The Treasonous Treacherous BASTARDS!!!!!!

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 42
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I commented on another thread:

"I think surrendering our sovereignty to a foreign power was a crime in the first place"  And this is why:


In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built on trial and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced, on a number of occasions, despotic rule, which here desire to live as freeman gave them the strength to overcome. >>>>On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule.<<<<<

Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen. They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and, under the Common Law of England, are no Parliament, but foul and base traitors. They are destroying a legal system and Constitution built around the teaching of the  Bible.

In the House of Commons sometime ago , according to the secretary of Andrew Dismore (MP), Dr Egan: “there has been an interesting discussion on whether by passing a law, they (Parliament), can do away with the rule of law”. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate such a thing, let alone discuss it”. What are we left with if they remove the rule of law? We are left with satanic  law.”

He also states that ex Prime Ministers and MP’s have committed treason and sedition, by deceiving Queen Elizabeth into breaking the Act of Supremacy of 1559. This act contained an oath, part of which states:-

“No foreign Prince, Person, State Potentate. Hath or ought to have any power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, supremacy, or authority Ecclesiastic or spiritual in the Realm heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm or any dominion or country being within or under the power, dominion, or obeisance of your highness, or shall advisedly, maliciously, or directly put in ure or execute anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, or any part thereof, that then every such person and persons so doing and offending, their abettors, aiders, procurers, and counsellors, being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted according to the due order and course of the common laws of this realm shall suffer specified penalties, culminating in punishment for high treason ”.  

The first Prime Minister [to commit treason] was Edward Heath who served as British Prime Minister from June 1970 – February 1974. The object was twofold to get the kudos of being the man who took us [the British] into Europe and 2nd to betray this Kingdom to our traditional enemies the French and Germans, every other Prime Minister since who has signed any EEC/EU Treaties and as government ministers work to collective responsibility they have all taken part in the lying to Her Majesty, Parliament and the people”, i.e. they have committed High Treason.

#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Stephen
Why does Brussels know what is best for England?

Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Why does Brussels know what is best for England?

It only thinks it does because it was encouraged to by our own elite, self serving treacherous bastards. Who have rode roughshod over the Act of Supremacy of 1559. 



#4
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Breitbart ads are ridiculous
#5
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen
"I think surrendering our sovereignty to a foreign power was a crime in the first place" 
Why should the UK value sovereignty?
What is so wrong about redistributing power to a foreign nation?
Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen.
Are you for a monarchy or dictatorship?
Are you for a democracy?
 “there has been an interesting discussion on whether by passing a law, they (Parliament), can do away with the rule of law”. 
What if it was democratic?
Is removing laws inherently wrong?
“No foreign Prince, Person, State Potentate. Hath or ought to have any power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, supremacy, or authority Ecclesiastic or spiritual in the Realm heretofore claimed...
Are the EU breaking this?
Why do you value this so much?

Make sure to include my name in the receiver so that I know when you have replied back.
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why should the UK value sovereignty?
Are you serious?

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. <<<< That should speak for itself.

What is so wrong about redistributing power to a foreign nation?
Hahhah.I won't profess to know the in's and out's of this classical mess by you really do not understand this at all do you? So apart from the illegality of it all that I have already pointed out above , this is not "redistributing",   this is total takeover of every aspect and field of a nation's identity and practices. In layman's terms, it takes away autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.

Are you for a monarchy or dictatorship?
If you mean me personally?  At this moment in time I would prefer a Monarchy but at any time I would never choose a dictatorship. Unfortunately Her Majesty has been reduced to nothing more than a mascot and has become the fairy tale Princess in the Tower. Go back and read #1
Prime Ministers and MP’s have committed treason and sedition, by deceiving Queen Elizabeth into breaking the Act of Supremacy of 1559. 

Are you for a democracy?
I am.  But we are being dictated to by the EU and now our own fkn government who cares not for the DEMOCRATIC will of the people .

What if it was democratic?

????! Great Britain is a democracy.  Or should I say  supposed to be?  What country are you from?

Is removing laws inherently wrong?
Yes. Although it is a fact that some laws are and do become obsolete. Such as cleaning your doormat after 8am. And of course new laws have to be created.

“No foreign Prince, Person, State Potentate. Hath or ought to have any power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, supremacy, or authority Ecclesiastic or spiritual in the Realm heretofore claimed...
Are the EU breaking this?
I would say yes on the grounds that the 28 members of EU Commision are all unelected. But when your own country freely  hands over it's sovereignty to a foreign power thereby breaking the Act of Supremacy of 1559  then the  receiver can not be totally held to blame.  It is Great Britain who have broken the law against the will of its own citizens and this is why I all calling them - rightfully - The Treasonous Treacherous BASTARDS!!!!!! go back and read # 1 

Prime Ministers and MP’s have committed treason and sedition, by deceiving Queen Elizabeth into breaking the Act of Supremacy of 1559. 



