The Secret People 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Have a look at the Highlights tab in my profile. All the posts have links to source materials, books, legislation, etc. Book wise; to understand our fundamental Common Law Rights I think Blackstone explains it clearly. The Chapter on 'Absolute Rights'. And for the principles of our Constitution I choose one of the framers of the Declaration of Rights and Bill of Rights, John Somers. Well, he should know, right? 'The Judgment of Whole Kingdoms and Nations, Concerning the Rights, Power, and Prerogative of Kings, And The Rights, Priviledges, and Properties Of The People' Links to both of these can be found in my posts mentioned above. There is also my website, link in profile. Also, I've a few books stored online. Link on the Library tab on my website.

@mikebirdy @englishexit So, having just read what you posted on social media, you are misinforming me. OK, I've got it.

@SecretPeopleTSP @englishexit At least you are enjoying your ignorance - well done,you. Get a grown-up to explain this gem of wisdom to you.

Statement from Graham Moore, Leader of the English Constitution Party: The English Constitution Party will not stand candidates in opposition to Restore Britain. We recognise that Restore Britain champions the restoration of our historic English constitution, the reversal of mass immigration through decisive deportations, accountability for those who have betrayed oaths and laws—including failures to uphold the Protestant settlement and protections under the Bill of Rights 1688—and the defence of the English way of life. Restore Britain aligns with restoring England (and by extension Scotland via the Claim of Right 1689, Wales, and Northern Ireland) as sovereign nations within a framework of constitutional enforcement and Christian brotherhood. In this critical cause, we stand together rather than divided. ECP We are NOT disbanding we are aligning the regiments.

@SecretPeopleTSP @GarethDavies007 I for one refuse to get a passport as they will not allow me to register my English nationality. The BS should be binned & our beautiful English Constitution & all our Laws, Statues etc should be fully implemented in its original form.

@lotuseaters_com @MrHreviews @HarryLotusEater @Panagiotou90St 'White British' are NOT recognised as indigenous. White British applies to all 'White' citizens regardless of where in the World they originate. 'native Britons' would be a more accurate term, or just English, Scottish, Welsh or N.Irish. 👇 x.com/SecretPeopleTS…

@mitchellblood @StuartRest1688 @SecretPeopleTSP No it doesn't. But the common law protects freedom of speech, expression, thought as long as you do not slander, libel etc. Say what you like but don't break the law. Incitement to any form of violence is breaking the law.

The Online Safety Act (2023) continues to claim it is designed to protect children (here, in the Act's explainer: gov.uk/government/pub…). Velleman's conviction, and statements to parliament on desirable targets, are revealing as to the Act's true purpose.

Sources relating to Liron Velleman. 1) Conviction for child sex offences, (BBC, 20 June 2026): bbc.co.uk/news/articles/… 2) Advice on the Online Safety Bill, 2022. (Hansard): hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-0… 3) Election as a Labour Councillor; Barnet, Whetstone Ward, 2022. (Wiki for that election): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Barn…

Liron Vellemen, now a convicted pedophile, was listed as the 'Political Organiser, HOPE not HATE' and had just been elected as a labour councillor in Barnet, London in 2022. He was invited to give evidence to parliament designed to inform the Online Safety Bill that year (later, Online Safety Act, 2023). Velleman is no legislative draftsman, and the evidence is essentially him putting forward the views of Hope Not Hate Ltd (In Hansard, here: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-0…) In that evidence, he: 1) Discusses targeting small platforms, as they may be used by people with right wing views after being banned from larger platforms. 2) Celebrated the bans of various citizen journalists from social media platforms, including @TRobinsonNewEra; he also makes adjacent comment about @Steve_Laws_'s 2022 work documenting illegal boat crossings. 3) Warned that the protections for journalists in the Online Safety Bill might become a loophole, used to unban people Hope Not Hate actively/politically oppose. A neat synopsis of how Hope Not Hate and the Online Safety Act are not your friends – they routinely advocate for further suppression of the Freedom of Speech in the asymmetric ways.

I dissect Britain’s laughingstock-status in terms of speech, in @ReinersProject. 1) The Public Order Act 2) The Communications Act 3) The Online Safety Act All who believe the freedom to speak is self-evident must take aim at these three statutes. reiners.org.uk/liberty-lost-e…

An English peasant in 1400 had the legal right to graze animals, fish the river, hunt, and gather wood He had no employer Needed no permission Had not dependency Between 1604 and 1760, Parliament passed 5,200 Enclosure Acts By 1850, 6.8 million acres of common land had transferred to private hands The man who could feed himself without an employer became a man who could not say no to one We called it progress

I found it. The perfect representation in a way everyone can understand and couldn’t possible disagree with.

