Some of these laws are a matter of intense interest to the wonderful people who make laws but seem to feel, somehow that they are exempt. This can be a mistake if the Director of Public Prosecutions is not corrupt which, surprisingly seems to be the case in the foul year of Our Lord 2010.

Casus Belli
Is about justifying wars.

Common Law
England has its common law rather than local laws. Other countries followed suit. They were once part of the Empire. 

#Corn Laws

Criminal Damage Act 1971 

#Foreign Enlistment Act 1870

Fraud Act 2006 

GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm is synonymous with the offences that are created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 -

Public Order Act 1986

Racist and Religious Crime -Prosecution Policy
Vague waffle or try looking at CPS guidelines...

Terrorism Acts abused by CPS 

Theft Act 1968

Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

Treason Act 1351


Affray ex Wiki
The common law offence of affray was abolished[2] for England and Wales[3] on 1 April 1987.[4] Affray is now a statutory offence that is triable either way. It is created by section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides:

(1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

(2) Where 2 or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.
(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(5) Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(6) . . . See sections 6(5) to 6(7).
(7) A person guilty of affray is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.[5]

The term "violence" expression is defined by section 8.[clarification needed]

Section 3(6) once provided that a constable could arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspected to be committing affray, but that subsection was repealed by paragraph 26(2) of Schedule 7 to, and Schedule 17 to, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The mens rea of affray is that person is guilty of affray only if he intends to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.[6] The offence of affray has been used by HM Government to address the problem of drunken or violent individuals who cause serious trouble on airliners.

In R v Childs & Price 2015,[7][8] the Court of Appeal quashed a murder verdict and replaced it with affray, having dismissed an allegation of common purpose.


Corn Laws
set up a tax on food imported to England. This led to poverty and starvation in times of famine. They were passed by a Parliament full of land owners.  Then they were the target of William Cobbett, a political reformer who wrote Rural Rides to tell people about the realities of country life.

Corn Laws ex Wiki
The Corn Laws were trade laws designed to protect cereal producers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports between 1815 and 1846.[1] More simply, to insure that British landowners reaped all the financial profits from farming, the corn laws (which imposed steep import duties) made it too expensive for anyone to import grain from other countries, even when the people of Great Britain and Ireland needed the food (as in times of famine).

The laws were introduced by the Importation Act 1815 (55 Geo. 3 c. 26) and repealed by the Importation Act 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 22). These laws are often considered as examples of British mercantilism.

The economic issue, in essence, was food prices; the price of grain was central to the price of the most important food staple, bread, and the working man spent much of his wages on bread.

The political issue was a dispute between landowners (a long-established class, who were heavily represented in Parliament) and the new class of manufacturers and industrialists (who were not): the former desired to maximise their profits from agriculture, by keeping the price at which they could sell their grain high; the latter wished to maximise their profits from manufacture, by reducing the wages they paid to their factory workers -- the difficulty being that men could not work in the factories if a factory wage was not enough to feed them and their families; hence, in practice, high grain prices kept factory wages high also.

The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership; their abolition was a significant increase of free trade.
Free trade has its enemies. It always has. The welfare of the working man came down the line.


Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 ex Wiki
The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c.90) is an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that seeks to regulate mercenary activities of British citizens.

It received the royal assent on 9 August 1870.


Malicious Communications Act 1988 ex Wiki
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 (MCA) is a British Act of Parliament that makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to electronic communications. It is a weapon used against Free Speech.

The Crown Prosecution Service publishes what it chooses to allege are its Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media. They tell us that:-
Prosecutors may only start a prosecution if a case satisfies the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This test has two stages: the first is the requirement of evidential sufficiency and the second involves consideration of the public interest.

As far as the evidential stage is concerned, a prosecutor must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction........... A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is satisfied. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. That means letting Pakistanis or Islamics commit crime.

Now they use the Communications Act 2003
In re malicious communications:-
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[8] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[9] The section has controversially been used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[10]


Manslaughter ex Wiki
Manslaughter is a legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BCE.[1]

The definition of manslaughter differs among legal jurisdictions.


Public Order Act 1986 includes:-
Parts 3 and 3A- Racial and religious hatred

If the act is intended to stir up racial hatred Part 3 of the Act creates offences of

  • use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18),
  • publishing or distributing written material (section 19),
  • public performance of a play (section 20),
  • distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21),
  • broadcasting (section 22). or
  • possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23)

Acts intended to stir up religious hatred are proscribed in POA Part 3A by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (RRHA) with the insertion of new sections 29A to 29N.[3] The RRHA bill, which was introduced by Home Secretary David Blunkett, was amended several times in the House of Lords and ultimately the Blair government was forced to accept the substitute words.

To stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was to be proscribed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in POA Part 3A section 29AB.[4] This legislation was introduced by David Hanson MP.

One impetus for the Act is Jews who want a law against hating them, even when it would be madness not to. It is what they call Anti-Semitism. See e.g. #The Historical and Political Context on the point.