Why do you value this so much?

Value what? If you mean Sovereignty, then I have already answered and explained this to you in my reply to your first question above.
#7
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen
Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Why should this be valued? You simply stated what is but didn't say why this is a good thing.
So apart from the illegality
Bad initial argument. If it was legal to punch you in the face would you be for that?
 this is total takeover of every aspect and field of a nation's identity and practices
Are you telling me the UK had no identity when they were in the EU? What are UK practices?
At this moment in time I would prefer a Monarchy but at any time I would never choose a dictatorship.
That was a trick question. A monrachy is inherently a dictatorship. Kim-Jong-Un reign is a dictatorship. People celebrate him like a God is he a Monarchy now? No so the rule of Queen Elizabeth is also a dictatorship. Sure both can be considered Monarchy but Monarchy's are inherently dictatorship. 
But we are being dictated to by the EU and now our own fkn government who cares not for the DEMOCRATIC will of the people .
When the prime minister has a secretary of state is he she dictating that as well? If so what is so bad about that?
Democratic? The EU is basically a bigger version of the UK. They simply have a prime minister of each European Union member voting instead of city elected ones. What is so bad about that?
Great Britain is a democracy
You didn't answer my question. What if the UK voted to remove a law?
Yes. Although it is a fact that some laws are and do become obsolete. Such as cleaning your doormat after 8am. And of course new laws have to be created.
If lets say there was a law passed right now in the UK that made blacks become second class citizens? You would be against removing it after it was passed as law right? 
I would say yes on the grounds that the 28 members of EU Commision are all unelected.
? President Junker is elected by the European Council
Each new President is nominated by the European Council and formally elected by the European Parliament, for a five-year term. As of 2019, the current President is Jean-Claude Juncker, who took office on 1 November 2014. He is a member of the European People's Party (EPP) and is the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
a collective body that defines the European Union's overall political direction and priorities. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.
If you scroll down on the second link every single Prime Minister of the European Union had an election for President Junker. Since the conservative party was elected by a vote and we do allow Theresa May to pick her own secretary of state why are you opposed to Prime Minister's representing the will of the UK in these elections for the European Commission? 
Value what? If you mean Sovereignty, then I have already answered and explained this to you in my reply to your first question above.
No you haven't. If you haven't in your next response and you are reading this tell me why you value sovereignty and do also tell me the definition?
#8
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That was a trick question. A monrachy is inherently a dictatorship. Kim-Jong-Un reign is a dictatorship. People celebrate him like a God is he a Monarchy now? No so the rule of Queen Elizabeth is also a dictatorship. Sure both can be considered Monarchy but Monarchy's are inherently dictatorship. 
Its conceivable that a Monarch may have constitutional powers, and duties as a head of state, but laws are voted in by officials allowed in office through a process that involves democratic elections.  Would you call this form of government a dictatorship?

Great Britain is a democracy
You didn't answer my question. What if the UK voted to remove a law?
That would depend now wouldn't it?  Is it dealing with something imperative?  In such a case, the process and the replacement could be a very important consideration in context.

#9
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Democracy is in itself only less stupid in that the ruling class may not be necessarily threatened with severe consequences like death in the event of a power struggle.

#10
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
Its conceivable that a Monarch may have constitutional powers, and duties as a head of state, but laws are voted in by officials allowed in office through a process that involves democratic elections.  Would you call this form of government a dictatorship?
Depends on who has more power. I would still consider the Queen to have the most power since she can declare war without a Prime Minister agreeing on it but if she does use her power I would see lesser version of the French revolution. Basically the Queen has the most power but if she does use it then people will be mad which can lead to a removal of the Monarchy/Dictatorship.

That would depend now wouldn't it?  Is it dealing with something imperative?  In such a case, the process and the replacement could be a very important consideration in context.
Can you explain what you mean here? Do tell me when you are trying to talk about democracy and when you are talking about laws.
#11
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is a separation of powers so when it comes to dictating laws, the monarch has no power.
#12
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
There is a separation of powers so when it comes to dictating laws, the monarch has no power.
If there is law that makes the Queen's power null then the laws would be more powerful than the Queen. As of right now the Queen can simply on whim say she wants to go to war whereas the Prime Minister I think requires approval of the House of Commons.

