Good God, Starkey's point about the realisation of Huxley's vision of the future (now our present) was proved to be right in light of his own predicament in 2020. What a mind.
Starkey dominates because he's always the only panelist who says anything meaningful, truthful or intelligible. As ever, the other jealous panelists/moderators waffle or cut him off when he shows them up. Rory finds the notion of universal human rights 'moving' because of his privileged background: his money will buy the best lawyers, and if not, his connections will do the rest. Back in the real world, the rest of us are realising that we don't really have any rights...
Mister Ay Es - The reality in the UK is that you are ruled by bureaucrats and politicians who are generally ignorant of individual rights or just simply crooks.. The attitude is that they do what suits them best and if you think your rights have been infringed "take us to court." Among others I was actually told that by a government minister - and they know full well that the cost of going to court is prohibitive.
@@fredgillespie5855 quite, legal aid to help some starving homeless person whose knicked a loaf of bread would be a start. Magna carta applied to plebs like us, what planet are some folk on...that was never the intention, what they drew up for us lot was something known as Forest Law.
@@taniaearle4457 Yeah for sure. I recommend watching him brazenly dismantle the nonsense of that brainless spoiled brat Laurie Penny. If you haven't seen it, have a look, it's here on TH-cam and definately worth a watch!
Starkey is both arrogant , dictatorial (you see the odd glimpse of it here), he does not seem to understand basic need for equality, fairness, innocence before proven guilty...in short a twat!!
Walter White. Yes, positively horrendous. Trump could not sit still long enough to listen to this debate, and he certainly wouldn’t understand one word in ten. He’s a boor, a pervert, a con man and a criminal.
@@oraz. He didn''t equate communism with regulating corporations. He equated communism with corporatism, which is an equally silly equation. It's more akin to aristocracy. Although, I love watching you little worms squeal about corporations and free shit. It makes me lol
@@davidgray3321 I am an American. Irish and Scottish ancestry. My mom was a Canadian from Nova Scotia. She loved the Britons and the Monarchy. I think that is why I love Dr. Starkey. I think we are very influenced by British history.
@@rosanneshinkle4133 Starkey would strike out 'Briton' in your post and replace it with 'English'. He is an English nationalist which is why the American trumputinksis and English Führagers like him... I am English (born) and suffered plenty of (face to face) abuse from the Scots and the Welsh and the Irish......Nevertheless I am an Internationalist with UK and US passports..
If Rory is representative of modern politicians we are in trouble. Ignore history at your peril. Our rights are being removed at the margins - the margins are starting to eat into the body.
I thought he came across quite well. Willing to listen to other opinions, willing to give way to someone with a better informed view, interested in the past and the future of England. He is the type of politician that is all to rare these days and is a sad loss to our front bench.
They allowed Starkey to educate everyone including the panel until the precise moment he reached his point, but wasn't allowed to complete his theory and denied the audience the opportunity of independently weighing it up. They then try and deconstruct point by point an argument that had not fully been made.
The people in the U.S. point to the Magna Carta as a point in history where protections of law were instituted, against the crown's unlimited power, especially in the old days. That would evolve to become the Bill of Rights. What people were allowed to do under the law. The U.S. Bill of Rights is of huge importance. The U.S. Constitution gives authority to government, power. The Bill of Rights sets the boundaries which government is not allowed to cross. Checks and Balances, or all are accountable under the law. Fewer injustice goes unpunished this way. Magna Carta weather it lasted a day or a century, isn't the important part, that it leads to protection of it's people from tyranny is undeniably important. Another point, if Magna Carta only lasted a day or a week, it only means king John violated the law, written down. "The original Magna Carta, issued in 1215, was repealed. However, four clauses from the original charter were reissued in the 1297 Magna Carta and remain in force in England and Wales."
Wasn't that prescient of Starkey to foresee Britain post-election as virtually ungovernable. I'm aware it may well have been meant in another context but like to think that he unlike anybody else predicted the present chaos. To quote him on Brexit (which he alluded to here) Britain was the first province to break from Ancient Rome around 400, first to break from Rome around 1530 under Henry and the first to break from The Treaty of Rome any day soon.
Britain wasn't the first province to break away from Rome - in fact it didn't break away at all. It was Rome that decided it needed its troops elsewhere. Even if Britain had broken away, it wasn't the first because Rome had already lost Mesopotamia and Dacia.(Not counting the almost provinces of Marcomannia and Quadia, that were about to be set up before Commodus did a U-turn on this father's policies). None of these actually broke away, they were all either lost to invaders to given up by Rome.
Rose speaks to me about the true context of the essence of the Magna Carta and what we should take from it. Starkey appears like a buffoon full of himself.
That's wrong, actually. Starkey's position is the revisionist position. The traditional view was that Magna Carta was the foundation of all our liberties, etc. But Starkey says that's hogwash.
After over a year of having all my rights removed in the name of safety I can only conclude that Starkey was right and his comments on human rights being guff are now objectively provable........ More's the pity.
So unusal, albiet common to see folks ridicule and almost mocking behind the back of someone giving fact. They are just that. Fact. Not opinion. Well done Dr Starkey. You are a credit to historical research and knowledge, and also a huge asset to our liberty and country. Hats off
Rory Stewart seems to me to be a modish, and much overrated thinker - his sort of arrogant moralizing ( including, as here, positing absurd anachronisms ) brought about the sad PC culture in Britain today.
Over 4 years later, Rory Stewart entered a Parliamentary election to become PM. During interviews Rory Stewart was quite closely quoting the Historian on the right that Parliament could do whatever it liked and there was nothing anyone could do about it. This is at a time when we have a Constitutional Crisis after a Referrendum was held in 2016 with the result that the UK was to Leave the EU but elements in Parliament are having success in undermining the Will of the People - despite the European Withdrawal Act, 2018. So, if the Will of the People and Primary Legislation is not in line with Rory's Stewart's views, never mind - ignore the Will of the People and ignore the Law of the Land. He was eliminated from the contest, thankfully. The point is that I have heard other Constitutional experts state that, even today, our Constitutional Law is that the People ultimately have power over Parliament and that 'Parliamentary Sovereignty incorporates this Principal. Furthermore, Parliamentary Sovereignty is really about the Constitutional Law that Parliament can not give away its powers to foreign entities (Princes, etc) - which is what they did of course. Yes, the UK desperately needs a Bill of Rights that forces Governments and MPs to work for and on the behalf of the People. It's a terrible thing in this day and age that Parliament can, despite the Constitutional contradictions, do the Hell what it likes.
