what we have done so far and what we will do next
demolitionred, 11 Nov 2005 09:50:26
Money raised: 1700 pounds
> Wokgroups set up and busy: for further details see the homepage of this site.
> Flyers distributed from Portsmouth to Abderdeen and Isle of Wight and many places in between.
> Correspondance begun with dozens of MP's across the country. meetings established with some Libdem and Conservative MPs.
> Articles arranged or being discussed with ETO, Kerrang, Manchester fetish scene, Skin Two, Desire, the Independent, Scarlet, Alternative London and Midnight sex talk radio station.
> Podcast and viral net ad being discussed.
> Contacts made with leading lawyers, Justice, Liberty and Amnesty International.
> QC instructed to look at legality of the proposals.
> Messages posted on fetish, BDSM, vampire, music, libertarian chatrroms and blogs.
> Lists of university departments to be contacted have been drawn up.
> Two awareness raising events set up in Manchester and LOndon in November and March.
> Talks taking place in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and London.
> Submissions have been drawn up by the Campaign against Censorship and FAC and will soon be written by other organisations published here.
> We have pledges from 32 people to make a submission.to the consultaion process -- where are those from the other 280 people signed up to this group?
> We have built a website with advice on how to write up a submission, how to contact your MP and blogs on developments around the country.
> Amelie has helped 6 people make submissions.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 14 Nov 2005 08:59:39 ***
demolitionred, 11 Nov 2005 10:16:21
There areo nly three weeks left until the official submission day.
We need to focus our efforts
We need to concentrate on making people aware of the two events
We need to continue organising, spreading the word to munches etc,
We need to find new yahoo groups, chatrooms etc to post on,
We need to find new magazine and newspaper contacts who are favourable,
We need to identify MPs and judges that could be persuaded to come on side,
QWe need to draw up more sample letters and submissions,
We need to find people who want to make a submission and help them do it.
We need to convince people of the virtue of particpating.
We need to contact other organisations that might want to sign up to backlash.....
ther's plenty to be done.
fuschia, 11 Nov 2005 10:25:38
I am rather out of it atm, but if someone would like to draft a brief
editorial type piece for LFS, I'll put it up. Something that can run for the next
few weeks, quick summary of position and link to an article that explains
clearly how to make a submission by email?
Short, sweet and as clear as possible!
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 11 Nov 2005 10:33:14
Dem - after you: happy to do this...but if you want to, tis yours.
How many words?
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I am rather out of it atm, but if someone would like to draft a brief
> editorial type piece for LFS, I'll put it up. Something that can run for the next
> few weeks, quick summary of position and link to an article that explains
> clearly how to make a submission by email?
> Short, sweet and as clear as possible!
fuschia, 11 Nov 2005 10:56:24
In a message dated 11/11/2005 10:35:54 GMT Standard Time, manniq@hotmail.com
writes:
How many words?
100, plus an image, link to the backlash site?
Diva has a piece up on LFs as well, can refer to that for more detail
www.londonfetishscene.com
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul C. Dickie, 11 Nov 2005 14:52:16
In message <2857284.1131704175867.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>We need to identify MPs and judges that could be persuaded to come on side,
Has anyone contacted pro-dommes to find out how many MPs and/or judges
they have among their clientele and who could be 'persuaded' to object
to the nonsense from gormless Goggins?
--
< Paul >
Nigel Meek, 11 Nov 2005 15:11:27
And the penalty for blackmail is..?!
NGM
Author wrote:
> In message <2857284.1131704175867.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >We need to identify MPs and judges that could be persuaded to come on side,
> Has anyone contacted pro-dommes to find out how many MPs and/or judges
> they have among their clientele and who could be 'persuaded' to object
> to the nonsense from gormless Goggins?
> --
> < Paul >
SnowdropExplodes, 11 Nov 2005 15:41:43
--- nigel@libertarian.co.uk wrote:
> And the penalty for blackmail is..?!
I think that depends on what blackmail you think is
being suggested.
I understood the implication to be that the pro-Dommes
would withhold their services until their demands were
met, which is legitimate industrial action :-)
(or alternatively, said pro-Dommes would spank the
naughty little boys until they agreed to do as mummy
told them, and vote against the legislation!)
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
> Author wrote:
> > In message
>
<2857284.1131704175867.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> > >, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >We need to identify MPs and judges that could be
> persuaded to come on side,
> > Has anyone contacted pro-dommes to find out how
> many MPs and/or judges
> > they have among their clientele and who could be
> 'persuaded' to object
> > to the nonsense from gormless Goggins?
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 11 Nov 2005 15:43:50
-OJT- wrote:
> (or alternatively, said pro-Dommes would spank the
> naughty little boys until they agreed to do as mummy
> told them, and vote against the legislation!)
Surely they should *refuse* to spank them until... ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
clare, 11 Nov 2005 16:29:25
Judges have a duty to be politically neutral. It's a constitutional thang.
Author wrote:
> There areo nly three weeks left until the official submission day.
> We need to focus our efforts
> We need to concentrate on making people aware of the two events
> We need to continue organising, spreading the word to munches etc,
> We need to find new yahoo groups, chatrooms etc to post on,
> We need to find new magazine and newspaper contacts who are favourable,
> We need to identify MPs and judges that could be persuaded to come on side,
> QWe need to draw up more sample letters and submissions,
> We need to find people who want to make a submission and help them do it.
> We need to convince people of the virtue of particpating.
> We need to contact other organisations that might want to sign up to backlash.....
> ther's plenty to be done.
SnowdropExplodes, 11 Nov 2005 17:00:11
--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Judges have a duty to be politically neutral. It's
> a constitutional thang.
Well, we wouldn't be asking them to take a
party-political stance, but rather to have a
considered opinion on a particular legal issue, which
as I understand it is precisely their job description,
at least when it comes to their role in the process of
producing new legislation.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
clare, 11 Nov 2005 17:09:23
The Judiciary do not have a role in the process of producing new legislation.
The elected legislature makes the law and the Judge's interpret it.
They don't have public opinions on legal issues except for the cases that come before them and which they have to decide.
If it were otherwise, the judiciary would not be independant of the legislature. This is fundamental to the constitution, and all constitutions that are based on the Rule of Law.
Author wrote:
> --- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Judges have a duty to be politically neutral. It's
> > a constitutional thang.
> Well, we wouldn't be asking them to take a
> party-political stance, but rather to have a
> considered opinion on a particular legal issue, which
> as I understand it is precisely their job description,
> at least when it comes to their role in the process of
> producing new legislation.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
SnowdropExplodes, 11 Nov 2005 17:38:11
--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> The Judiciary do not have a role in the process of
> producing new legislation.
>
> The elected legislature makes the law and the
> Judge's interpret it.
>
> They don't have public opinions on legal issues
> except for the cases that come before them and which
> they have to decide.
>
> If it were otherwise, the judiciary would not be
> independant of the legislature. This is fundamental
> to the constitution, and all constitutions that are
> based on the Rule of Law.
The following explains to what I was referring.
From the parliament.uk page on the House of Lords:
"The House of Lords is the second chamber of the U.K.
Houses of Parliament. Members of the House of Lords
(known as 'peers') consist of Lords Spiritual (senior
bishops) and Lords Temporal (lay peers). Law Lords
(senior judges) also sit as Lords Temporal. Members of
the House of Lords are not elected."
...
"The role of the Lords is generally recognised to be
complementary to that of the Commons and it acts as a
revising chamber for many of the more important and
controversial bills.
All bills go through both Houses before becoming Acts,
and may start in either House. Normally, the consent
of the Lords is required before Acts of Parliament can
be passed, and the Lords can amend all legislation,
with the exception of bills to raise taxation, long
seen as the responsibility of the Commons. Amendments
have to be agreed to by both Houses. The House of
Lords is as active as the Commons in amending bills,
and spends two-thirds of its time revising
legislation."
Therefore, some judges do have a role in the
production of legislation, and having them on our side
in a debate in the Lords would surely be advantageous?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Amelie, 11 Nov 2005 18:04:00
I have been posting our alert on various group sites, writing to MPs and
bullying personal contacts to respond to the consultation document.
this was an interesting reply I got this morning from someone who must have
picked it up as one site forwarded it to another. I reckon it must be half
way around the world by now:
I can't help, Sylvie, but feel that it is not 2005, but 1984 all over
again...do you get the same feeling? I have always disliked government
censorship in any form since, broken down, it's simply one group of people
telling another group of people what to think, or do. If you do things, it's
discrimination but if Uncle Sam (or George in this case) does it, it's in
the public good.
> My local Sheriff here is a really good guy, very fair and
> honest...well known for his personal integrity as well as a man who
> believes in an individual's rights. That, however, is not the case all
> over. So, if it comes down to what the local Sheriff thinks...we are all
> in a lot of trouble.
> I do think that contacting anyone who is working in opposition of the
> law or, even legally trying to change it, will put you on a "Let's get
> him!" list. We used to feel sorry for the Russians when the KGB found out
> what you were thinking...now the Russians can feel sorry for us if,
> indeed, any of us are bold enough to think at all!
> But, Sylvie, I do think you have provided us with some knowledge we
> didn't have before and, for that, I thank you. I do notice you have a UK
> address...do you live in the UK and is that as restrictive as here in the
> US?
>
> John Smith
> (Just kidding ~LOL~)
Paul C. Dickie, 11 Nov 2005 18:29:31
In message <7153119.1131721882159.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, nigel@libertarian.co.uk wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> In message <2857284.1131704175867.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>> >, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >We need to identify MPs and judges that could be persuaded to come on side,
>> Has anyone contacted pro-dommes to find out how many MPs and/or judges
>> they have among their clientele and who could be 'persuaded' to object
>> to the nonsense from gormless Goggins?
>> --
>> < Paul >
>
>And the penalty for blackmail is..?!
Who said anything about blackmail or making unwarranted demands
reinforced by menaces?
However, the persuasion could perhaps take the form of reminding such
august persons that they could themselves become criminals should such a
repressive and *stupid* bill ever become law.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 11 Nov 2005 18:39:32
In message <20051111173639.7947.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
>--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> If it were otherwise, the judiciary would not be
>> independant of the legislature. This is fundamental
>> to the constitution, and all constitutions that are
>> based on the Rule of Law.
>
>The following explains to what I was referring.
>From the parliament.uk page on the House of Lords:
>
>"The House of Lords is the second chamber of the U.K.
>Houses of Parliament. Members of the House of Lords
>(known as 'peers') consist of Lords Spiritual (senior
>bishops) and Lords Temporal (lay peers). Law Lords
>(senior judges) also sit as Lords Temporal. Members of
>the House of Lords are not elected."
The silly woman does not seem to understand that the UK does not have a
written constitution and that, unless they are found guilty of a
criminal offence, it is most remarkably difficult to remove any judge
who has upset the 'government' of the day.
>"The role of the Lords is generally recognised to be complementary
>to that of the Commons and it acts as a revising chamber for many of
>the more important and controversial bills.
That's the House of Lords in general and not just the Law Lords, which
latter forms the ultimate Court of Appeal in the UK.
>All bills go through both Houses before becoming Acts, and may start
>in either House. Normally, the consent of the Lords is required
>before Acts of Parliament can be passed, and the Lords can amend all
>legislation, with the exception of bills to raise taxation, long seen
>as the responsibility of the Commons. Amendments have to be agreed to
>by both Houses.
The exception is when a bill has been presented in the same form in two
successive sessions of Parliament and the Lords has rejected (or amended
it to hell) on both occasions; then, the 'government' may invoke the
Parliament Act to force the measure through.
>The House of Lords is as active as the Commons in amending bills,
>and spends two-thirds of its time revising legislation."
The rest of its time is spent dining, drinking and squeezing zits?
>Therefore, some judges do have a role in the
>production of legislation, and having them on our side
>in a debate in the Lords would surely be advantageous?
They're not the judges who would conduct cases were any such law to be
passed; they might be involved in the appeals process, but the case(s)
would first come before magistrates or circus judges...
I do hope this helps reduce the confusion that may have been introduced
by our colonial participant.
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 11 Nov 2005 18:44:31
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> The Judiciary do not have a role in the process of producing
> new legislation.
Err, I believe the Law Lords do...
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 11 Nov 2005 18:55:04
In message <4374E6FB.1010707@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
wrote:
>pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> The Judiciary do not have a role in the process of producing
>> new legislation.
>
>Err, I believe the Law Lords do...
She can't help it; she seems to reside in the colonies and hence doesn't
understand such matters...
--
< Paul >
clare, 11 Nov 2005 20:10:32
Author wrote:
> In message <20051111173639.7947.qmail@web86211.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
> OJT- wrote:
> >--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> If it were otherwise, the judiciary would not be
> >> independant of the legislature. This is fundamental
> >> to the constitution, and all constitutions that are
> >> based on the Rule of Law.
> The silly woman does not seem to understand that the UK does not have a written constitution.
Your 43 years of reading has done you no good at all. I didn't say we have a written constitution. As you must surely know, we have an unwritten constitution, and if you had read Dicey & Morris, you might understand it a little better than you do.
This link might give you a clue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/talking_politics/88166.stm
> >The House of Lords is as active as the Commons in amending bills,
> >and spends two-thirds of its time revising legislation."
> >Therefore, some judges do have a role in the
> >production of legislation, and having them on our side
> >in a debate in the Lords would surely be advantageous?
> They're not the judges who would conduct cases were any such law to be passed; they might be involved in the appeals process, but the case(s)would first come before magistrates or circus judges...
And conducting an appeal does not amount to conducting a case? The appeal decision is the ultimate decision on a case. If you don't understand that you don't understand anything at all.
> I do hope this helps reduce the confusion that may have been introduced
> by our colonial participant.
> < Paul >
By way of further information for the constitutionally challenged, the unwritten constitution of the UK operates through the use of "conventions". It is a convention of the Upper Chamber that the Law Lords do not vote on legislative debates. The only exception being reforms to the administration of justice, i.e. reforms to procedure.
And to get back to Snowdrop's original point and purpose of this debate, there is no point asking Judges to be on-side.
Even if I was totally wrong about all of the above (which I am not) it could not be useful unless the paper becomes a Bill.
Even then, as Snowdrop's own researches into the consitution showed, the only judges who could possibly be relevant are those who sit in the Lords, if you think they are going to oppose this consultation, you must smoke more weed than Bill and Ben.
*** This message has been edited by clare on 11 Nov 2005 20:25:09 ***
Amelie, 11 Nov 2005 20:39:33
I do think it is unwise refer so scathingly to someone you don't know - the
"silly woman" might turn out to be the barrister you depend on if your
activities put you in the grey area of the proposed new laws.... Amelie
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 8:10 PM
zak, 11 Nov 2005 21:20:53
Um, haven't judges publicly objected to assorted fuckwit legislation in the
past? Hasn't
Blair been a busy little bunny trying to make sure they are forced to toe
the line? While
they can't vote yes or no to new laws, they can and do point out when new
laws are
unnecessary/useless/insane, surely.
z
Original Message:
-----------------
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 11 Nov 2005 21:20:53
zak, 11 Nov 2005 21:29:09
And monkeys might fly out of my butt......
z
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 11 Nov 2005 21:29:09
SnowdropExplodes, 11 Nov 2005 22:08:44
--- pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> By way of further information for the
> constitutionally challenged, the unwritten
> constitution of the UK operates through the use of
> "conventions". It is a convention of the Upper
> Chamber that the Law Lords do not vote on
> legislative debates. The only exception being
> reforms to the administration of justice, i.e.
> reforms to procedure.
>
> And to get back to Snowdrop's original point and
> purpose of this debate, there is no point asking
> Judges to be on-side.
Thank you for explaining this; although the Law Lords
were mentioned on the parliament.uk website, it was
not made clear that they do not vote on legislative
matters.
But surely they participate in the debates by talking
and raising pertinent points? So surely their
support would still be of some use?
>
> Even if I was totally wrong about all of the above
> (which I am not) it could not be useful unless the
> paper becomes a Bill.
I believe that is for the eventuality of the paper
becoming a Bill, that we are interested in lobbying
support from MPs, and presumably from those members of
the House of Lords who would be involved in the
voting.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
Polgara, 11 Nov 2005 22:23:09
SnowdropExplodes:
> But surely they participate in the debates by talking
> and raising pertinent points? So surely their
> support would still be of some use?
Not really. They have to both be impartial and be seen to be impartial,
which generally means not participating in debates. The better people to
go for would be retired law lords who tend to be outspokenly liberal
(ie. Lord Steyn who was featured on Panorama re some of the anti-terror
laws).
clare, 12 Nov 2005 00:07:46
Snowdrop, I agree with this completley.
> I believe that is for the eventuality of the paper
> becoming a Bill, that we are interested in lobbying
> support from MPs, and presumably from those members of
> the House of Lords who would be involved in the
> voting.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Nov 2005 01:13:24
In message <380-2200511511212929843@M2W110.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 12 Nov 2005 01:13:24
>Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: what we have done so far and what we will do
>next
>>I do think it is unwise refer so scathingly to someone you don't
>>know - the "silly woman" might turn out to be the barrister you
>>depend on if your activities put you in the grey area of the
>>proposed new laws.... Amelie
>
>And monkeys might fly out of my butt......
Do you believe it really is *that* possible? ;-)
Still, it may depend on what you'd eaten...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Nov 2005 02:12:29
In message <005e01c5e700$018448b0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I do think it is unwise refer so scathingly to someone you don't know - the
>"silly woman" might turn out to be the barrister you depend on if your
>activities put you in the grey area of the proposed new laws.... Amelie
I do, most sincerely, hope not.
For one thing, I would have severe problems accepting advice from
someone who has challenges spelling difficult (?) words such as
"completely"...
For another, she seems to have the quaint idea that law lords cannot
vote on bills before the House of Lords. The fact is that some do.
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 12 Nov 2005 02:22:19
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> For one thing, I would have severe problems accepting advice from
> someone who has challenges spelling difficult (?) words such as
> "completely"...
Some famous dyslexics who might also have had "challenges" spelling
"difficult" words:
Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Leonardo
DeVinci, Thomas Alva Edison, General Patton, Henry Ford, Hans Christian
Anderson, Pablo Picasso, Stonewall Jackson, Enrico Caruso, Auguste
Rodin, Michael Faraday.
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Nov 2005 08:49:45
In message <43755234.7090402@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
wrote:
>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>
>> For one thing, I would have severe problems accepting advice from
>> someone who has challenges spelling difficult (?) words such as
>> "completely"...
>
>Some famous dyslexics who might also have had "challenges" spelling
>"difficult" words:
Even if she were dyslexic -- and I do not believe that she is -- that
still would not explain how she could apparently be so afflicted by
hardness of understanding.
--
< Paul >
Lothario, 12 Nov 2005 11:31:03
UK Constitution in two minutes:
Montesquieu (1689-1755) proposed the theory of the _separation of
powers_. He said that there should be three branches of government:
those that make the law (legislature); those that implement the law
(executive) and those that interpret the law to resolve disputes
(judiciary).