#13
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You didn't answer my question. What if the UK voted to remove a law?
That would depend now wouldn't it?  Is it dealing with something imperative?  In such a case, the process and the replacement could be a very important consideration in context.

Can you explain what you mean here?
My main question is boldened.  It cannot be further simplified.  Does that make sense to you now?
Topic's author
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Bad initial argument. If it was legal to punch you in the face would you be for that?
Learn to read. I said apart from the ILLEGALITY

Are you telling me the UK had no identity when they were in the EU? What are UK practices?
No. Stop being silly. I am saying we (17.5 million )want to keep the identity we have had for millena along with all our one laws and statues that have been developed over centuries and not be told what we can and cannot do. There was also these points you seem to have ignored _ I also said; autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.
That was a trick question.
I didn't find it "tricky" at all. You're not as clever as you like to think you are. You should study my reply carefully and stop acting like a dunce. And we, here in Great Britain have laws in place to keep despotic Monarchies in check.  Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights and the fkn Magna Carta?

You didn't answer my question. What if the UK voted to remove a law?
You didn't ask that so stop lying. what you asked was :

Is removing laws inherently wrong?
AND I REPLIED>.

Yes. Although it is a fact that some laws are and do become obsolete. Such as cleaning your doormat after 8am. And of course new laws have to be created.


If lets say there was a law passed right now in the UK that made blacks become second class citizens? You would be against removing it after it was passed as law right?

Hypothetical nonsense. . It wouldn't get passed the first reading. Stop being silly. Stop trying to be clever. You are showing yourself to be the opposite of clever.

President Junker is elected by the European Council
Each new President is nominated by the European Council and formally elected by the European Parliament, for a five-year term. As of 2019, the current President is Jean-Claude Juncker, who took office on 1 November 2014. He is a member of the European People's Party (EPP) and is the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
Yes, so what!?  Junker is not elected by the electorate i.e the citizens of any country. Try reading what you have posted. - "by the European Council"  - who are also unelected. So you have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ELECTING  their own fkn president. I didn't vote for the tawts. DID YOU?? I didn't vote for vote for the French drunken turd, DID YOU!? I didn't vote for a single member of the European Commision who have elected a president for themselves, DID YOU? If you cannot grasp this the get off the thread your wasting my time and your own.

No you haven't. If you haven't in your next response and you are reading this tell me why you value sovereignty ....

I have answered this twice now. Your just ignoring my responses. So for the third time  and last time: I value it because it enshrines autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.
All these above are being eroded by a foreign power. 

It was not that long ago these wankers in Europe were telling us we couldn't sell straight bananas and shopkeepers were being arrested for refusing to use kilo's instead of pounds.. The last time I looked 82% of legislation ( that is thousands of new laws  ) came from these bastards and agree with by the bastard traitors in the British parliament. I wasn't consulted, WAS YOU!? This includes over 19,000 directives,170,00 pieces of legislation.

 And you seem to have ignored my question. I asked you above:


What country are you from?


#15
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There is a separation of powers so when it comes to dictating laws, the monarch has no power.
If there is law that makes the Queen's power null then the laws would be more powerful than the Queen. As of right now the Queen can simply on whim say she wants to go to war whereas the Prime Minister I think requires approval of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister can officiate a declaration of war but can't end it?

#16
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
My main question is boldened.  It cannot be further simplified.  Does that make sense to you now?
As a rule should the government have a way in removing any law?
If not why?
Prime Minister can officiate a declaration of war but can't end it?
Prime Minister requires approval of the House of Commons to start a war. The Queen can simply say I want a war and she can have it but there will be consequences on her standing if she does. More than likely the Monarchy will be removed from the UK.
Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As of right now the Queen can simply on whim say she wants to go to war whereas the Prime Minister I think requires approval of the House of Commons.
Absolute nonsense.
#18
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What if the UK voted to remove a law?
That would depend now wouldn't it?  Is it dealing with something imperative?  In such a case, the process and the replacement could be a very important consideration in context.
Can you explain what you mean here?
My main question is boldened.  It cannot be further simplified.  Does that make sense to you now?

#19
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As a rule should the government have a way in removing any law?
If not why?
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway

#20
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen
Learn to read. I said apart from the ILLEGALITY
I know you said that but even saying that is a bad argument. Laws are created based on morals so saying something is illegal as a reason is not a good one.

