Residents of an Oxfordshire village have overwhelmingly supported a symbolic break from the United Kingdom in protest against plans to accommodate more than 1,200 male asylum seekers at a nearby former military facility.
In Piddington, 285 residents voted in favour of “secession,” 26 opposed the proposal and one ballot was spoiled, with turnout reaching almost 92%. The unofficial referendum, which has no legal effect, was organised after the government proposed housing up to 1,256 asylum seekers at the former MOD Bicester site.
Signs declaring a “Principality of Piddington” appeared around the village, while more than 130 local women wrote to female MPs expressing concerns about safety and security. Parish leaders described the result as a demonstration of local democracy, but the government has indicated it will proceed with the accommodation plan as part of efforts to reduce reliance on migrant hotels.
The protest comes amid wider tensions over irregular Channel crossings and asylum housing, with government figures showing about 33,000 people arrived by small boat in the year to July.
The first piddington shot fired in a probable future revolution? Meanwhile your referendum will soon be useless, with future imported “Brits”, conveniently outnumbering your vote.
They will need to arm themselves.
Just as New Zealand will have to do now that the FTA was read for the third time in the NZ Parliament.
Check this out below;
https://nzloyal.com/self-defence/
The UN Right to Sefl=Defence (which NZ signed on to…) is contained in Chapter 7 Article 51.
We’re already seeing an uptick in criminal activity stemming from those who are now going to flood the country.
PARTY VOTE; NEW ZEALAND LOYAL PARTY
CANDIDATE VOTE; NEW ZEALAND LOYAL CANDIDATES
No, mate, you need to do your homework b4 posting.
UN has nothing to do with it. UN defends the right of state sovereignty only.
But NZ has two relevant laws:
in domestic criminal law:
The core provision is Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961:”Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.”
Section 55 of the same Act extends this to defence of property, permitting “such force as is necessary” to prevent forcible breaking and entering of a person’s house.
in human rights law:
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) doesn’t explicitly grant a “right to self-defence,” but Section 8 (right not to be deprived of life) is relevant: the NZ Council for Civil Liberties notes that self-defence laws must be fair so people aren’t punished for protecting themselves from serious harm. NZBORA is part of NZ’s uncodified constitution and applies to all persons in New Zealand. If it applies to Police and theCourts, they themselves have toanswer that.
Key practical points:
Force must be proportionate.But what if the intruders came with a baseball bat to a double barrel?
Also, you don’t need to retreat first, but the law considers whether you had ‘alternatives’.
And don’t mix up the sequence of warning- vs kill-shot.
Rise up the English. The English Constitution and Common Law Rights trumps the corporate rules (acts/statues) of the corporation masquerading as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The jurisdiction of the Natural man, i.e. God’s law/Natural law/ law of the land trumps the jurisdiction of the Artificial person, i.e. Contract law/Civil law/law of the sea. The English have rights, the British have rules.
Now they need to deploy a defense force.