I'm not always a fan of David Starkey but he is absolutely right here. Magna Carta at the time had no effect. The only people granted the 'famous' rights were the robber barons, not the ordinary people. It is only considered important because it was re-interpreted, in a totally different context, hundreds of years later.
Not read the documents yourself have you. Article 60. All the customs and Liberties aforesaid which we have granted to be enjoyed by our people throughout our Kingdom, let all our Subjects whether clerk's or laymen, observe toward their dependents. "Clerk's and Laymen" Laymen are the common people. Sick and tired of Ill educated morons like you who know Jack shit of what you're talking about.
On point, unless you consider the fact that Freemen in that day were those emancipated from Serfdom, as opposed to Honorary intituled men of a Burgh. then unless you consider the common folk today to still be(Slaves) - Villeins, Serfs, Cottars, Knaves or the like then it must be that the remaining land-holding in free and common soccage, post 1600 actually is free of de-mesne lords. So this is far from clear cut in terms of provenance. Secondly John was a party under duress to that agreement as the Archbishop quite rightly protested, i guess here it boils down to whether you accept the Barons demands as over-riding the Kings freedom to contract (because he is the King and has a reciprocal duty) or you hold the strict interpretation of Law that an Act by or under threat of Force is not ones Act !
@@genuinearticle33 It established in law for the first time after the conquest that the King was not an absolute ruler and that principle might have been overridden by force from time to time by the principle was there and in 1689 it was recognized as established law.
@@tomjackson4374 That is perhaps correct, but not my point, the point is the 1215 charter does not articulate the rights of the people, the Bill Of Rights does, it clearly expresses the People and their Laws and Customs to be a-priori and antecedent to Parliament and its Legal realm, otherwise all these Declarations and subsequent Acts would have achieved is to replace a Tyrant Sole with a Tyranny assembled, this is the Contract the Monarch has with the People to govern accordingly, it is this that reigns in tyrannical and despotic Government and ensures we the people make our laws and customs so as not to become slaves to a dictatorial legislature and executive, the caveat to all of that is keeping the Judiciary held to account as they are really the last line of defence, without descending into lawlessness.
And Rory Stewart is exactly why I despise politicians. He fits the narrative around what the political aims are, but will ditch the narrative when it no long fits his - a politician's - purpose.
David the historian articulately presents facts as opposed to perception, the lawyer talks about aspirational ‘legalities’ and protocols, the politician constantly refers to ideological romanticism based on his own life experiences it seems
I've just watched his brilliant speech at Goldsmiths Hall--where he destroys modern, so-called 'Art' . Unfortunately, no comments are allowed. Watch him.
"Modern Art" and Contemporary Art are not the same thing. Are we really to dismiss every development in Art since the French Revoultion, or is it simply another tiresome rant against abstraction? Many thousands of deeply thinking artists can't be so wrong. This is the equivalent of the saying that "If God meant us to fly, he'd have given us wings."
I think he is extremely rude. I believe he has far more knowledge about this area than the other guests but they know more about other things than he. I think Rory made some good points and he was dismissed out of hand.
I wish David Starkey would be on IQ2 more. This has been one of the most interesting debate i've seen and i really enjoyed this. Thank you for the video, on the side note, that Rory spoke a whole lot of nothing
The people, when asked, have always, ALWAYS made far more intelligent and positively effective decisions that politicians. Don't back down folks, and ever defend your liberties and rights.
David .... An example of power and victory when you have deep knowledge . PS. David moved his chair in a massive display of confidence in the company of lesser IQ .
What Magna Carta also achieved was the breakdown of feudal obligations of rulers toward the ruled. What had been held in trust -- the land -- by the feudal monarch was now subject to private ownership by means of the issuance of deeds. Any sense of an equal birthright to the land disappeared, and the history of Britain (and essentially all other societies that abandoned societal ownership of nature) became institutionalized domination by rentier interests. As Winston Churchill observed in his 1909 campaign for a seat in Parliament, the enemy of the people is monopoly, and land monopoly is "the mother of all monopolies."
The thing about Magna Carta is that the barons imposed this on the king, but they believed this was about ancient rights of Englishmen. And that's the important part.
I forgot her name, I'm not good with names, but the moment she talks about the family courts, my respect went up hugely. I trust Starkey more on his position on the Magna Carta, but have a lot of respect for her bringing up a serious issue in British society that does not get talked about.
I don't really like Dr Starkey but his astonishment on that woman sputtering on the Clarendon Code (which she obviously needs) is spot on. And of course I'm with him in opposing Brave New World.
David Sharkey tells the truth. Unfortunately the interviers are ignorant and completely rude. He's the only person I know that is honest and straight forward. That's why he's not liked.
The point at 46 mins where she is talking about the removal of legal aid is so true. My male friend likes thousands more are being stopped from seeing their children. The mother on the dole would refuse visitation and again my friend would have to pay out of his own pocket the court fees whilst hers were free of charge and then she would agree on court but later would revert back to the same old tricks of blocking the father from seeing the children. She keeps getting away with it to this day as it would cost the tax payer more to take the children away from the mother whilst the father gets screwed over..
Well done, David! Not that I agree with you, BUT, we need your voice. Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath needs to be read in the context of the times, apart from the 'symbolic' significance they acquired subsequently.
Rory Stewart... How do you expect the people of the UK to take an interest and even know about the Magna Carta and constitution if is only taught at primary school level in the UK. Harold Wilson stopped the teaching of Constitutional Law and Manga Carta at 12-18 year olds. Reinstate the teaching of this historical subject, include it in the GCSE exam instead of dumbing down our people and keeping them ignorant to historical law, rebellion, rights and constitutions. This is why only a minority take an interest. Most people feel they are helpless, purely because the modern education system has failed them, it’s designed to dumb down a child’s curiosity and created obedient sheep instead. That coupled with useless television programming entertainment and celeb culture that is designed to distract us from the important things in life.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say to the death" - Voltaire Our fathers and there fathers understood what morality is, how is it possible we dont?
Wonderful to see and hear someone else articulate what I have addressed over and over. Paper democracy, paper treaties, paper Charters, and so on. Always breaking them and then using those papers to say, look we have these papers.