I am saying we (17.5 million )want to keep the identity we have had for millena along with all our one laws and statues that have been developed over centuries and not be told what we can and cannot do.
The UK government does things to improve the country. As the millenia has gone on things have been removed, improved and added. One such thing that has been an improved is joining the EU. This has allowed the UK to be apart of the EU trades. Now that the UK for some st*pid reason wants to leave the EU they are now leaving one of the biggest trading areas in the world. More than likely the UK will leave with no-deal which will mean when the UK has left they are either ignore the EU as a trading partner or go back into the EU with a deal. Why the h*ll wouldn't EU make the deal worse for the UK in order to punish countries for leaving? It is like the d*mbest idea I have ever heard. You have more power inside the EU than outside while also being on good terms instead of bad ones. Do tell me how I am wrong about this.
I also said; autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.
All of this is still with the UK when they were and still part of the EU. Do tell me how I am wrong and do provide a source.
Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights and the fkn Magna Carta?
How does this help your point?
You didn't ask that so stop lying. what you asked was :
Okay.
Hypothetical nonsense. . It wouldn't get passed the first reading. Stop being silly. Stop trying to be clever. You are showing yourself to be the opposite of clever.
Yes or no.
Junker is not elected by the electorate i.e the citizens of any country. Try reading what you have posted. - "by the European Council" 
Yeah the European Council elected by the people who voted for their Prime Minister. Why do you want to vote on the head of the EU? Surely you can trust the person you put in charge as Prime Minister. If you want to vote on the head of the EU why not vote on every single law? If not what is the difference between the two?
Scroll down and see Thresea May is there which means the people who you vote for in a general election will be apart of the Eurpoean Council which will then vote for who is part of the European Commission. 
So you have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ELECTING  their own fkn president.
They are elected by people who you elected. What is so bad about this?
I didn't vote for a single member of the European Commision who have elected a president for themselves, DID YOU? If you cannot grasp this the get off the thread your wasting my time and your own.
Do you want to vote on May's secretary of state as well? Do tell me the difference between voting for a secretary of state and a person on the European Commission.
autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom. 
All these above are being eroded by a foreign power. 
You still have that under the EU and guess what they even protect these issues you have. 
I wasn't consulted, WAS YOU!? This includes over 19,000 directives,170,00 pieces of legislation
Were you consulted on the The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018?
Oh wait so you were not elected to be in charge of voting for these laws but somehow have a double standard over foreigners voting on these laws.
What country are you from? 
This does not help my position. I don't think you understand what the EU is and how beneficial it is to the UK. I'll answer it before you tell me how EU laws are passed in the UK correctly not some lie you must have heard of Nigel Farage or someone. 

#21
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway
By this logic why even have a government? Why not switch to Anarchy or Communism since you think the government is flawed.

#22
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen

Absolute nonsense. 
Read the article and tell me if you can't find the Queen not being able to declare war. 
#23
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
They are elected by people who you elected. What is so bad about this?
The American model is superior in this respect
#24
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
The American model is superior in this respect
How so?
Are you going to answer what I said before to you about the government?
#25
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How so?
The representatives are elected directly, by consent.  Although I might add this principle can be undermined by "opposition politics", by convincing people into casting votes to an unqualified lesser of evil.  I am providing a brief example because there must actually be a sustainable means by which the people can successfully effect the ruling class. Respecting democracy can ultimately become sycophantic at some point.  As well, in the event that the rule of law does degrade in the high government, the democratic process is not the only option in the United States, just the most preferable.
Are you going to answer what I said before to you about the government?
I may.  That is a question that I deem more deserving of time
#26
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
The representatives are elected directly, by consent.
Why is direct democracy a good thing?

Although I might add this principle can be undermined by "opposition politics", by convincing people into casting votes to an unqualified lesser of evil.
Which has happened when the US were left with Trump and Hillary as their choice for presidents.
 I am providing a brief example because there must actually be a sustainable means by which the people can successfully effect the ruling class.
Democracy is a popularity contest. The person who is the most popular wins. I prefer who is the best person for the job instead of having everyone's voices heard but a meritocracy I think can be easily corrupted. The corruption would be with the person who decides who the best person is. The person can make it easier for other candidates or accept bribes in order outright let them win. I think it would be easier in that system compared to a democratic one.
I may.  That is a question that I deem more deserving of time
My response to that was valid to what you were saying. You could have phrased your statement better in order for me to not see what would be the best case scenario if I followed your standard. 
#27
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Which statement?
#28
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
Which statement
For what part? 
I am guessing this is what you mean:
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway
By this logic why even have a government? Why not switch to Anarchy or Communism since you think the government is flawed.

#29
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Press Control + F, type in the word "statement", and it will take you there.  You may need to press enter, select go, search, or something of that nature. 
#30
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
This one:
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway