Not sure one can say he is correct, he has expressed an opinion, LiW has expressed another. There seems to be a disagreement on how one defines constitution.

I have always considered that Britain has a constitution, even if not written.

Well so has my sister, who actually studied U.K. law, got a degree, and practiced for 25 years.

But who am I to argue.

Whatever it is we have got, it has served us pretty well since the Magna Carta at least - we have had a more stable government than probably any country in Europe over that time, with the possible exception of the Swiss.

The UK no 'formal' constitution, but it is written down in the form of Acts of Parliament and reported cases.

Apparently Charles 1 tried and executed for 'violating the constitution'.

Ref. Constitutional & Administrative Law by John Alder
Macmillan

Problem is that it is therefore more flexible and can be reformed (altered) by Parliament without specific support of people.

My point precisely.

Many years ago, on my first day studying British "Constitution" to "A" level, the venerable old schoolmaster stated,

"The first thing you need to learn about the British Constitution is that there isn't one"

Any clearly written constitution, with it's inevitable faults, and not necessarily compressed onto a sheet of A4, will do more to protect the rights of the populace or an individual, than a hotch-potch of traditions and laws that go back centuries to the point of irrelevance.


In my opinion, of course......


.

It is a matter of 'words' J5, but the book I referred to is/was a standard textbook for students studying law, at post graduate level.
It states as I said above. We do have a constitution but not 'formal'.
Most of the Acts of Parliament (in use) are relatively recent.
But as you say this form of 'constitution' does not protect us from a Government who decides to change matters without full consent of the people.

Well I agree with your opinion and for the same reason although our lecturer was neither venerable or old at the time.

Its called a Parliamentary Dictatorship to the uninitiated....we don't have A Bill of Rights in the UK or a written constitution.WE have Common Law based on precedents. We pay lip service to The European Human Rights Act or what ever its called.But if Parliament suddenly decided in its collective wisdom that the possession of Corn Flakes is a criminal offense, then your nicked.The Judiciary in the UK is supposed to be Independent of political influence, but as any one who has been reading the newspapers or following the sentencing of the rioters, its not.What worries me is that The Royal Court of Appeals on The Strand will have such a back log of cases to hear that most of the rioters who appeal their sentences will have served them before there cases are listed.Innocents along with the guilty will suffer.

This is not meant to add fuel to the flames of argument but having watched several British TV programmes about the riots this week its obvious to everyone that, in the main, the rioters were black youths between 20 and 25. Some are educated, some are not, some from poor backgrounds and some not. It was just a BIG excuse to steal the things they wanted with no big social injustice reasons. Find them, prosectute all of them and lets all move on. Lets be proud of the young people who have done so well with their A level results!

Here, here.

DO WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR NOT?

Does it matter? Would it have made one iota of difference as to whether or not people rioted or not? Of course it wouldn't.

I didn't say they felt a sense of injusitce.

What I've been trying to communicate is that it simply is a failure of justice by definition and a failure on the part of the society we have created that we have created people who feel no compunction at burning down their neighbours shops. And it is pretty much a fact that apart from the odd university student etc that is held up to the press, the rioters are not from the prosperous clsses. If all you choose to see is skin colour, then that's all you will see, but claiming that skin colour causes crime will be a tough one to defend. Crime is committed throughout society, at all economic levels, by all types of skin. Middle class crime tends not to come in the form of riot, that's all.

Perhaps it is also useful to look at all this from a CLASS perspective. Some here have already made the point. Obviously this is not to say that the working classes, exclusively, riot...But let's take these as somewhat crude but illustrative examples.

How likely is it that a young mixed race lad of 22 gets to fiddle his expenses and claim for a moat? Or how likely will it be that a 24 year old will be able to manipulate share prices of his own company for personal gain? Or fiddle a pension fund, leaving thousands poorer? On the other hand, how often will we see a middle aged middle class woman steal some trainers? Or a 50 year old man get his golf buddies together to go and burn down a shop? Preople commiting crimes or engaged in violent disorder - whether it be in and of a community or a multinational company - will stay in arenas that they are familiar with and their actions will be determined by what t hey can do, where, and what they think they can get away with.

Accused rioter's mother bans son from £1million council house rather than get evicted


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1VUCtJfJJ

Quote from paper [I][COLOR="Cyan"]The five-bedroom semi-detached property is worth an estimated £1million, although the front garden is strewn with rubbish and one of the upstairs windows is smashed.

.................................................. .........................................

Olympic ambassador charged with second night of rioting after she was turned in by her mother

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1VUECjYJ2

I agree with you Shasha that there are some in every social group who will do 'what they can get away with'.
What worries me is the urge of some youngsters to smash and destroy; this was illustrated in the recent 'riots' but goes on in some form all the time.
It has nothing to do with 'skin colour', I live in a town where there are only a handful of 'black' people living.
Particularly at the weekend something will be destroyed. The telephone boxes; glass smashed regularly. The glass in the bus shelters no longer repaired (not worth it). Flower beds in the town 'kicked up' to destroy the plants. Of course the usual fights and injuries (often innocent boys who happen to be walking through the park or standing at the bus station). I could give many more examples.
The question is why do they want to do this? They don't actually gain anything.

Five-bedroom semi-detached properties in North London sell for a million squid. Who'd have thought that, eh? And a million squid property with a broken window and some trash in the front yard is still worth...wait for it....about a million squid. Incredible!

The Mail opens our eyes to so much.