When are the poor going to grow a spine and fight back against their oppressors? Newsflash, they never will unless they have a rich person leading them. Rich people are more intelligent. Fact.
Strange that they do not have anyone from Common Law debating here , only a lecturer,politician and a lawyer ? This is an in house debate by the Establishment !
Just for the record, the QC is wrong about the European Arrest Warrrant NOT contravening the Magna Carta as the rule of law was not its only important provision. Access to justice in a speedy manner is contravened.
Honest historians have a much more nuanced view that politicians or lawyers they work for and within the established system real historians don’t have that limitation.
yes agreed. Honest historians, try to be objective based on the historical evidence, as far as they can. They do their research. In a funny kind of a way, a little like scientists. They are just looking for the truth of something, without as much bias as possible.
Brilliant. I really loved this. I am half way through Danziger and Gillingham's "1215: the year of Magna Carta" and was therefore motivated to see if there were some good videos on YT about this topic. That's how I found this excellent debate. Thanks to all....very enlightening and entertaining.
It is amazing looking at this discussion at this time on 21st May 2019, when much of what the establishment hold dear, will probably be reversed or scrapped in the very near future.
Only 3 clauses of Magna Carta remain legally binding today. 1. The rights of the Church of England 2. The rights of the City of London 3. The right of trial by jury
@Light_n_Fluffy Depends on the offences he was charged with mate. Some can be tried by a jury, others can only be dealt with at Magistrate level. I'm not defending the system, just stating what it is.
@Light_n_Fluffy No idea. But if they have, it's because they can and because they can justify it legally. I saw the video of him being arrested outside of the Court by a van load of police for "Breach of the Peace" - which looked awful and, as there has to be an immediate danger of violence or damage to justify such an arrest, seemed unlawful. The Court actually imprisoned him for Contempt however. Look, as unfair and totalitarian as it all seems he's never going to disappear in some dungeon is he? There's always some barrister who wants to make a name for himself by defending high profile personalities, and he's too well known for any injustice to be thrown at him and anyone getting away with it. The British legal system needs an overhaul and an injection of transparency and modernism, but it's far fairer and just than many systems around the world.
You have almost no rights in the UK Both Magna Garta and the Bill of Rights 1688 are dead as is equality before the common law . Britain is a police state, the Constitution and laws have been usurped by the dictatorship of Parliament ( sovereignty of Parliament) under the Unwritten Constitution as in no Constitution , or Political Parliamentary Constitution what ever they make up. Britain isn't an actually existing modern functioning state, not a real country, , merely a Zone , a province of globalist , Government . The following list is like a Stasi gulag nightmare parody of fake democracy, of the rights you have totally lost and abuses 1) Detention with out trial for up to 6 months common.2 ) extradition to a foreign power 3)Treaties of taxation ( Lisbon treaty ) with Foreign powers, 4) Joining a political juridical union with out any consent ( the EU ) 5) Gerrymandering passports for votes to illegal immigrants on a mass scale 6) immunity from the death penalty for treason by Parliament and the Monarch. 7) Ignoring petitions to enforce the Constitution ( Ad infinitum ) 8) lying to Parliament, 9) Trials with out juries 10) Extreme inequality in sentencing of the convicted for the same or similar crimes . 11) Selection of juries by the prosecution only. 12) Harassment by the police of the right of assembly very common 13) gross misuse of Parliamentary Statutes - Crime and disorder 1997- to suppress free speech very common. 14) Mass daily use of MI5 D notices , to suppress news reports. 15) Restriction on professional legal representation .16) No functioning borders.( And the list goes on. Please add your own.)
Whether rights are universal or cultural, they are at minimum a foundational value of OUR culture, and are absolutely indispensable within our culture.
great debate, the chair really should let the historian finish though.. by giving him 2 min warning or something similar.. no wonder he became distant.. he obviously knew his stuff.. most enjoyable all the same
Starkey is such a wonderful example of how a member of an out community can become a member of the in community through often specious Establishment confirmation that all forget this is an exercise in self promotion.
Starkey is a good example of the gay community because he does not push it down everybody’s throat. He keeps is private life private. He his a top historian and he his excellent, but people do not want to know about his private life.
Context of the moment when something occurs is so important. When the Magna Carta was implemented it was a time of turmoil. What is missing from this discussion is the power of the common people and how overtime, when people are oppressed, control can and does shift. It does take time - maybe 800 years? When the Magna Carta was born it was essentially a dictatorship in existence. The power of the commoner is serious understated and rather those that recorded history say it was the elites who pushed for common rights. We seem to look to find a single hero when more than likely, as politicians do, they read the their public, and if in touch, move on matters before being pushed and loosing all or a lot of power. In other words we can romanticise history when it was really an imperative to survival of the power held by the monarchy.
None of them can agree , how the hell is the ordinary person supposed to understand M.C. but the female commentater raised a good point that to day access to court , high fees , removal of legal aid , has all but removed access to courts at the mid and lower income groups , so in other words magna carta is being eroded, and the fight for freedom/rights continues every day
All societies need myths. The truth of our history is so difficult to fathom that senior and distinguished historians do not agree on most issues of difficulty. To be established on solid bases, our institutions have to be grounded on hard and well acknowledged facts, which have to be mortared together in place by the simplified interpretation of half-truths made acceptable enough for continuing daily business. It goes to the extent that historians who want to explain at length the complexity and the unknown evolution of our society undermine the foundation of the culture that they honestly want to strengthen. I want to believe that 1215 was a turning point, and I do not need to be told that one historian, no matter how bright, is facing twelve debaters to prove that it was not. Leave the complex corners of the blueprints to the architects, the techniques of suturing an artery to the surgeon, and the unbelievable complexity of modern technologies to the engineers and technologists. As a citizen I want a simple story with a beginning, interesting people who do important things, a plot or two to keep my interest, and a thread that I can follow somewhere into the future. Negating that the preservation of myths is important is to not understand society, and a fatal flaw for an intellectual.
Magna Carta was never the basis of the law of Britain. It disappoints me that none of the participants in this discussion point to the Ancient Triads of Britain (pre Roman) as the basis of our laws and customs.
