June 1215. This version, adopted by Edward I and inspected by his son (who would become Edward II) is the Inspeximus Issue. Already we can see that if Edward I and Edward II have not only agreed to but adopted both Magna Carta and another charter called the Charter Of The Forest into the corpus of English law, that the monarchy of England has very much diverged from the Franco/Norman roots established by William in 1066.

The final running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

1/37.

As Magna Carta relates to Australian law at all, most of it is either irrelevant, or repealed, or impossible to apply. In fact the only sentence which has any possible application at all in Australia is that one sentence from Clause 29:

To no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.

The ironic thing is that the cookers who appear in court and try to rely on Magna Carta as some kind of woo-woo magic weapon, very much do not want to submit to the court which they appear in front of, don't even want this clause to apply to them either. If you have fallen foul of the law, and do not want to submit to the law, then you certainly do not want to admit that the proper consequences of the law should apply to you. 

On that note, I am willing to scrub that tally of 1 and arrive at the final total which the cookers who appear in court and try to rely on Magna Carta actually reply upon...

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

And that's possibly the saddest thing of all.

Horse 3488 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion VIII

30

All merchants, unless they have been previously and publicly forbidden, are to have safe and secure conduct in leaving and coming to England and in staying and going through England both by land and by water to buy and to sell, without any evil exactions, according to the ancient and right customs, save in time of war, and if they should be from a land at war against us and be found in our land at the beginning of the war, they are to be attached without damage to their bodies or goods until it is established by us or our chief justiciar in what way the merchants of our land are treated who at such a time are found in the land that is at war with us, and if our merchants are safe there, the other merchants are to be safe in our land.

-

The current wave of not quite explicitly racist, extremely xenophobic, anti-immigration crowd, would have a fit if they knew about this. Clause 30 demands not only free trade but free passage; in an age when passport control is non-existent. Furthermore, it tries to establish not only free movement but explicit protection for foreign merchants in England.

The backdrop of this is that the peasantry, the serfs, and the slaves, likely never travelled more than tens of miles from their villages and hamlets, in their entire lifetimes. The ancient tales of someone leaving everything to seek their fortune in the big cities, to become an apprentice or a burgher of some kind, are notable; precisely because they are the very very rare exception. Most people if they did become an apprentice in a useful trade, either did so because they inherited the family business or because they worked in someone else's business within the parish.

31

If anyone dies holding of any escheat such as the honour of Wallingford, Boulogne, Nottingham, Lancaster or of other escheats which are in our hands and which are baronies, his heir is not to give any other relief or render any other service to us that would not have been rendered to the baron if the barony were still held by a baron, and we shall hold such things in the same way as the baron held them, nor, on account of such a barony or escheat, are we to have the escheat or custody of any of our men unless the man who held the barony or the escheat held elsewhere from us in chief.

-

The rules of escheat have very much changed since the thirteenth century. "Escheat" is the legal principle that dormant property, real or monetary, can revert to the ownership of someone else in the absence of a formal line of creditors. Usually the rules of escheat only operate today, in someone dies intestate and their bank accounts are escheated to the Crown.

In the thirteenth century, the barony is mostly concerned about the passing of estates of real property and in some cases the passing of entire hundreds and counties. Holding the Honour of a major city (Wallingford, Boulogne, Nottingham, Lancaster are listed), means the ability to extract taxation and service and fealty from all the knights and by extension all of the serfdom, peasantry and slavery therein.

Clause 31 is trying to limit the ability of the barons, to claim escheat from each other and/or to demand escheat from the heirs of the people who would otherwise be entitled to the property. In the twenty-first century, various Estate and Inheritance Law, leaves literally zero ability for this clause to have any operation in anything at all.

32

No free man is henceforth to give or sell any more of his land to anyone, unless the residue of his land is sufficient to render due service to the lord of the fee as pertains to that fee.

-

Oh dear.

I wonder what the cookers and sovcits would have to say when Clause 32 actively prohibits them from selling real estate unless they can demonstrate that they still have the ability to pay taxation. Again, since the subject here is "free men", we are talking about the landed peasantry who own a family farm.

33

All patrons of abbeys which have charters of the kings of England over advowson or ancient tenure or possession are to have the custody of such abbeys when they fall vacant just as they ought to have and as is declared above.

-

To place this in time, Magna Carta is about 300 years before Martin Luther nails his list of 95 Points of Rubbish to the door. This is also well before Henry VIII did his rag and decided that the only way that he was going to get a divorce was to start his own church. In 1215, England is still in communion with and is still part of the Catholic Church.

Just to clarify here. An Abbey is a church which keeps and maintains a nunnery. A Cathedral is a church which keeps and maintains a monastery. A Minster is a church which runs and regulates the churches within the county or the hundred. 

When an abbey fell vacant, it was because either the local community could not support the upkeep of the nunnery; most likely due to plague or war which has demanded other service and taxation from the county or the hundred. What Clause 33 prescribes is actually something quite quite dastardly.

The church was not quite separate from the rest of the feudal system. It was not governed by the dukes and barons, and was not called upon to pay either taxation, or service, or fealty. This was fine if the baron or duke in question believed that they owed some kind of tithe to the church, but if they were a self-righteous profit seeking knave, then Clause 33 is a back door to resuming church lands and property.

34

No-one is to be taken or imprisoned on the appeal of woman for the death of anyone save for the death of that woman’s husband.

-

You might like to reread this, just to see how evil this is.

Yes you read this correctly. The appeal of a woman is legally invalid in court, save for any other purpose than the inquiry into the death of her husband. In the general scheme of things, we have seen how women have very little rights at law, and Clause 34 doesn't even concede that they have the right to make a complaint in a court as a plaintiff, even if someone horrible was done to them. 

Crimes of theft or impairment of property, are invalid if a woman made the claim. Crimes made against her family, which might include her children being beaten or kidnapped, are invalid if a woman made the claim. Crimes against the person, which includes all battery, and even cases of rape, are invalid if a woman made the claim.

Clause 34 is a horrid piece of legislation. So much of Magna Carta is bad, but this crosses the line into being truly evil.

<><><><><>

Today's running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

1/34.

Horse 3487 - You Can Say What You Like About The Dead

 In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there has been a lot of speculation as to why the shooter did it. Moreover, there has been a push by the authoritarian portion of society, to try and paint Charlie Kirk as some kind of new martyr for their cause. 

In the push to seemingly canonise Charlie Kirk, what has been lost is any kind of honest account of what he said. It is not difficult to find recordings from his podcast in which he was openly racist and repeatedly indecent in his comments. However, journalists and other people in the media who have not toed the line but have had the audacity to telling the truth about his life and about what he said, have lost their jobs for telling the truth.

One of the repeated calls in the weaponsation of this new orthodoxy, is for the Estate of Charlie Kirk to sue people for defamation. Here's the thing that people miss though.

It is literally impossible to defame the dead.

You can tell all kinds of lies about a dead person. You can invent utter fantasies and fabrications. What you can not do, is defame the dead.

Why? Because although defamation is the publication of untrue statements or material that harms a person's reputation, it is the reputational harm which causes ongoing harm, usually by means of monetary value.

Even though a statement might take the form of spoken words, written content, images, or even gestures, and be materially untrue, a dead person can not make any money nor can they suffer a loss of income; not can they actually suffer any reputational harm which is ongoing.

One of the favourite dog whistles among the authoritarian crowd of which Charlie Kirk was a part, is that "facts don't care about your feelings". One of the facts of note when it comes to defamation claims is that dead people can feel no shame or humiliation; nor is it possible for them to do so.

In order to succeed in a defamation claim where I live in Australia, the plaintiff must prove the statement was published, identified them, was defamatory, and caused serious harm to their reputation. All of these elements must be present. 

- the statement must be communicated to at least one other person. 

- the statement must refer to the plaintiff.

- th plaintiff must prove the publication caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. 

Here's where that last point falls down and must always fall down in relation to a dead people.

Someone's Estate is NOT the plaintiff. I know that upon hearing that this sounds immediately obvious but sometimes the most obvious things need to be said to make the point.

Not only is someone's Estate not the Person, but an Estate is also not a Person. An Estate at law, is in fact a Trust and therefore not covered by personhood either as an Individual or a Company.

At Common Law dead people have no rights and a person's reputation cannot be violated if they are no longer alive. Only a living person can bring a legal action for defamation. As dead people have no rights at law, the right to sue is also extinguished upon their death. Even if a living person brings a legal action for defamation, that action ends when they die. 

You can say what you like about any dead person. You can tell all kinds of lies, make up the most outlandish and outrageous and even scandalous garbage and nonsense that you like, and there ain't a thing that the dead person or their estate can do about it. Reputation and fame and defamation belongs to the realm of the living; which means that the weaponsation of this new orthodoxy is also done by the living, not on behalf of the dead but on behalf of themselves. 

Horse 3486 - Was The Death Of Charlie Kirk "Worth It"?

I am hesitant to use the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' in this context because I have no idea what exactly is being conserved as the United States runs even further down the road into illiberalism. I am also convinced that the terms 'left' and 'right' as they are used in the United States is completely irrelevant to any kind of proper economic analysis.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is objectively evil. He has been stolen from a wife who now no longer has a husband, and two children who no longer have a daddy. They have to live with the consequences of an evil bastard's actions for the rest of their lives. 

Yet here's the absolutely idiotic thing about the United States: absolutely nothing meaningful will happen as a result of this.

Granted that the President will more than likely award Charlie Kirk some token medal posthumously, like the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as if a medal in a box was any compensation at all for the loss of a husband and father, but in essence the United States will yell madly for ten days and then forget about this. In the meantime, another five mass shootings will occur.

Why? Fundamentally the United States doesn't and has never held those truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. It has always held that some people are worth less than others and has repeatedly legislated as such. Neither does it believe that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, of among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, because if it did it would do something about protecting those rights. It does not. It refuses too... joyfully.

The difference between the two big political football teams in the United States are the colours of the flags they wave. One waves a rainbow flag, the other a flag of khaki fatigue. They are playing the same game by the same rules; both of them are dedicated to the proposition that killing people is acceptable. Between the Second Amendment and Guns and Abortion Rights, the United States consistently kills more people than all the wars it has fought in.

Only months ago, Minnesota politician Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot in an equally politically motivated assassination, after that gunman visited four homes belonging to state lawmakers.

Do you remember that? No? Let's start up the political cheering by claiming that this was a plot by the other football team. Selective memory really is a strong thing, isn't it?

The really idiotic thing about this is that not only does the United States find this acceptable but thinks that killing innocent people is a necessary cost of their so-called 'freedom'.

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113

Charlie Kirk, the conservative founder and president of Turning Point USA, said during an organizational event on Wednesday that gun deaths in exchange for the preservation of Second Amendment rights is part of America's reality.

...

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death," Kirk said at a Turning Point USA Faith event on Wednesday, as reported by Media Matters for America. "That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it.

"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

- Newsweek, 6th Apr 2023

God-given? Really? I must have missed this because between Torah, and Jesus' clarification on the two greatest commandments, I just don't see how having the instruments of murder could be a "God-given right". You're going to have to cite scripture for this to prove that.

Also, this was the words of Charlie Kirk in the abstract; where the deaths of other innocent people were acceptable to him. Would his own wife and children still agree with him, considering that his life has been paid as blood sacrifice? Is that really an acceptable cost? Is it rational?

I think that killing people is evil. I think that allowing people the right to keep the instruments of death is both evil and stupid. If you think that the Second Amendment is a right worth having, then you must accept the death of Charlie Kirk as "prudent" and "rational". As a result, I think that you are both evil and stupid.

Horse 3485 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion VII

24

The writ called ‘praecipe’ is not to be issued to anyone in respect to any free tenement in such a way that a free man might lose his court.

- 

A Writ of Praecipe is an order from a court which instructs someone to perform an action. Pay your taxes. Fix that fence. Control your livestock. Pay your workers. These are all orders which might be instructed of someone to perform by a Writ of Praecipe.

The issue in Clause 24 is that the earls and barons did not wish to be directed to do anything by anyone. Furthermore, as they owned the courts within their own hundreds and counties, they certainly did not wish to be directed to do anything by a higher court; especially not the King's court.

The truth was that for a while, England had a peculiar system of law which although derived from Danelaw was unique to the sceptered isle. The Common Law, which prescribed the rule of precedent, said that what had previously been declared in a higher court, had application in a lower court. With a feudal system imposed, English courts which were run by the earls and barons, absolutely did not want Common Law imposed from without; especially Common Law being imposed from Norman and French Courts. 

25

There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn, that is to say the London quarter, and a single breadth for dyed cloth, russets, and haberjects, that is to say two yards within the lists. And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.

-

...but nobody to know what it is?

I get the need for standardisation of weights and measures but to then neglect to state what kinds of weights and measures are to be used throughout the realm, is just plain daft.

It is one thing to suggest that there ought to be a law but quite another to merely stop there and neglect to define the terms of what that law is. This is a lovely sentiment but awful in execution.

26

Henceforth there is to be nothing given for a writ of inquest from the person seeking an inquest of life or member, but such a writ is to be given freely and is not to be denied.

-

In doing the research to find out what kind of conditions existed before Magna Carta, I was shocked to learn that in order for someone to apply for an inquest into why someone had died, which the only reason that you would want to conduct such a thing is because of the negligence of someone else, then the person requesting the inquest would have to pay a surety to the court in question. Naturally this was open to rampant corruption and a direct conflict of interest if the person who had been killed had been killed upon the order or the earl or baron who owned the court.

This demand that there is to be nothing given for a writ of inquest, works fine for someone making an application to the King's Courts but in practice would not be applied to the local courts operated by the earls and barons. Clause 26 is an upwards demand which in practice, would have no application to the burghers, peasants, or serfs. Nothing would be given by the people who wanted to seek an inquest but at the same token, a court owned and operated by a baron or earl might demand it of someone else.

With respect to a Coronial Inquest today, these kinds of proceedings only really happen in suspicious circumstances, or in relation to a crime against the person which has resulted in loss of life; and as a result where Manslaughter or Murder charges might be laid. Death by misadventure or accident cases, will also pass through Coroners' Courts.

27

If any persons hold from us at fee farm or in socage or burgage, and hold land from another by knight service, we are not, by virtue of such a fee farm or socage or burgage, to have custody of the heir or their land which pertains to another’s fee, nor are we to have custody of such a fee farm or socage or burgage unless this fee farm owes knight service. We are not to have the custody of an heir or of any land which is held from another by knight service on the pretext of some small serjeanty held from us by service of rendering us knives or arrows or suchlike things.

- 

'Socage' is a nice ye olde worlde word for 'rent' but not that kind of rent which demands military service from an underling. Clause 27 basically stipulates that if someone is renting from someone else, then the lessor can not come at the lessee for fees and rents which relate to some other lessor's land. The mere existence of the fact that there even needs to be this kind of clause is quite frankly astonishing to a modern audience. We take it for granted that a landlord can only extract rents from someone which relates to the land/house/building/apartment being rented but apparently the earls and the barons of the thirteenth century had no such qualms about extracting rent relating to land that they did not own.

Clause 27 also gives us a window into the equally absurd practice of holding someone else's heirs or wards in custody, upon invention of some minor military service; hence the inclusion of the items of knives and arrows.

28

No bailiff is henceforth to put any man on his open law or on oath simply by virtue of his spoken word, without reliable witnesses being produced for the same.

- 

In other words, the owners of a court can not simply charge someone with an offence because the earls and barons feel like it. This clause exists in a time way before the invention of any kind of modern police force, or the use of warrants or writs to direct bailiffs and sheriffs to search premises and/or seize property.

We have finally found something which has relevance today. Here's the thing though: I live in New South Wales; where the Search Warrants Act 1985 and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, define the types of warrants, and the powers of the police and courts, to issue, enforce, and execute them. Clause 28 by virtue of having been superseded by statute on multiple occasions at this point, has zero effect. Statute Law prevails. 