The Public Order Act (1986) is responsible for an array of Britain's speech issues. It is one of the laws repealed in the model Free Speech Act (2026). The POA: -Convicts 10,000+ per year for expression based offences, online & off. -It is baked into OFCOM’s code, leading to media silence on ethnicity. -It is the vehicle used to create a (functional) Islamic blasphemy law in Britain. -Part 19 provides a mechanism to turn lawful expression into a criminal offence if an imaginary hypothetical observer may be stirred to "racial hatred" by that expression. In @ReinersProject : reiners.org.uk/englands-auto-…

@mikebirdy @englishexit OK, ... comrade. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@SecretPeopleTSP @englishexit You are too thick to understand. Dictators "govern" with a constitution. Trump ignores the Constitution.

@mitchellblood @englishexit Constitutional restoration is not hard. reiners.org.uk/what-has-the-b…

It stands to reason that any restriction of speech, unless defamatory or inciting, must be unconstitutional and damaging to the Rights and Liberties of the English People. The reason being that, we have an ancient Common Law Right to take part in the legislative process (voting), and that process involves being able to speak freely about ANY subject in order to make an informed decision about said subject which may require a legislative solution. It's a common and clearly damaging mistake to assume that Parliament have the power to arbitrarily enact legislation. Our "representatives" (the Commons) are just that. They are elected from ourselves and sent to Parliament to sit in our place and to represent what we have deliberated upon, and to act upon it. Without the freedom to speak freely, we are not being fully represented, and parliamentary decisions and legislation enacted will be arbitrary; as is the case right now, which is unconstitutional. Arbitrary governance IS unconstitutional. Constitutional restoration is required in order to remove the speech restrictions put in place and give back self determination to our English People.

@englishexit As of yet I'm not convinced he knows enough about our constitutional history to make any claims about restoration. I've never heard him say anything specific, only ever generic. Time will tell.

Where you been? He has spoken of English rights. "We do not need a new British Bill of Rights. My instinct is that our common law traditions are freedoms enough. The plan contains no mention of the difficulties around leaving the ECHR in relation to Northern Ireland, which must be undertaken with care. We are working on a plan to address this…" x.com/RupertLowe10/s…

@mikebirdy @englishexit How could England have governed itself without a constitution? 🤣

@englishexit @SecretPeopleTSP What "English Constitution" ? We never had one and still don't.

No, we need to get behind the party that is TRUSTWORTHY and GOING TO DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO. Taking part in the legislative process and giving our vote is an ancient Common Law Right. It consists of giving our consent for our chosen representative to enact legislation (or prevent it if we demand it) that they promised prior to having been elected, promises that got them elected in the first place. The consent they give when voting for or against Parliamentary Bills does not appear out of the void, it is OUR consent entrusted to them that they use when they vote on those Bills. It is this the political class have forgotten in their arrogance. That is the whole point of voting for representation in Parliament; not who is going to win regardless of trustworthiness and policies. If Rupert really is talking about restoring our English Constitution he should know this already; else he is just saying what he thinks our People want to hear, imo. ‘This is the proper remedy which the plaintiff hath pursued, being supported by the grounds, reasons, and principles of the ancient common laws of England. For first, which is to show the plaintiff hath a right to give his vote at the election of parliament burgesses for his borough. It is very well known that always the Commons of England had, and still have, so considerable share in the property of the nation, that from thence, in this well-balanced Government, they become justly entitled to an equal share in the legislature of this Kingdom, without whose consent no tax can be imposed nor law enacted, but because of the immense number of individuals which constitute that vast body, it was impossible to have it executed by them in person, it was therefore so established in the original constitution that a convenient and proportionable number from amongst themselves should by them be chosen and invested with a plenary authority to deliberate, advise, and determine, for themselves and those who sent them.’ [Lord Chief Justice Holt - Ashby vs White and Others (1703): The Judgements Delivered by The Lord Chief Justice Holt in The Case of Ashby v. White and Others, and in The Case of John Paty and Others. p3]

@SecretPeopleTSP @englishexit We need to get behind the party that is most likely to succeed in winning, Restore Britain is that party, it might not tick all boxes for everyone but we have to unite for the sake of England, other patriotic parties will thrive after Restore as deep down we all want our freedom.

@englishexit @RupertLowe10 @RestoreBritain_ @KemiBadenoch @UnderSecPD @StateDept @USAinUK @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk @_AdvanceUK @benhabib6 @RupertLowe10 @RestoreBritain_ @Nigel_Farage @reformparty_uk @_AdvanceUK x.com/SecretPeopleTS…

That's a common mistake that many people make. When it was legislated into existence via the Acts of Union, the British parliament adopted the English Constitution and as much as possible applied it to all nations of these Isles. The British Parliament is a legislative entity and as such, if the legislation that created it was annulled, that governing body would cease to exist; but the English Constitution would remain being as it was established centuries before the legal fiction that is the British Parliament was created.

@englishexit Good on you! The British Constitution needs bolstering up.