The personal rights only applied to the barons in 1215 and only was applied to ordinary people centuries later in different circumstances. The 1215 charter wanted to establish a republic and the 1216 William Marshall reissued the charter to undermine the barons and King Louis the first of England. The charter survived in later centuries because it said the church was free of taxation and the church kept it alive for that.
She said no secrets courts there has been many secrets courts in England putting people in mental homes or using the secret courts to hold them indefinitely till the secret court decides to let them free 🤷♂️🤷♂️
I'm put off by Henry Porter's lack of respect for David Starkey's speaking time. Interrupting and talking over another speaker is devaluing rather than debating and comes from a weak position.
42:30, Rory isn't actually making a case for human rights as we understand them, he is ultimately arguing in favour of objective morality, that things are objectively wrong. It's not based on some a priori intuition for equality, this notion is solely derived from Christianity. Starkey is an atheist and rejects that, and coherently so, which is a problem for atheists but at least for him he knows that. Rory epitomises the attitude of many people in the west today who have no idea that almost everything they think and do is grounded in Christian thinking and culture, yet they want to take the benefits and attribute them to some naturally abstract (often platonic) sense of 'rights' and 'rationality'.
You are completely right. Rory doesn't have any understanding for the basis of his values. It's just painful to listen to his platitudes and empty words
Its amazing that our US Government can still take our property and possessions at any time and also hold us in jail without any charges for any amount of time...our society is moving backwards
Let the members voting to repeal constitutional standards issue a declaration after issuing their vote that "I believe the principal of ... is not moral and must be rejected" which must be published to every person in their constituency and their electors are asked if they recall their member before the member's vote is counted.
But the rules of “Law” can be changed to restrict rights to an abysmal degree depending on who the “leaders” are, so do there need to be unalterable human rights ?
Nice to hear the intense David Starkey mention "four impossible things before breakfast" showing despite his lofty credentials, he is also an appreciator of the great Douglas Adams.
Good God, Starkey's point about the realisation of Huxley's vision of the future (now our present) was proved to be right in light of his own predicament in 2020. What a mind.
Starkey dominates because he's always the only panelist who says anything meaningful, truthful or intelligible. As ever, the other jealous panelists/moderators waffle or cut him off when he shows them up.
Rory finds the notion of universal human rights 'moving' because of his privileged background: his money will buy the best lawyers, and if not, his connections will do the rest. Back in the real world, the rest of us are realising that we don't really have any rights...
Human rights at a time when ANIMAL RIGHTS activists want to blur the distinction between humans and non-humans.
Mister Ay Es - The reality in the UK is that you are ruled by bureaucrats and politicians who are generally ignorant of individual rights or just simply crooks.. The attitude is that they do what suits them best and if you think your rights have been infringed "take us to court." Among others I was actually told that by a government minister - and they know full well that the cost of going to court is prohibitive.
@@fredgillespie5855 quite, legal aid to help some starving homeless person whose knicked a loaf of bread would be a start. Magna carta applied to plebs like us, what planet are some folk on...that was never the intention, what they drew up for us lot was something known as Forest Law.
Starkey is a joke who is a great story teller but is pompous and self aggrandizing.
Starke Dominates because he keeps interrupting.
Who else wishes it was just David Starkey giving a lecture?
Exactly, the only man there who knows what he's taking about.
@@silverbullet2008bb I've begun watching everything he's in. Goldmine of knowledge & what a character to boot 😂
@@taniaearle4457 Yeah for sure. I recommend watching him brazenly dismantle the nonsense of that brainless spoiled brat Laurie Penny. If you haven't seen it, have a look, it's here on TH-cam and definately worth a watch!
Tania Earle here here
He's extremely rude
As an American - if David is on the panel, I'm glued to my seat!
@bisquitnspanky if he is a trump voter,that can only be a positive thing. #maga
Starkey is both arrogant , dictatorial (you see the odd glimpse of it here), he does not seem to understand basic need for equality, fairness, innocence before proven guilty...in short a twat!!
Walter White. Yes, positively horrendous. Trump could not sit still long enough to listen to this debate, and he certainly wouldn’t understand one word in ten. He’s a boor, a pervert, a con man and a criminal.
and what if you were Japanese ?
@@terrynolan5831 Agree but he can get away with it where others can't and that's so important
"The next election could well produce a crisis of ungovernability." - Dave Starkey 2015. Foreshadowing at its finest.
Ha!
what ?
TDS
A Magna Carta against corporations is needed.
Khadr Trudeau all socialist shitholes
@Khadr Trudeau Equating regulating corporations with communism.. Truly one of the oldest and dumbest opinions out there.
No because corporations don't create laws that, if broken, can lead to execution or jail.
@@oraz. He didn''t equate communism with regulating corporations. He equated communism with corporatism, which is an equally silly equation. It's more akin to aristocracy. Although, I love watching you little worms squeal about corporations and free shit. It makes me lol
@@oraz.
Touche.
I could listen to Dr. Starkey all day. Love British history.
Where are you from Rosanne? Is your country influenced by all this today?
@@davidgray3321 I am an American. Irish and Scottish ancestry. My mom was a Canadian from Nova Scotia. She loved the Britons and the Monarchy. I think that is why I love Dr. Starkey. I think we are very influenced by British history.
@@rosanneshinkle4133 Starkey would strike out 'Briton' in your post and replace it with 'English'. He is an English nationalist which is why the American trumputinksis and English Führagers like him... I am English (born) and suffered plenty of (face to face) abuse from the Scots and the Welsh and the Irish......Nevertheless I am an Internationalist with UK and US passports..
@@rosanneshinkle4133 mmm
@@rosanneshinkle4133 mmmmmmmmm
Starkey is number one. He lived it. He's was born to do this. He's sooo far ahead of the other's.
Amen !
Starkey's ideas are retarded. He is a revisionist and favours tye interests of the ruling class, at tye expense of the Working Class.
Nobody can accuse David Starkey of not speaking his mind :P
given he was outnumbered three to five to one, and he was the only one speaking sensibly, just as well.
Or trying to be the only one speaking.
@@99IronDuke He was going well over the allotted time. Nice that you agree with him.
When starky speaks, you listen.
@@pontiacsuperchief9532 Exactly!!
You just have to love Starkey.
No, you don't!
If Rory is representative of modern politicians we are in trouble. Ignore history at your peril. Our rights are being removed at the margins - the margins are starting to eat into the body.
He cracked me up when he said the medieval guys holding swords were huge and muscular.