29

No free man is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.

- 

The Cookers and Wingnuts will read Clause 29 and think that just because this says that the barons and the earls will not go against someone "save by lawful judgment of his peers" then they do not have to submit to the courts; despite and in spite of the fact that the next immediate words in the same sentence read "or by the law of the land". 

Again, I live in New South Wales; so the Jury Act 1977 is the principal act which defines when a jury is to be used in a court case. The Jury Act is a statute in the law of the land. This does not in any way mean that if you are driving while disqualified, or have stolen from a shop, or slugged someone with your fists, or have caused a nuisance or a public disturbance or have engaged in civil disorder, that you are entitled to a jury. 

The only part which has any operation today, and it has take us 29 clauses to get here is that:

To no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.

Finally we have a winner. Courts are restricted and in fact do not sell justice. 

<><><><><>

At this point we finally add 1 to the tally; though not in the way that the people who assert that they have magical Magna Carta rights think that they do. 

Today's running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

1/29.

ONE!

Horse 3484 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion VI

18

If anyone holding a lay fee from us should die, and our sheriff or bailiff shows our letters patent containing our summons for a debt that the dead man owed us, our sheriff or bailiff is permitted to attach and enrol all the goods and chattels of the dead man found in lay fee, to the value of the said debt, by view of law-worthy men, so that nothing is to be removed thence until the debt that remains is paid to us, and the remainder is to be released to the executors to discharge the will of the dead man, and if nothing is owed to us from such a person, all the chattels are to pass to the [use of] the dead man, saving to the dead man’s wife and her [or their] children their reasonable portion.

-

The idea that sheriffs or bailiffs have the right to claim chattel and property (a lay fee) by way of discharging a debt, is still with us today. Usually if someone has defaulted upon some debt, such as commercial credit like a credit card or upon a mortgage, then the creditors have the ability to go to court and have the sheriffs or bailiffs repossess and reclaim goods and/or real property.

Clause 18 extends this right beyond the grave; which now means that the earls and barons have the ability to claim chattel and property from a deceased estate. The problem with this is that as they already own the courts and judges, it is hideously easy for them to donkey up some list of claims and extract a letters patent from the courts, which they control.

This is all the more monstrous and hideous when you consider that the goods and chattel are being reclaimed from the widows and children of the deceased person, who themselves might not have actually had legal standing in court; which means no ability at all to contest the reclamation of property from them. 

Clause 18 is a nice way for the barons and earls to steal property from poorer people, by redefining what was legal. Remember, it isn't stealing if you don't want it to be and since you already own the law, the law isn't going to disagree with you.

19

No constable or his bailiff is to take corn or other chattels from anyone who not themselves of a vill where a castle is built, unless the constable or his bailiff immediately offers money in payment of obtains a respite by the wish of the seller. If the person whose corn or chattels are taken is of such a vill, then the constable or his bailiff is to pay the purchase price within forty days.

- 

This sounds incredibly strange to a twenty-first century audience but the underlying concept which is being touched upon here is the nature of feudal taxation.

Taxation as we know it is paid to a central authority, which is usually an agency of the federal government of the nation state. That's all good and fine, but when you have a largely agrarian society which for the most part the peasantry are absent of coin, then taxation measures and excises must be collected locally.

For the earls and barons and people in charge of a hundred, taxation claims would be directly laid upon stores of corn or other fungible and presumably semi-storable commodity. It makes no sense for instance to collect beef as a taxation payment because unless you have the means to cure it or salt it, then if is going to go off.

Clause 19 is the statement that constables and bailiffs will only operate within their own hundred, or country, or duchy, and even then, only take taxation from the villeins therein. If they want to lay claim to corn or other chattels from anyone, then the instruction is to pay monies; which seems reasonable.

20

No constable is to distrain any knight to give money for castle guard if the knight is willing to do such guard in person or by proxy of any other honest man, should the knight be prevented from doing so by just cause. And if we take or send such a knight into the army, he is to be quit of [castle] guard in accordance with the length of time that we have him in the army for the fee for which he has done service in the army.

-

England in the 13th Century does not have a standing army. If in the event that there was a war called, then the Lords, Earls, and Barons, would call downwards for the Knights to either provide military service, or provide infantry for same. England in the 13th Century also does not have a standing police force. Policing is provided for by sheriffs in the employ of the owner of the hundred, and/or directly by the knight themselves or by some armed retinue.

So in order to keep broader civil order, Clause 20 has the intent of extracting the guard/police service either from the knights themselves, or by their proxies who will do the job for them. And naturally, if a knight has been called into service in the army, then they can not be physically present for the task of castle guard; so they are relieved of that duty for that particular time. 

The interesting thing about the beginning of Clause 20 is that it implies that the Barons and Earls could send their Constables and probably Sheriffs to demand payment if a knight didn't want to actually do the job of guard/police service. In this respect, taxation for services rendered seems perfectly reasonable. 

The real irony is that when the cookers get in court and say that they rely on Magna Carta for their defence of wanting to get out of some civic duty like a petty minded moron, that Clause 20 actually supports the concept of taxation for civil services. Not once have I ever heard of the alternative where one of these fools, intends to enlist in the Police Service in lieu of paying taxation though.

21

No sheriff or bailiff of ours or of anyone else is to take anyone’s horses or carts to make carriage, unless he renders the payment customarily due, namely for a two-horse cart ten pence per day, and for a three-horse cart fourteen pence per day. No demesne cart belonging to any churchman or knight or any other lady [sic] is to be taken by our bailiffs, nor will we or our bailiffs or anyone else take someone else’s timber for a castle or any other of our business save by the will of he to whom the timber belongs.

- 

Since the prime driver of economic activity is agriculture, then taking someone's horses or carts, is to literally take away their livelihood. In this case, the earls and barons have decided that they will pay five and seven times the amount which would be normally due to a day labourer at the time.

Clause 21 does give away the general sentiment of the time that the church was an entity to be respected. One of the aspects of the feudal system was that even the earls and barons, and the king, felt that they would be answerable to God or  at very least were prepared to accept that the church was their propaganda piece to make known to the peasants and slaves, who was in charge, who people were answerable to, and that they were at the top because God had said so. 

22

We shall not hold the lands of those convicted of felony save for a year and a day, whereafter such land is to be restored to the lords of the fees.

-

Again, given that agriculture is the prime driver of economic activity during the middle ages, confiscating the lands of someone who has been convicted of felony is a pretty severe penalty. If they happened to be a freeman who held the land, then restoring to the lords of the fees, seems like an extraction tool to permanently concentrate land ergo power, into the hands of the already rich and powerful.

If someone was already a knight in possession of the fee, then restoring their lands to their lords, also concentrates land and power upwards.

About the only person whom this wouldn't likely affect, are the lords, earls, and barons, who would have their estates managed by someone in the interim and then restored to them. This of course assumes that a lord, earl, or baron, actually can be convicted of a felony; which given the interaction of this with Clause 14 which reads that "Earls and barons are not to be amerced save by their peers", is highly unlikely. Why would an earl or baron convict one of their own, except if they wanted to acquire lands vampirically?

23

All fish weirs [kidelli] on the Thames and the Medway and throughout England are to be entirely dismantled, save on the sea coast.

- 

This is a highly specific clause that literally has zero application in Australia. In all honesty it has zero application in most of the rivers in England as well. Basically what is going on, is that fences were erected across the Thames to prevent fish from travelling further upstream than about Richmond; to maximise the catch available to the King's household.

<><><><><>

In this post of the run through Magna Carta, we heave learned of the pettiness of the claims therein. It really does make you wonder about the kinds of people who want to rely on it to get out of whatever infringement of law that they have been brought to court over.

Today's running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

0/23.

But do go banging on about fish weirs, please. 

Horse 3483 - The Fake Internet Court of Australia - POTATO CAKE v POTATO SCALLOP [2025] - Judgement - H3483/1

 The Fake Internet Court of Australia

POTATO CAKE v POTATO SCALLOP [2025] - Judgement

H3483/1

It has come to this fake internet court's attention that across this wide brown australian land that we call Australia, that there is a dispute across state lines which divides the nation.

This is the use of the terms 'Potato Cake' and 'Potato Scallop' to describe that small, golden brown, texture like sun, fried potato thing, which may or may not be battered, and distinct from a hash brown.

Judgement Praecido:

As for the people in the far north of the Northern Territory who have decided to just stay out of the argument entirely and call it a 'Potato Fritter', this fake internet court applauds you and admires your pragmatism. You are weird but we shall allow this.

Back to the case at hand:

In a classic case of using formal epistemology to define the case, we need to ask what is a 'cake'?

A 'cake' in its broadest possible sense, is a thing which has been shaped and/or moulded. This is why a bread like object which has been made from flour and eggs and placed into a tin to bake is a 'cake', and equally why cakes can be made of soap, mud, concrete, ice cream, fudge, and a whole host of other shapeable and moldable substances.

Thus the term 'Potato Cake' is apt, as this object which has been shaped from the constituent parts of potato and batter, is properly a 'cake'.

On the other side of the argument, we need to ask what is a 'scallop'?

A 'scallop' is a common name that encompasses various species of marine bivalve molluscs in the taxonomic family Pectinidae. The absolute classic example of a scallop is the animal which lives inside the shell which is used for the Shell Oil company. The term 'scallop' can also refer to the kind of ruffled edge of that same shell and a pattern which follows, but this is materially irrelevant to the case at hand.

Since we are not talking about that marine animal, this warrants further information.

We are in fact talking about something adjacent to the marine animal, by virtue of a 'potato scallop', also being cooked in Fish & Chip Shops; quite possibly at the same time.

This means that the reason for a distinction between a fried scallop and a 'potato scallop' exists because of the immediate proximity of the two things. 

The English Language has a long and proud history of stealing from everywhere, from everything, and from everyone. Thus, stealing a term from a thing which is close at hand, is perfectly normal for the language.

Consider that tins are not made of tin, that a pencil lead has never been made out of lead, and that a pineapple is actually derived from the older use of the English word 'apple' which encompassed every kind of fruit and it's just that this is an 'apple' that looks like a pine cone.

Thus, the existence of the term 'scallop' in reference to a fried thing which happens to have 'potato' as a qualifier, is historically consistent when set against the backdrop of a language with a fifteen hundred year history.

Judgement:

Let it be known that this fake internet court understands the historical reasons why this crunchy comestible should be called a 'potato scallop' but just because something has been around for a long time, is neither just cause for its continued existence, nor does it make it fit for purpose.

If a thing is bad, then it should be gotten rid of. 

This court hereby orders that the term 'scallop' in reference to a cake made from potato, be gotten rid of and erased from the collective consciousness.

A 'potato scallop' just is not a 'scallop', no matter how hard you try to convince us that it is. In the olden days when we were told something that blatantly is not true, then we would have used that now old fashioned word 'lie'.

This fake internet court hereby orders that the correct and proper and true term is a 'potato cake' and that it should supplant and replace all existences of the lies sold as truth, immediately and without exception.

The people of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and most of the Northern Territory, do in fact have it correct. A cake made from potato is a 'potato cake'. This fake internet court also accepts the weirdness in some parts of the Northern Territory.

As to all the people of Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia, who continue to use the term 'scallop' when very clearly a more truthful term exists, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no business mucking with a language that doesn't even bear your name, we order you to cease, desist and stop this egregious pretense. If we ever see you back before this court, the penalities will be severe. Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3483/1 - Ed)

Horse 3482 - NATO Wakes Up To Stare At The Eagle And The Bear

The General, the Philanderer, the Thug, the Crook, the Janitor, the Peanut, the Actor, the Blatherer, the Creep, the Moron, the Librarian, the Blowhard, the Zombie, and the Blowhard again. This is either the weirdest set of tarot cards in existence, or someone telling the fortunes of an empire which is crumbling.

When Donald Trump met with Vladmir Putin at the weekend, I thought that it was because Trump intended to give away some kind of magic beans in exchange for ten minutes of kudos. Instead, he achieved precisely nothing but Putin learned first hand that the Blowhard is actually incapable of achieving anything. This is excellent news for the little Russian man as it means that he can and will go about his business in Ukraine unimpeded.

We have now learnt that this week, the President of Ukraine Vlodomir Zelensky will have an audience with Trump and on this occasion, instead of merely being a punching bag so that Trump can look impressive in front of the hand-picked media scrum in the White House, he will be bringing the most important leaders in NATO.

The next meeting that Zelensky will have with Trump, reads more like the starting squad of a football match than anything else. This time, the group will include:

Zelensky, Von der Lewen, Merz, Macron, Meloni, Stubb, Rutte, and Starmer. To include leaders from both the economic left and right, is one of the strangest set of leaders to voluntarily arrive at the White House in a very long time; which suggests to me that at least in theory, that this time around, NATO has grown a spine and is prepared to tell the Blowhard man-baby that they have had enough.

The problem for Mr Trump is that he wants to be friends with Mr Putin; not because he thinks that normalising relations between the two nations will bring about peace and prosperity but because Trump is a thug gangster and game recognises game. 

The problem for Mr Putin is that even though he wishes for a return to the Russian Empire of old (of which the USSR was just a front company), he has constantly failed in his objectives.

Putin has failed to demiliterise Ukraine and has failed to neutralise much less defeat the Ukrainian military. Putin has failed to enact regime change in Kyyv and has failed to remove Zelensky. Putin has failed to exact full control over most of Donbas; which is the objective of this current wave of military nastiness. Perhaps most worrying of all, Putin has failed to stop NATO from enlarging, as both Sweden and Finland joined in 2023; which now means that Russia actually shares a land border with NATO.

Exactly who Trump thinks that he's acting for in the next meeting with Zelensky is unknown but what we do know is that if things transpire in a certain direction, then Ukraine will finally join NATO and Trump will be forced to make a decision about whether to pull the United States out and make his friend Vladmir Putin happy, or if he has to eat humble pie and finally actually admit that Ukraine is a sovereign nation in its own right.

Perhaps it is a good thing that there was no announcement of a ceasefire, no announcement of sanctions, and no other announcements of grand but otherwise useless nature.

Because now as it stands, European nations are rightfully and justly wary of anything that Mr Trump has to say because it was highly likely that both Ukraine and Europe could have been cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's biggest nuclear powers; and that simply should have never been thinkable at all.

Horse 3481 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion V

10

No-one is to be distrained to do more service for a knight’s fee or for any other free tenement than is due from it.

-

A knight's "fee" is some unit of land which is necessary for the maintenance of that knight and maybe his retinue, for the purpose of sending him off to war. Clause 10 is an imposition which prevents someone from demanding extra work from a knight in exchange for their fee; rather than what it sounds like it could be which is an imposition upon the serfdom and peasantry from doing excess work for their knight.

Remember, Magna Carta is a list of demands from the barons to the King; rather than some great charter of rights being claimed by the general populace at large. Legally speaking, the serfdom and peasantry in relation to the knights and barons, by virtue of living upon the lands in their estates, were considered to be the property of the knights and barons. 

The actual operation of this Clause since the time of about Henry VIII with various Enclosure Acts, right up until the General Enclosure Act 1801, means that the number of people who either lived on or had the right to live on estates or graze livestock in Common lands, was steadily decreased. The General Enclosure Act 1801 rounded off that number to exactly 0.

There are no circumstances under which Clause 10 even has any operation today. It might technically still form part of the corpus of law but what is the point of law if it applies to literally no-one?

11

Common pleas are not to follow our court but are to be held in a certain fixed place.

-

On the face of it, this looks like a call for established formal Courts of Assizes, Criminal Courts, et cetera to be built. This is fine. In truth though, when you have Circuit Courts and professional judges who move from place to place, the idea that court should be held in a singular fixed place, immediately dissolves like snow in a furnace. 

12

Recognisances of novel disseisin and of mort d’ancestor are not to be taken save in their particular counties and in the following way. We or, should we be outside the realm, our chief justiciar, will send our justices once a year to each county, so that, together with the knights of the counties, that may take the aforesaid assizes in the counties; and those assizes which cannot be completed in that visitation of the county by our aforesaid justices assigned to take the said assizes are to be completed elsewhere by the justices in their visitation; and those which cannot be completed by them on account of the difficulty of various articles (of law) are to be referred to our justices of the Bench and completed there.

-

"Novel disseisin" and "mort d’ancestor" are in modern English: "recently dispossessed lands" and "the death of ancestral lands". What the barons and earls are trying to achieve here, are the resolution of land disputes where someone has either had their land confiscated by the Crown, or by the action of some other earl or baron. These assizes are ideally to be held within the counties where the land dispute happened.

That's all fine and dandy except that in Australia we have state land and environment courts, lands titles courts, and other courts of regular sessions. Clause 12 insofar as it applies to the operation of law in Australia is nil.

13

Assizes of darrein presentment are always to be taken before our justices of the Bench and are to be completed there.

-

"Darrein presentment" is the lovely French term of "last" presentment and specifically refers to what happens if for some reason, a local priest/bishop/vicar/rector, vacates a parish or church; usually this would either happen because of death or promotion.

Take particular note of who gets to decide upon who fills the vacant position. These Assizes "are always to be taken before our justices of the Bench". This is the barons and earls who are in effect telling the Church that they are the ones who will decide who gets to be in charge of the clergy. 

It's also worth noting that as the church, while it did have some degree of ecclesiastical hierarchy and academy, was also very much subject to positions being bought and sold throughout the land. Simony, that is the buying and selling of ecclesiastic wasn't actually made illegal until the Simony Act of 1688. This is also in conjunction with the Glorious Revolution and other reformation acts such as the Bill Of Rights Act 1688.

Churches now have their own system of academic recognition and as far as I am aware, there isn't any major organised religion where one could simply buy the right to be a bishop.

14

A free man is not to be amerced for a small offence save in accordance with the manner of the offence, and for a major offence according to its magnitude, saving his sufficiency (salvo contenemento suo), and a merchant likewise, saving his merchandise, and any villein other than one of our own is to be amerced in the same way, saving his necessity (salvo waynagio) should he fall into our mercy, and none of the aforesaid amercements is to be imposed save by the oath of honest and law-worthy men of the neighbourhood. Earls and barons are not to be amerced save by their peers and only in accordance with the manner of their offence. No clergyman is to be amerced according to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice, but according to his lay tenement and the degree of his wrongdoing.

-

The idea that someone should be tried in a court which is made up of their peers, is in theory a noble cause. In practice, it is dafter than a box of rats, in an elevator, going up and down in a cruise ship. Why? Just why?

Also take note of who these people deem to be the only ones capable of administering justice to the various classes: free men to free men, merchants to merchants, villeins to villeins, the clergy to the clergy, and most importantly to them the Earls and barons are not to be amerced save by their peers. 

If we were to apply this same principle today, then the directors of the ASX200 would only be able to be taken to court and tried by other directors of the ASX200. Absolutely nothing could go wrong with that in principle, yeah? This wouldn't at all be open to corruption? 

15

No town or free man is to be distrained to make bridges or bank works save for those that ought to do so of old and by right.

-

We shall see that Magna Carta is in actuality, quite a petty document which is hideously concerned with the local geography of south-east England; rather than being some massive overarching legal framework for future generations. 

Essentially Clause 15 is a ban upon civil conscription of burghers and freemen. Note that it doesn't concern itself with the peasantry, or the serfs, or slaves; who as chattel property, could be conscripted to build bridges/bank works/forts/castles et cetera.

16

No bank works of any sort are to be kept up save for those that were in defence in the time of King H[enry II] our grandfather and in the same places and on the same terms as was customary in his time.

-

Again, Clause 16 is concerned with the civil infrastructure of the waterways but places an allowable exception on Clause 15. Clauses 15 and 16 taken together, have literally zero actionable effect on Australia.

17

No sheriff, constable, coroner or any other of our bailiffs is to hold pleas of our crown.

-

One of the curious features of English Law and by extension the corpus of received law in Australia, is that the Crown, is a separate legal person from the monarchy. As a separate legal person, the Crown is actually independent from the monarchy and although the monarch (the King) is an inheritable position which is inseparable, the Crown can enter into contracts, can own property real or otherwise, and sue and be sued. It is that last point which Clause 17 wants to address.

In 1215 and when this was later adopted into formal law, there still hadn't been the legal determination that there should only be one court. Justice and the judiciary, the sheriffs and constables, and other officers who administered law, were appointed by the earls and barons who owned the estates. 

The action of Clause 17 pits what's amounts to a private legal system against the Crown. It then refuses to accept that the Crown is actually a legal person and further refuses to admit that the Crown has any actionable things in these private courts. 

In the twenty-first century, the idea that there should be private courts is usually seen as intolerable but the wheel of history is big and frequently turns in unexpected directions. I know that was then but it could be again. For now, the operation of Clause 17 is nil.

<><><><><>

As we continue to move forward through Magna Carta and as it presses ever more in upon local land disputes, the actual relevance of it upon Australian law only move ever sharper into focus.

Today's running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

0/17.

Horse 3480 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion IV

 7

A widow, after the death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her marriage portion and her inheritance, nor is she to pay anything for her dower or her marriage portion or for her inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of her husband’s death, and she shall remain in the chief dwelling place of her husband for forty days after her husband’s death, within which time dower will be assigned her if it has not already been assigned, unless that house is a castle, and if it is a castle which she leaves, then a suitable house will immediately be provided for her in which she may properly dwell until her dower is assigned to her in accordance with what is aforesaid, and in the meantime she is to have her reasonable necessities (estoverium) from the common property. As dower she will be assigned the third part of all the lands of her husband which were his during his lifetime, save when she was dowered with less at the church door. No widow shall be distrained to marry for so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives surety that she will not marry without our assent if she holds of us, or without the assent of her lord, if she holds of another.

-

On the face of this, it looks as though leaving a widow the estate to which she should be entitled to is obvious; but again the curses like within the minutiae of the text.

The earls and barons are keen to keep things like castles within the control of the powerful; and Clause 7 implies that unless a widow either remarries, or in conjunction with Clauses 3-6 that a suitable heir of majority can occupy the estate, that they will strip widows of two-thirds of the estate. There is also a trip statement right at the end of this clause which states that, if a widow does not want to marry someone else then she must make surety not to do so. The fact that that surely is conditional on the consent of the earls and barons, belies the awful truth that women were not actually seen as equals, or perhaps even as people in their own right with their own agency.

8

Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the existing chattels of the debtor suffice for the payment of the debt and as long as the debtor is ready to pay the debt, nor will the debtor’s guarantors be distrained for so long as the principal debtor is able to pay the debt; and should the principal debtor default in his payment of the debt, not having the means to repay it, or should he refuse to pay it despite being able to do so, the guarantors will answer for the debt and, if they wish, they are to have the lands and rents of the debtor until they are repaid the debt that previously they paid on behalf of the debtor, unless the principal debtor can show that he is quit in respect to these guarantors.

-

Clause 8 reminds us that the only power which exists within England in the thirteenth century, is the power to control the land, the things on the land, and the people who might be owned as chattel. By limiting the power of the bailiffs and courts to seize land as payment of debt, the intent of Clause 8 is to keep the estates intact, rather than to be generous and let people keep their stuff.

Also, in the light that people's lands may not be seized in the payment of debt, this also has the other effect that the Crown can not simply take and seize lands. On one hand a clause like this might look merely like being equitable but on the other, this is about preserving the power of the English earls and barons against what they see as a French aristocracy. Remember, Magna Carta exists in the period immediately after the memory of the initial Norman Conquest has already passed and faded to black.

9

The city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and customs. Moreover we wish and grant that all other cities and boroughs and vills and the barons of the Cinque Ports and all ports are to have all their liberties and free customs.

- 

I live in Australia. The interesting thing about Australia is that in ye old olde olden days when Billy was an outlaw and Billy was a thief and Billy got transported cause he stole a leg of beef and became Billy Brown of Sydney Town, he was given a lovely eight month cruise and was made to take a trip on a government ship ten thousand miles away.