@@GregoryWonderwheel And his comment about body parts
I thought he came across quite well. Willing to listen to other opinions, willing to give way to someone with a better informed view, interested in the past and the future of England. He is the type of politician that is all to rare these days and is a sad loss to our front bench.
Might dictating right in the name of peace and safety, as I write, in this year of our Lord, 2020.
@@extramild1 Exactly
They allowed Starkey to educate everyone including the panel until the precise moment he reached his point, but wasn't allowed to complete his theory and denied the audience the opportunity of independently weighing it up. They then try and deconstruct point by point an argument that had not fully been made.
And the other douchebags (who TF goes across Afghanistan who has any mental faculties at all. Vacation?) all do the predictable.
The people in the U.S. point to the Magna Carta as a point in history where protections of law were instituted, against the crown's unlimited power, especially in the old days. That would evolve to become the Bill of Rights. What people were allowed to do under the law.
The U.S. Bill of Rights is of huge importance. The U.S. Constitution gives authority to government, power. The Bill of Rights sets the boundaries which government is not allowed to cross. Checks and Balances, or all are accountable under the law. Fewer injustice goes unpunished this way.
Magna Carta weather it lasted a day or a century, isn't the important part, that it leads to protection of it's people from tyranny is undeniably important.
Another point, if Magna Carta only lasted a day or a week, it only means king John violated the law, written down.
"The original Magna Carta, issued in 1215, was repealed. However, four clauses from the original charter were reissued in the 1297 Magna Carta and remain in force in England and Wales."
Wasn't that prescient of Starkey to foresee Britain post-election as virtually ungovernable. I'm aware it may well have been meant in another context but like to think that he unlike anybody else predicted the present chaos. To quote him on Brexit (which he alluded to here) Britain was the first province to break from Ancient Rome around 400, first to break from Rome around 1530 under Henry and the first to break from The Treaty of Rome any day soon.
Indeed, but he was not alone in foreseeing the nature of post brexit vote Britain. I'm thinking of P Hitchens
Britain wasn't the first province to break away from Rome - in fact it didn't break away at all. It was Rome that decided it needed its troops elsewhere.
Even if Britain had broken away, it wasn't the first because Rome had already lost Mesopotamia and Dacia.(Not counting the almost provinces of Marcomannia and Quadia, that were about to be set up before Commodus did a U-turn on this father's policies). None of these actually broke away, they were all either lost to invaders to given up by Rome.
@@str.77 And those that then lived like Romans destroyed Rome
Rose speaks to me about the true context of the essence of the Magna Carta and what we should take from it. Starkey appears like a buffoon full of himself.
@@robinbreeds9217 ???
Alternative tittle : David Starkey against Revisionism.
That's wrong, actually. Starkey's position is the revisionist position. The traditional view was that Magna Carta was the foundation of all our liberties, etc. But Starkey says that's hogwash.
@@wodenravens the traditionalism you refer to is also revisionism.
David Starkey practises 'revisionism'!
David starkey basically said TAXATION is theft. They just take it from us direct from our wages without any real permission.
Taxation is voluntary
Jesus was a Buddha
He was murdered because he promoted everything against the establishment.
ecsactly
We call the police, fire department, drive on highways, go to school-without any real permission.
@@TaxTheChurches. permission.
You get arrested if you don't go to school.
Arrested if you drive without license, rego..
What do you mean ?
Fool.
After over a year of having all my rights removed in the name of safety I can only conclude that Starkey was right and his comments on human rights being guff are now objectively provable........ More's the pity.
They've been eroding for years
@@perperson199 they have never been a “thing” so there's nothing to erode
@@rumpelstiltskin8841 Do we have any rights?
So unusal, albiet common to see folks ridicule and almost mocking behind the back of someone giving fact. They are just that. Fact. Not opinion. Well done Dr Starkey. You are a credit to historical research and knowledge, and also a huge asset to our liberty and country. Hats off
Rory Stewart seems to me to be a modish, and much overrated thinker - his sort of arrogant moralizing ( including, as here, positing absurd anachronisms ) brought about the sad PC culture in Britain today.
He is certainly in denial of reality and not living in the world the rest of us inhabit.
@Repeat After Me: yes great wasn't it 😊
Over 4 years later, Rory Stewart entered a Parliamentary election to become PM. During interviews Rory Stewart was quite closely quoting the Historian on the right that Parliament could do whatever it liked and there was nothing anyone could do about it. This is at a time when we have a Constitutional Crisis after a Referrendum was held in 2016 with the result that the UK was to Leave the EU but elements in Parliament are having success in undermining the Will of the People - despite the European Withdrawal Act, 2018. So, if the Will of the People and Primary Legislation is not in line with Rory's Stewart's views, never mind - ignore the Will of the People and ignore the Law of the Land. He was eliminated from the contest, thankfully. The point is that I have heard other Constitutional experts state that, even today, our Constitutional Law is that the People ultimately have power over Parliament and that 'Parliamentary Sovereignty incorporates this Principal. Furthermore, Parliamentary Sovereignty is really about the Constitutional Law that Parliament can not give away its powers to foreign entities (Princes, etc) - which is what they did of course.
Yes, the UK desperately needs a Bill of Rights that forces Governments and MPs to work for and on the behalf of the People. It's a terrible thing in this day and age that Parliament can, despite the Constitutional contradictions, do the Hell what it likes.
The people retain the ultimate redress that the barons exercised in 1215: the right to rebel.
@@williamcooke5627 Ask the miners how that went in the 80's.
I'm not always a fan of David Starkey but he is absolutely right here.
Magna Carta at the time had no effect. The only people granted the 'famous' rights were the robber barons, not the ordinary people.
It is only considered important because it was re-interpreted, in a totally different context, hundreds of years later.
Not read the documents yourself have you.
Article 60.
All the customs and Liberties aforesaid which we have granted to be enjoyed by our people throughout our Kingdom, let all our Subjects whether clerk's or laymen, observe toward their dependents.
"Clerk's and Laymen"
Laymen are the common people. Sick and tired of Ill educated morons like you who know Jack shit of what you're talking about.
On point, unless you consider the fact that Freemen in that day were those emancipated from Serfdom, as opposed to Honorary intituled men of a Burgh. then unless you consider the common folk today to still be(Slaves) - Villeins, Serfs, Cottars, Knaves or the like then it must be that the remaining land-holding in free and common soccage, post 1600 actually is free of de-mesne lords. So this is far from clear cut in terms of provenance. Secondly John was a party under duress to that agreement as the Archbishop quite rightly protested, i guess here it boils down to whether you accept the Barons demands as over-riding the Kings freedom to contract (because he is the King and has a reciprocal duty) or you hold the strict interpretation of Law that an Act by or under threat of Force is not ones Act !
@@genuinearticle33 It established in law for the first time after the conquest that the King was not an absolute ruler and that principle might have been overridden by force from time to time by the principle was there and in 1689 it was recognized as established law.
@@tomjackson4374 That is perhaps correct, but not my point, the point is the 1215 charter does not articulate the rights of the people, the Bill Of Rights does, it clearly expresses the People and their Laws and Customs to be a-priori and antecedent to Parliament and its Legal realm, otherwise all these Declarations and subsequent Acts would have achieved is to replace a Tyrant Sole with a Tyranny assembled, this is the Contract the Monarch has with the People to govern accordingly, it is this that reigns in tyrannical and despotic Government and ensures we the people make our laws and customs so as not to become slaves to a dictatorial legislature and executive, the caveat to all of that is keeping the Judiciary held to account as they are really the last line of defence, without descending into lawlessness.
very wrong
And Rory Stewart is exactly why I despise politicians. He fits the narrative around what the political aims are, but will ditch the narrative when it no long fits his - a politician's - purpose.
Starkey's head shake is my spirit animal.
Gosh!
@@stephenhardy312 h
Hahahaha
Oh you rascal Lucas, I concur 😂
His finger pointing is to that woman for me 🤣
Are we sure David Starkey isn't a time traveller?
At 1:11:00 he basically states exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now.
he is amazing
David the historian articulately presents facts as opposed to perception, the lawyer talks about aspirational ‘legalities’ and protocols, the politician constantly refers to ideological romanticism based on his own life experiences it seems
Very much yes, I agree. Ironically this trialogue leaves me thinking of Tony Hancock "Magna Carta, did she die in vain ?" Discuss
I've just watched his brilliant speech at Goldsmiths Hall--where he destroys modern, so-called 'Art' . Unfortunately, no comments are allowed. Watch him.
agree)) cool lecture) thanks
A great lecture that
Link?
"Modern Art" and Contemporary Art are not the same thing. Are we really to dismiss every development in Art since the French Revoultion, or is it simply another tiresome rant against abstraction? Many thousands of deeply thinking artists can't be so wrong.
This is the equivalent of the saying that "If God meant us to fly, he'd have given us wings."
Starkey is a legend.
I think he is extremely rude. I believe he has far more knowledge about this area than the other guests but they know more about other things than he. I think Rory made some good points and he was dismissed out of hand.
I wish David Starkey would be on IQ2 more. This has been one of the most interesting debate i've seen and i really enjoyed this. Thank you for the video, on the side note, that Rory spoke a whole lot of nothing
He spoke like a politician
The people, when asked, have always, ALWAYS made far more intelligent and positively effective decisions that politicians.
Don't back down folks, and ever defend your liberties and rights.
David .... An example of power and victory when you have deep knowledge .
PS. David moved his chair in a massive display of confidence in the company of lesser IQ .
Haha he's great
He sits like a King who is annoyed at his subjects
He tells these stories like he was living at those times...incredible historian..He's a real icon.
David Starkey clearly demonstrated why its important to put events into historical context .
.
What Magna Carta also achieved was the breakdown of feudal obligations of rulers toward the ruled. What had been held in trust -- the land -- by the feudal monarch was now subject to private ownership by means of the issuance of deeds. Any sense of an equal birthright to the land disappeared, and the history of Britain (and essentially all other societies that abandoned societal ownership of nature) became institutionalized domination by rentier interests. As Winston Churchill observed in his 1909 campaign for a seat in Parliament, the enemy of the people is monopoly, and land monopoly is "the mother of all monopolies."
I want Starkey's spectacles!!
David Starkey is brilliant. I can and do listen to him all day.
The thing about Magna Carta is that the barons imposed this on the king, but they believed this was about ancient rights of Englishmen. And that's the important part.
I forgot her name, I'm not good with names, but the moment she talks about the family courts, my respect went up hugely. I trust Starkey more on his position on the Magna Carta, but have a lot of respect for her bringing up a serious issue in British society that does not get talked about.
What a legend, telling it like it is.
I don't really like Dr Starkey but his astonishment on that woman sputtering on the Clarendon Code (which she obviously needs) is spot on. And of course I'm with him in opposing Brave New World.
What a terrific English debate, wit, banter, cantakerouness, and nitty gritty ways of talking to get to good old fashioned truth and facts, brilliant.
This is an amazing discussion that is even more important for the present than when it was being done live.
David is so deliciously "tetchy" and "arrogant".
To lose the right of freedom of speech, is the same as losing all your rights.
Freedom of truthful speech is preferable.
Freedom to lie pollutes the informational commons and must be punished as though you'd dumped toxic sludge.
The opening speech completely bored the life out of me but I am glad I held on to listen to David.
1:11:02 David Starkey is a prophet!
David Sharkey tells the truth. Unfortunately the interviers are ignorant and completely rude. He's the only person I know that is honest and straight forward. That's why he's not liked.
Man has always been used as a non-gender-specific term, like feeding the "ducks".
Yes Mankind
The point at 46 mins where she is talking about the removal of legal aid is so true. My male friend likes thousands more are being stopped from seeing their children. The mother on the dole would refuse visitation and again my friend would have to pay out of his own pocket the court fees whilst hers were free of charge and then she would agree on court but later would revert back to the same old tricks of blocking the father from seeing the children. She keeps getting away with it to this day as it would cost the tax payer more to take the children away from the mother whilst the father gets screwed over..
Terrible.
Evil allowed to prosper.
And all the wealthy men with the conservative MP on the stage try to shut her up.
These clever experts on the panel,seem to make the magna carter irrelevant !?
Well done, David! Not that I agree with you, BUT, we need your voice. Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath needs to be read in the context of the times, apart from the 'symbolic' significance they acquired subsequently.
Rory Stewart... How do you expect the people of the UK to take an interest and even know about the Magna Carta and constitution if is only taught at primary school level in the UK. Harold Wilson stopped the teaching of Constitutional Law and Manga Carta at 12-18 year olds. Reinstate the teaching of this historical subject, include it in the GCSE exam instead of dumbing down our people and keeping them ignorant to historical law, rebellion, rights and constitutions. This is why only a minority take an interest. Most people feel they are helpless, purely because the modern education system has failed them, it’s designed to dumb down a child’s curiosity and created obedient sheep instead. That coupled with useless television programming entertainment and celeb culture that is designed to distract us from the important things in life.
"I disagree with what you say,
but I will defend your right to say to the death" - Voltaire
Our fathers and there fathers understood what morality is, how is it possible we dont?
I wouldn't fight for the right for someone to spew false propaganda.
The cultural marxists are trying to normalise pedophila nowadays.
Wonderful to see and hear someone else articulate what I have addressed over and over. Paper democracy, paper treaties, paper Charters, and so on. Always breaking them and then using those papers to say, look we have these papers.
As an American we are taught that the Magna Carta gave rights to the lords of England. This discussion is fascinating!
The birth of Liberty
@@TheChrissy1977 English liberty goes back further to the Anglo-Saxons
rights in this country are what you can afford,the rich are doing ok,If the poor want justice forget it!
thomas clare what Country do you speak?
When are the poor going to grow a spine and fight back against their oppressors? Newsflash, they never will unless they have a rich person leading them. Rich people are more intelligent. Fact.
@@brianhelmuth9414 People who assert “Fact.” - can they possibly be intelligent?
46:26 -- God bless that lady for citing the evils of family law and family court.
what an orator Dr David Starkey could listen to this man all day 👍👍👍👍
One of my faves.. good question, good host, good range of panellists.. good audience even!!
Much so halodavy
Strange that they do not have anyone from Common Law debating here , only a lecturer,politician and a lawyer ? This is an in house debate by the Establishment !
Yes, they should have a freetard there for comedy effect.
James it's good to hear a debate it teaches me something
I love listening to Starkey speak, he’s always brilliant.
Just for the record, the QC is wrong about the European Arrest Warrrant NOT contravening the Magna Carta as the rule of law was not its only important provision. Access to justice in a speedy manner is contravened.
Very important that. It is also a problem in America where cases might take a decade to resolve.
But in the UK when two laws contradict one another, the newer law wins out. Thus the EAW was longer while we were still in the EU
Honest historians have a much more nuanced view that politicians or lawyers they work for and within the established system real historians don’t have that limitation.
yes agreed. Honest historians, try to be objective based on the historical evidence, as far as they can. They do their research. In a funny kind of a way, a little like scientists. They are just looking for the truth of something, without as much bias as possible.
Brilliant. I really loved this. I am half way through Danziger and Gillingham's "1215: the year of Magna Carta" and was therefore motivated to see if there were some good videos on YT about this topic. That's how I found this excellent debate. Thanks to all....very enlightening and entertaining.
Idealism versus Realism, that's the basic distinction between the viewpoints of Rory and David.
It is amazing looking at this discussion at this time on 21st May 2019, when much of what the establishment hold dear, will probably be reversed or scrapped in the very near future.
...greetings from the end of 2020.
At what point was the question of the first gentleman answered? Ignoring a totally valid question is down right rude.
Assange has an access to the court. How does it help him?
Only 3 clauses of Magna Carta remain legally binding today.
1. The rights of the Church of England
2. The rights of the City of London
3. The right of trial by jury
Isn't trial by jury going? Or gone
@@perperson199 Not yet, more serious offences are still heard by a Jury. Minor offences are dealt with by Magistrates.
@@hogwash9140 That's good. Thank you
@Light_n_Fluffy Depends on the offences he was charged with mate. Some can be tried by a jury, others can only be dealt with at Magistrate level. I'm not defending the system, just stating what it is.
@Light_n_Fluffy No idea. But if they have, it's because they can and because they can justify it legally. I saw the video of him being arrested outside of the Court by a van load of police for "Breach of the Peace" - which looked awful and, as there has to be an immediate danger of violence or damage to justify such an arrest, seemed unlawful. The Court actually imprisoned him for Contempt however. Look, as unfair and totalitarian as it all seems he's never going to disappear in some dungeon is he? There's always some barrister who wants to make a name for himself by defending high profile personalities, and he's too well known for any injustice to be thrown at him and anyone getting away with it. The British legal system needs an overhaul and an injection of transparency and modernism, but it's far fairer and just than many systems around the world.
This man is a gift to us all.
You have almost no rights in the UK Both Magna Garta and the Bill of Rights 1688 are dead as is equality before the common law . Britain is a police state, the Constitution and laws have been usurped by the dictatorship of Parliament ( sovereignty of Parliament) under the Unwritten Constitution as in no Constitution , or Political Parliamentary Constitution what ever they make up. Britain isn't an actually existing modern functioning state, not a real country, , merely a Zone , a province of globalist , Government . The following list is like a Stasi gulag nightmare parody of fake democracy, of the rights you have totally lost and abuses 1) Detention with out trial for up to 6 months common.2 ) extradition to a foreign power 3)Treaties of taxation ( Lisbon treaty ) with Foreign powers, 4) Joining a political juridical union with out any consent ( the EU ) 5) Gerrymandering passports for votes to illegal immigrants on a mass scale 6) immunity from the death penalty for treason by Parliament and the Monarch. 7) Ignoring petitions to enforce the Constitution ( Ad infinitum ) 8) lying to Parliament, 9) Trials with out juries 10) Extreme inequality in sentencing of the convicted for the same or similar crimes . 11) Selection of juries by the prosecution only. 12) Harassment by the police of the right of assembly very common 13) gross misuse of Parliamentary Statutes - Crime and disorder 1997- to suppress free speech very common. 14) Mass daily use of MI5 D notices , to suppress news reports. 15) Restriction on professional legal representation .16) No functioning borders.( And the list goes on. Please add your own.)
Whether rights are universal or cultural, they are at minimum a foundational value of OUR culture, and are absolutely indispensable within our culture.
Can't sustain this level of inquiry across the pond. Value what you have now.
great debate, the chair really should let the historian finish though.. by giving him 2 min warning or something similar..
no wonder he became distant..
he obviously knew his stuff..
most enjoyable all the same
Starkey is such a wonderful example of how a member of an out community can become a member of the in community through often specious Establishment confirmation that all forget this is an exercise in self promotion.