The City of London is not in Australia. It is in old Blighty. Clause 9 insofar as it relates to the dismal people of this land of ne'er-do-wells, is completely and utterly irrelevant. 

By way of background the "Cinque Ports" were the Five Ports of Dover, Hastings, Hythe, Romney, and Sandwich, and by the thirteenth century had expanded to include Winchesea, and Rye. In exchange for some taxation exemptions, they were charged with giving up ships and naval troops; which the barons then presumed to take from the local populations. By what exactly is meant by the 'ancient liberties and customs' of the City of London meant is lost to the mists of time by the liberties and free customs of the Cinque Ports by way of exercise and demonstration for the next thirty decades proved to be that they could and would pressgang people into joining the navy.

<><><><><>

As applied to the cookers in court who today try to claim that they are Sovereign Citizens, I do not know if any of them realise that Clause 9 by operation would actually allow the judge in front of them, to make justice by pressganging them into joining the navy.

This especially looks like a case of not thinking things through.

Today's running tally of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

0/9, though I may be persuaded to admit that Clause 9 might apply to them; though not in the way they'd like.

Horse 3479 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion III

4

The keeper of the land of such an heir who is  under age is only to take reasonable sums issuing from the heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services, and this without destruction or waste of men or things. And if we assign custody of any such land to a sheriff or to anyone else who should answer to us for the issues, and such a person should commit destruction or waste, we will take amends from him and the land will be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who will answer to us or to the person to whom we assign such land for the land’s issues. And if we give or sell to anyone custody of any such land and that person commits destruction or waste, he is to lose custody and the land is to be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly will answer to us as is aforesaid.

- 

On the face of it, taking "reasonable sums issuing from the heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services" sounds like a reasonable thing to do. However, the concept of the theoretical "reasonable" person and who exactly got to decide what was actually "reasonable", was already defined at law from before time immemorial. Time immemorial was established in 1275 as being anything before the reign of Richard I, which began on July 6th, 1189.

The theoretical "reasonable" person is one who is imagined as being from the same class and status as the one who is being assized, arraigned, or otherwise being made to answer or asking to answer in court. Since Magna Carta is being imposed by the earls and barons, the unwritten assumption is that the theoretical "reasonable" person will be one of them. 

If you then reread Clause 4 in that light, the clauses "we will take amends from him" and "law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly will answer to us” instead of being benevolent, sounds as ominous and foreboding as the entire weight of the law coming down upon someone should do. Who owns the law? None other than the same earls and barons who will decide what is "reasonable".

Now as this applies to the common folk of the realm such as the serf and slaves, taking their whole estate might well be seen as "reasonable" by the rich and powerful. 

5

The keeper, for as long as he has the custody of the land of such (an heir), is to maintain the houses, parks, fishponds, ponds, mills and other things pertaining to that land from the issues of the same land, and he will restore to the heir, when the heir comes to full age, all his land stocked with ploughs and all other things in at least the same condition as when he received it. All these things are to be observed in the custodies of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, priories, churches and vacant offices which pertain to us, save that such custodies ought not to be sold.-

-

Clause 3, 4, 5, and 6, all have to do with the inheritance of an heir whom we assume is already a baron, earl, knight, or other landed gentry. As late as the 1830s and the great Reform Acts, the assumption was that heirs and heiresses would either their estates maintained by a guardian until they reached the age of legal majority (which was 21 right up until 1970).

What this means in essence is that all four of these clauses, give right and reward to whomever is in charge of the estate of a minor until the clock ran out. There is of course an obvious internal conflict of interest here. Clause 5 calls for the restoration of an estate to “at least the same condition as when he received it”; which means that any and all improvements, and any and all rewards that might have arisen, belong to “the keeper”. 

This is made all the more delicious for a keeper when you consider that an estate includes only of the things in existence at the time of someone’s death, and if there has been any discovery of minerals, metals, gold, silver, or any increase in flocks and herds, they were all free for the taking by the keeper. Moreover, as an estate and land title only extends to the surface of the land, then mines which might be profitable, could, would, and did continue to operate after the heir had come to the age of majority.

6

Heirs are to be married without disparagement.

-

Whoa, we have a straightforward clause. Or do we?

Remember, an “heir” is already presumed to be a baron, earl, knight, or other member of the landed gentry. Someone who owns their house freehold, is not assumed to in this class; neither are serfs or slaves. In fact, as serfs and especially slaves may be disparaged without legal consequence and the children of slaves maybe sold on as though they were the chattel and produce of the land, then Clause 6 is of no practical consequence to them. 

<><><><><>

What are to we make of these three clauses as they apply to the cookers in court who try to claim that they are Sovereign Citizens. They truth is that few if any of them at all are barons, earls, or knights. At any rate, Sir Such-and-Such is unlikely to make this kind of appeal in court because they more than likely already have the means to pursue actual legal representation. 

All of this means to say that the running tally, of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

0/6

Horse 3478 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion II

1

In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the free men of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity.

-

This first thing demanded was that the English Church, which at this stage is still in communion with the general Catholic church which is headed in Rome, should be free and at liberty to do what it likes. Remember, a 'right' is the ability to do a thing, own a thing, or have interest in a thing. Probably by claiming that the English Church should be free, the barony is trying to curry favour with its domestic clergy.

The feudal system as an organisational set of hierarchies, had the King at the very top, the barons and the lords next, maybe some knights and other landed gentry, then the guild operators and the freemen of the cities, towns and hamlets, and finally the serfs, indentured serfs, and outright slaves. Presumably the "free men" contained in Clause 1, were the barons and the landed gentry and the guildspeople but that's as far as this would be extended. Clause 1 claims no rights for the people who are not 'free'. 

Clause 1 also very much reflects the fact that the entire of society is stratified according to where one was born, and what one inherits. There is no obvious method of improvement or advancement up the strata unless one either is able to gain an apprenticeship of some kind, perhaps buy some land somehow, maybe excel in battle and be given something or be given a title, or at the very top by doing what William had done not quite a century and a half before this charter was issued the first time and go stabby-rip-stab-stab on the fabric of an entire nation. Kill the King; become King.

The fact that the church was the very first thing to be mentioned in the original 1215 text, might suggest that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, probably saw this as good as any other mechanism to try and needle some more power for the church in England. In this respect, the English Church which was subservient to the church in Rome was in a similar position to the barony in England. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and certainly the combined forces on the continent were a threat to domestic English tranquility.

2

If any of our earls or barons, or anyone else holding from us in chief by military service should die, and should his heir at the time be of full age and owe relief, the heir is to have his inheritance for the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl for a whole earldom £100, the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony 100 marks, the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee 100 shillings at most, and he who owes less will give less, according to the ancient custom of (knights’) fees.

-

Generally speaking, within the imposed Norman feudal system, if the King wanted to go to war, they extracted taxation from the dukes and barons. The dukes and barons then extracted taxation from the knights and other landed gentry. They then extracted taxation from the guildspeople and the freemen. Presumably this far down the ladder, they would extract labour from their indentured serfs and slaves.

In relation to all of this, the term "fee" is somewhat misleading here. A knight's "fee" is some unit of land which is necessary for the maintenance of that knight and maybe his retinue, for the purpose of sending him off to war. One of the fun things about what the knights and gentry could do if they didn't particularly like the prospect of being sent to fight in a war, was that they could send infantry instead. Of course that infantry would likely be made up of the same poor guildspeople, freemen, serfs, and slaves, from whom they were already extracting taxation and labour from.

Clause 2 only cares about the affairs of earls or barons and while it might talk about there being an inheritance for the heirs who will follow, Clause 2 in operation actually intends to condensate wealth into the hands of fewer people. The people at the top who can no longer extract military service from those below by virtue of them being dead (which is suboptimal) can extract the equivalence but only to a point. The heirs of the dead baron, dead knight, are still to have a useful ability to keep up the maintenance of taxation.

For reference, the going rate for a day labourer in the year 1302 was two pennies per day which at an upper bound is still only £2/6/- per year. As Magna Carta was developed by the barony and the earls, they wanted to extract what they could from below, while being left with an ample estate from above.

3

If, however, the heir of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him or his land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of his lords until the aforesaid term.

-

This same subject continued more or less confirms the fact that the feudal system which extracted taxation from all below, will continue to do so. Someone who might inherit an estate will not do so until the time that they have achieved majority unless they are made a knight, which by inference means that they will be sent out for military service. In the meantime, which might be as many as twenty-one years if the only heir happens to be a baby, then all of the working produce of the land will be the right of the lord to claim.

If we remember that before the industrial revolution and the installation of water and sewerage lines which meant that clean potable water went into people's houses, that the majority of everyone ever born didn't even live to see their tenth birthday, then this clause is actually a sneaky little mechanism to ensure that lands remain in the custody of lords (and then transfer if the heirs die), for long periods of time.

<><><><><>

What does any of this have to do with the Sovereign Citizen movement? Well nothing quite frankly. Therein lies why I find the whole notion of these people standing up in court and trying to claim something from Magna Carta as the reason why they shouldn't have to pay a speeding fine, or a fine for driving while disqualified, so ridiculous. 

At the end of these pieces, I am going to include a running tally for the number of sections in Magna Carta which by the absolute most generous reading might apply to these people. 

Today's tally is:

0/3

Horse 3477 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion

One of the fun things about living in Australia is that the kind of nutso whackjob idiocy that the Sovereign Citizen movement has tried cut and paste from America, doesn't really fit here at all. A favourite line of attempted defence when coming before the law is to say that they do not consent to the law, as if their consent actually mattered in an actual sovereign nation. The truth is that there is not right not to follow the law.

On the other hand as we do in the remnants of Empire, then occasionally people who claim to be Sovereign Citizens will try to throw legal treacle at the wall and hope that anything sticks. I have heard people claim that Australia is a corporation which is registered in the United States and ceased to be a country during the Whitlam Government, I have heard entire diatribes explaining how because the Commonwealth of Australia Act was passed in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster it doesn't apply here, but the favourite piece of legal treacle is to claim something vague about Magna Carta as though it was like some magic words.

The truth is that Magna Carta was a chart of rights in 1215, which the Archbishop of Canterbury helped to draft as a kind of appeasement covenant, to try and stop a revolt from the English barony who had both the means and the animal spirits to run through the king with many many swords. Having basically sequestered King John and transported him to a fairly anonymous field in Runnymede, the barons put forward their BIG CHART (Magna Carta) of demands, and threatened to turn John into smaller bits of delicious meat for their dogs. 

The real irony was that none of the rights demanded would make any kind of sense or even necessarily apply to the kinds of people who decide to self identify as  Sovereign Citizens. Most of them at best would likely have gained the franchise with the Reform Acts of the 1830s, or maybe even later with various Representation of the People Acts. As far as Australia goes, with the exception of Aboriginal peoples who some cases didn't get the franchise until 1962, most people in Australia had the franchise in 1902; which is still vastly different from claiming that Magna Carta, which wasn't even an Act of Parliament at the time, somehow applied some 687 years earlier.

What's also ironic is that neither the 25 barons who threatened to go stabby-rip-stab-stab on the king, or the king, stood by their commitments and the whole thing was annulled by Pope Innocent III; which eventually led to the First Baron's War, six months later. So much for Big Charters.

The current text dates from 1225 when Henry III reissued it, hoping to quell another revolt; and the formal confirmation of the text as received law in 1297 when Edward I "inspected" it as the Inspeximus issue.

Often when these Sovereign Citizens try to wave Magna Carta all over the place like a banner, judges who are legally trained (obviously) will often ask what these people rely on at law. The answers proffered are often vague and silly, and collapse to the Dennis Denuto school of legal practice of relying on "the vibe".

But what is particularly singular is that what is often the case, is that as Magna Carta is absolutely irrelevant in Australia, and in any legal context here, judges themselves have often never read it. Why would they need to? Judges having never read Magna Carta is like me never having read any of the Medici's treatises on Accounting. Sure, they might be fun to read but why bother?

That last question answers itself. Sure, they might be fun to read but why bother? Why bother? Precisely because it's fun to read. So then, without further adieu, parte the first of Magna Carta - Inspeximus issue of Magna Carta (1297).

<><><><><>

0

Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:

-

The beginning preamble to the 1297 text, explains that Edward has "inspected" the charter and intends to reissue it. What makes this particularly interesting is what you can not see in this text. Edward is King of England and can not speak English. The text of Magna Carta was written in Latin as that was the official language of the law and the inns at court. Meanwhile John, Henry and now Edward, like all the kings who followed in the wake of the Norman Conquest of 1066, all spoke French. The first English king to speak English was Henry IV who only came to the throne in 1399.

At this point, Edward is still very much a Gallic king and this 1297 text reflects the fact that he has a boot on Ireland, another boot in French Aquitaine, and still looks down upon England as though it was a thing which is very much beneath him. It should be pointed out that England is not the world superpower that it is going to be by a longshot, though in comparison to the many many kingdoms, fiefdoms, duchies, and city-states of Europe, it is quite stable. It is also a prize worth having because that stability lends itself to a reliable extraction of taxation.

0

Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

-

Herein lies the reason for the existence of the Magna Carta in the first place. In 1215, you had an English populace being ruled by an extractive French monarchy, from outside of England. It took a few generations for the English to regroup but by the beginning of the thirteenth century, they had amassed enough of a force that they could make the French take notice.

Henry III's concession in 1225, which is reaffirmation of Magna Carta in this paragraph, happens while Henry is just 17 years old. Again, this was a case of the barony of England trying to secure for itself rights and concessions, while the king was still a minor. It must be said that as the king grew up, assumed the age of majority and actually could command the field in his own right, his ability to extract taxation from the English also grew. The 1225 addition to the text which seems quite lovely, probably also belies the fact that they English baronry was still very much prepared to engage upon a policy of stabby-rip-stab-stab on the king at a moment's notice. Generally speaking, being stabbed and cut into pieces is suboptimal. 

Horse 3476 - "Grease" Actually Isn't The Word That I Heard

While driving home from a friend's place last night, I twiddled the dial on the radio and stumbled upon the once great and now zombie radio station 2UE. 2UE has gone from being probably Sydney's most raging commercial success to a tired old station, for tired old people, playing tired old music, under the ownership of Nine Entertainment Co.

I happened to stumble into 2UE playing the songs from the musical 'Grease', which unlike the titular track of the same name, no longer appears to have groove or meaning.

As someone who was born not long after the film version of the musical came out in 1978, I have been haunted by this piece of media for a very long time. What I found singularly strange about this particular listen though, is just how 1970s the music actually sounds. This is ironic given that it is supposed to be a satire/homage/subversion/celebration of the 1950s. 

I know what music of the 1950s is supposed to sound like. This was that mad point in time where rock and roll had just exploded, where jazz was still hanging on, and where crooners and ballads and country, all were commonplace. That's mostly not the problem with Grease. It is absurdly easy for a semi-accomplished musician to think about doo-wop changes and 12-bar blues. No. The reason why Grease sounds so 1970s, is the orchestration.

Music from the 1950s was at best recorded onto 4-track tape in the studio and then if other highlights and embellishments needed to be made, they were added by 'bouncing' the existing tracks to stereo and adding the rest later. When it came to the consumer listening to music at home, almost the entirety of music was mono right up until about 1957. This means that music from the 1950s, sounds more compressed and if you want to achieve the proper sound coming from a jukebox, then you need to turn the bass up as far as it will go.

Grease doesn't sound like this at all. By 1978, Stereo was normal, 24-track recording was the industry standard, and in addition to electric organs, the synthesiser was already everywhere. The recording of Grease very obviously sounds like it exists alongside disco. It is definitely not a rock and roll record. Naturally if a thing purporting to be aping the 1950s doesn't actually sound like the 1950s, then I have a problem. If the thing committed to film and record doesn't match the thing it's supposed to be, then what in blue blazes was it originally supposed to sound like?