Starkey is a good example of the gay community because he does not push it down everybody’s throat. He keeps is private life private. He his a top historian and he his excellent, but people do not want to know about his private life.
@@Sebastian-ip2wc but he does talk about his private life. for example, he talks about his regret for not marrying his partner before he died.
Context of the moment when something occurs is so important. When the Magna Carta was implemented it was a time of turmoil. What is missing from this discussion is the power of the common people and how overtime, when people are oppressed, control can and does shift. It does take time - maybe 800 years? When the Magna Carta was born it was essentially a dictatorship in existence. The power of the commoner is serious understated and rather those that recorded history say it was the elites who pushed for common rights. We seem to look to find a single hero when more than likely, as politicians do, they read the their public, and if in touch, move on matters before being pushed and loosing all or a lot of power. In other words we can romanticise history when it was really an imperative to survival of the power held by the monarchy.
A baron's political power came from the number of men that would fight and die for them. " Risk your lives for me, and I will give you benefits ! "
"You shut up for a minute!" I've gotta like David Starkey.
None of them can agree , how the hell is the ordinary person supposed to understand M.C. but the female commentater raised a good point that to day access to court , high fees , removal of legal aid , has all but removed access to courts at the mid and lower income groups , so in other words magna carta is being eroded, and the fight for freedom/rights continues every day
A Brave New World, unless we have freedom of speech that so many want to take away we will go there, how true Dr Starkey!!
Freedom of truthful speech is preferable.
Freedom to lie pollutes the infotmational commons and must be punished as though you'd dumped toxic sludge.
Has anyone ever clicked on a Recommended video only to find out you have already gave it a thumbs up a year ago?
More to self: NEVER INTERRUPT DR. DAVID STARKEY!
All societies need myths. The truth of our history is so difficult to fathom that senior and distinguished historians do not agree on most issues of difficulty. To be established on solid bases, our institutions have to be grounded on hard and well acknowledged facts, which have to be mortared together in place by the simplified interpretation of half-truths made acceptable enough for continuing daily business. It goes to the extent that historians who want to explain at length the complexity and the unknown evolution of our society undermine the foundation of the culture that they honestly want to strengthen. I want to believe that 1215 was a turning point, and I do not need to be told that one historian, no matter how bright, is facing twelve debaters to prove that it was not. Leave the complex corners of the blueprints to the architects, the techniques of suturing an artery to the surgeon, and the unbelievable complexity of modern technologies to the engineers and technologists. As a citizen I want a simple story with a beginning, interesting people who do important things, a plot or two to keep my interest, and a thread that I can follow somewhere into the future. Negating that the preservation of myths is important is to not understand society, and a fatal flaw for an intellectual.
Interesting comment, Jean Morin. Someone might accuse you of arguing for a dumbing down of society, but I don’t think that’s what you meant.
The Enlightenment and the 1689 English Bill of Rights is the major turning point .
.
Starkey = legend
I cannot stand the facilitator interrupting the guest speaker David Starkey.
I hadn't really thought about it, but there is a striking similarity in attitude between Blair and Pol Pot
Really dislike the moderator shouting over Starkey so often
Magna Carta was never the basis of the law of Britain. It disappoints me that none of the participants in this discussion point to the Ancient Triads of Britain (pre Roman) as the basis of our laws and customs.
The personal rights only applied to the barons in 1215 and only was applied to ordinary people centuries later in different circumstances. The 1215 charter wanted to establish a republic and the 1216 William Marshall reissued the charter to undermine the barons and King Louis the first of England. The charter survived in later centuries because it said the church was free of taxation and the church kept it alive for that.
She said no secrets courts there has been many secrets courts in England putting people in mental homes or using the secret courts to hold them indefinitely till the secret court decides to let them free 🤷♂️🤷♂️
I'm put off by Henry Porter's lack of respect for David Starkey's speaking time. Interrupting and talking over another speaker is devaluing rather than debating and comes from a weak position.
Agreed, nothing but a pompous windbag.
Adore David Starkey!
42:30, Rory isn't actually making a case for human rights as we understand them, he is ultimately arguing in favour of objective morality, that things are objectively wrong. It's not based on some a priori intuition for equality, this notion is solely derived from Christianity. Starkey is an atheist and rejects that, and coherently so, which is a problem for atheists but at least for him he knows that. Rory epitomises the attitude of many people in the west today who have no idea that almost everything they think and do is grounded in Christian thinking and culture, yet they want to take the benefits and attribute them to some naturally abstract (often platonic) sense of 'rights' and 'rationality'.
You are completely right. Rory doesn't have any understanding for the basis of his values. It's just painful to listen to his platitudes and empty words
Its amazing that our US Government can still take our property and possessions at any time and also hold us in jail without any charges for any amount of time...our society is moving backwards
Let the members voting to repeal constitutional standards issue a declaration after issuing their vote that "I believe the principal of ... is not moral and must be rejected" which must be published to every person in their constituency and their electors are asked if they recall their member before the member's vote is counted.
The nobles in 1215 were solely protecting their vested interests and power bases. No consideration for the ordinary folk....
Was that the Guantanamo detainee that once released went on to travel to Syria once the invasion took place and was photographed with ISIS fighters??
But the rules of “Law” can be changed to restrict rights to an abysmal degree depending on who the “leaders” are, so do there need to be unalterable human rights ?
I had Starkey as a professor.
You were a professor, and you HAD him? Not sure I would boast about that, he's no oil painting you know.
@@sureshot8399 I was a student at the London School of Economics and took a full-year course David taught.
I love David Starkey.
So do I, been listening to him for years..
Equality does not exist except among equal quantities of like objects.
Most Americans don't even know what the "Magna Carta" is. Most would be confused if you quizzed them on it.
On taxation and robber barons do we not have the modern carrolery of Big Tech and International Companies who wriggle out of paying .
Magna Carta is based on Gaelic/Celtic Brehon Law and was simply the ancient legal norm in the British (Breton/Brehon) Isles
@Sam Black The Saxons like to think nothing existed here before them.
@Mr Spoon I am happy to have been corrected on that.
Nice to hear the intense David Starkey mention "four impossible things before breakfast" showing despite his lofty credentials, he is also an appreciator of the great Douglas Adams.