The actual musical which debuted on Broadway in 1971, has a score which is supposed to be played in real time by an upright piano, 2 guitars (being lead and rhythm, and depending on the number in electric or acoustic), one bass, 2 saxophones, and an unshielded drum kit. It is also supposed to have 4 female and 4 male singers, who are unseen by the audience.

This means that the live performance as originally played, would have likely sounded quite a lot like the 1950s. Coming up with old valve amplifiers would not have been a problem in 1971, as all transistor amplifiers only began to show up in the mid-1970s. Grease as a live show, probably would have sounded like a 1950s show because all the equipment was still nominally identical.

This means to say that the only set of recordings that I have heard are not even a good simulacrum of what they are supposed to be. 

"Their lips are lying, only real is real"

If the only set of recordings that I have ever heard are wrong and if reality itself isn't real, then what kind of game are we playing at here?

It turns out that "Grease" actually isn't the word that I heard, and that the groove and meaning that it has got are wrong. "Grease" is not the time, or the place, or the motion, and it certainly wasn't the way we are feeling.

(and I don't even particularly like the musical either)

Horse 3475 - The Brisbane Metro Opens And The Gunzels Go Mad

 The Brisbane Metro officially opened on the 1st of July (after these buses had been operating on other routes) and transit nerds and anoraks have been freaking out about it as though it was the public transit spawn of Satan.

It is not.

It is a high-frequency bus rapid transit system that if played out properly, will eventually expand to become a network.

I do not understand the transit nerds' and anoraks' meltdown over this. The buses themselves are 3-section bi-articulated buses; with dual engine sections as push/pull. Granted that this is being marketed as buses cosplaying as something bigger but given that this is cheaper to implement, that there are 60 units operating on the M1 and M2 routes, I would have thought that this would have been good enough.

I like the bendy-buses that Sydney Buses/Gladys'-Private-Kids runs, and have travelled on many E, X and L buses right up and down the North Shore and Northern Beaches. I like the Double Deck B1 buses that run up the Northern Beaches and I am sad that apart from B1, 607X and 611X, there seems to be little desire to run more. Partly this is due to the technical constraints of running very tall buses under things like low bridges but mostly this has to do with a lack in investment in hardware. This is exactly what you should expect from vampire capital companies like Keolis Downer and Transit Systems.

One of the unique technical problems that the Brisbane metropolitan area has is that it is really a series of connected swamps with pockets of harder land that they've built a city on top of. I imagine that unlike Sydney which is mostly sandstone, or other cities like London which is clay, that Brisbane's swampy and boggy terrain would make building massive amounts of underground railway difficult. The line to Brisbane Airport for instance, is built atop pillars and kind of exists on top of viaducts. Admittedly Queensland uses 3'6" narrow gauge as opposed to 4'8½" standard gauge, which does mean that trains are narrower but that still doesn't change the ground over which the infrastructure runs. 

Maybe it's just the marketing which offends the nerds and anoraks, or maybe it's something deeper? I have no idea if there is a kind of turf war between the gunzels and the bunzels, or even if in Sydney we have funzels, but I imagine that if there is, then it's like a Jets and Sharks type thing from West Side Story. Maybe the gunzels need to stand around getting angry at things, while they stand around in their anoraks or else they freeze to death... even in Brisbane where if the temperature drops below 25°C, the gunzels and bunzels need to throw on an extra coat.

In theory, I can see no reason why I shouldn't like double-bendy-buses. The mere fact that they've stuck a name (Metro) which exists in other cities as the branding for high frequency single deck robot trains is irrelevant. A rose by any other name does smell as sweet. There really is no reason why a metropolitan bus line that runs into the suburbs of the metropolis shouldn't be called a "Metro".

And here's the really ironic thing. Before the Sydney Metro there was the Sydney Metrobus. Again, before Gladys decided to sell all of the buses to her criminal mates (and she was never charged with corruption even in the face of the ICAC ruling), there were many Metrobus lines in Sydney, operating to a 7 minute frequency in some cases. 

Maybe it's just the hard core gunzels but I do not understand what is so bad about giving people more options to get around. As someone who could in theory be a bunzel, gunzel, funzel, and munzel all in the same trip to work, I like having loads of intermodal connections. I hope they expand the Brisbane Metro and have it go to lots more places like the airport, the Ekka, and lots more besides. Good luck to it.

Horse 3474 - The Voice Of America Falls Silent

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/business/media/us-china-russia-global-communications.html

America’s rivals celebrated as the Trump administration set out to dismantle its global influence and information infrastructure, including the media outlets that had helped market the United States as the world’s moral and cultural authority.

The editor in chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, crowed about President Trump’s “awesome decision” to shut down Voice of America, the federally funded network that reports in countries with limited press freedom. “Today is a holiday for me and my colleagues!”

- New York Times, 24th Jun 2025

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/19/chinese-state-media-revel-in-demise-of-voice-of-america-radio-free-asia

Nury Vittachi, a Hong Kong-based writer who has written for state-run outlets, including China Daily, also welcomed the demise of the “US propaganda operatives”.

“These groups issue ‘news’ in 62 languages to influence the minds of 350 million people around the world to take a pro-American slant – and poison people’s minds against Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and other people Washington sees as rivals or ‘adversaries’,” Vittachi said on X.

- Al Jazeera, 19th Jun 2025

It must be stated that I do not live in the United States. As such, I watch American politics as nothing more than a football match of two rival teams, who are mostly evil and incompetent. In the long run, I don't care who wins because the labels that Americans use to describe their political football teams are ultimately meaningless. There are no 'liberals'; there is just a distorted orthodoxy. There are no 'conservatives'; there is just another distorted orthodoxy.

I honestly couldn't give an iota about the idiotic rainbow washing or patriotism, or whatever other else kind of pathetic virtue signalling comes out of either side. Neither do I believe that there even is a 'left' or 'right' in American politics; with there just being a libertarian right and an authoritarian right, with differing amounts of cosplay.

Having said that, I do like various radio programs which come from NPR such as the NPR Politics Podcast, Planet Money, This American Life, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me &c. and while I can listen to them as podcasts, I actually end up listening to things as broadcasts on ABC News Radio.

As someone who lives in the shadows of Empire, very big radio networks like the BBC World Service, Voice Of America, and Deutsche Welle, are regularly heard in this part of the world. 

As one of the consequences of Mr Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is to not only defund NPR and Voice Of America but punitively claw back more than $2bn in previous years' funding, it might have the secondary and likely desired effect of destroying public media in the United States. Now clearly the United States has abandoned the project of actually bothering to give a cuss about promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity, but it seems to also want to make itself a smaller and tinier player on the world stage.

Other radio networks such as Xinhua and Russia Today, would be looking at the vacation of NPR and Voice Of America's radio spaces across the Asia Pacific region with absolute glee. No longer will the United States bother to project soft power via its broadcast media. No longer will the United States be bothered to make its own voice heard. What that means is that the radio spaces are free to be taken over and more importantly for networks like Xinhua and Russia Today, they can speak into the void left behind.

Voice Of America ultimately grew out of the US Forces Network following WW2. NPR and PBS were melded in the heat of the cold war when it was decided, especially during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that it was a good idea to fight communism by having an American version of the BBC World Service. Of course the irony that public media is public, infuriated the Nixon administration, but the people saw the value in truth telling when Nixon was being questioned during Watergate. Truth however is no longer a concern to the American people, whom it seems are prepared to believe actual nonsense.

In the twenty-first century after a very successful campaign by the authoritarian right to make the people drink from the poisoned waters of lies and nonsense, we finally have an administration who looks prepared to punish and destroy its rival all costs, including the cost of American supremacy in other places. This policy as far as I can tell, will likely have the same kind of effect as General Motors' policy of killing off Right Hand Drive cars as well as selling off its European subsidiaries. General Motors went from being market leader in 29 countries, to non-existent in less than two years. The Trump Administration obviously thinks that this is a Big Beautiful outcome.

Peace through strength. Strength through joy. Making America Great Again by degrading it. Winning through surrender.