If a state is to avoid any group or individual having an excess of
power, no person should be a member of more than one of these branches
of government. This is one of the central _checks and balances_ of
democratic government: that everyone with power is constrained by
others that collectively are more powerful.
The UK does not have a clear separation of powers as some people are
members of more than one branch of government.
Government ministers (executive) conventionally are also legislators
in either the Commons or the Lords.
The UK's most senior judges (roughly equivalent to the US Supreme
Court) also sit in the House of Lords as legislators though they do
not vote. They try cases as a court of last resort where there is a
dispute over matters of law, not over matters of fact.
The Lord Chancellor is a member of all three branches of government:
he's a minister (these days known as the Secretary of State for
Constitutional Affairs), a legislator (and Speaker) of the House of
Lords, and the nominal head of the judiciary with responsibility for
appointing and removing judges.
The situation regarding the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor is
changing due to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
This creates an explicit Supreme Court of the UK where currently we
have the judicial committee of the House of Lords. The Supreme Court
will sit in a separate building and its members will not appear in the
House of Lords as legislators.
The Lord Chancellor will no longer be Speaker of the Lords. A separate
Lord Speaker will be appointed separately.
This still leaves the anomaly where ministers are also legislators.
This contrasts with, for example, the US, where the president and
cabinet are not and cannot be members of Congress.
To cut a long story short, judges do not have a direct involvement in
the lawmaking process, but we would hope they are at least as alert to
the public debates on current affairs as anyone else in government.
Therefore it's not appropriate to seek to influence them directly as
individuals.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
Amelie, 12 Nov 2005 12:45:31
By all means debate a topic, but please refrain from personal insult.
No-one minds explaining their position and disagreement may result in
both`parties learning something new. But there is a tendency on this site
to be extremely defensive and insist on being right rather than accept that
other people can make mistakes but are doing their best to solve the same
problem.
We are none of us perfect, but we are on the same side. It makes no sense
to alienate our allies. Amelie.
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 12 Nov 2005 12:45:31
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 2:09 AM
SnowdropExplodes, 12 Nov 2005 14:51:23
--- "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:
> For another, she seems to have the quaint idea that
> law lords cannot
> vote on bills before the House of Lords. The fact
> is that some do.
Can you cite some examples?
I'm learning a lot about the British Constitution
here, and the more complete my understanding, the
happier I will be.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Nov 2005 15:01:20
In message
, Lothario wrote:
>The UK's most senior judges (roughly equivalent to the US Supreme
>Court) also sit in the House of Lords as legislators though they do
>not vote.
Wrong -- some of them *do* vote.
For example, the rumpus caused by the attempted reform of the role of
the Lord Chancellor would simply not have been possible if the Law Lords
couldn't vote on it:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,9061,1164412,00.html
Then there was the terror bill which was being debated shortly before
the last Parliamentary election:
Apart from Lord Irvine, Lord Donaldson, the former master of the rolls,
and two former law lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Lloyd, joined the Liberal
Democrats and Conservatives in voting against the government."
[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1432760,00.html]
Then there was the Hunting bill:
Lord Goodhart: Is the noble Lord aware that two serving Law Lords voted
in the principal Division on the Hunting Bill?
Lord Kingsland: I regard that as an entirely distinct matter. The vote
on the Hunting Bill was a free vote and therefore did not engage the Law
Lords' responsibilities politically; it simply engaged them in
expressing their own view of a matter on which all noble Lords had a
free vote. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, should
have raised that matter in the context in which I was speaking.
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/t
ext/41111-21.htm] or [http://snipurl.com/jsom]
>The Lord Chancellor is a member of all three branches of government:
>he's a minister (these days known as the Secretary of State for
>Constitutional Affairs), a legislator (and Speaker) of the House of
>Lords, and the nominal head of the judiciary with responsibility for
>appointing and removing judges.
Again, that's less than accurate; even before the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005, the only way the Lord Chief Justice, a Lord Justice of Appeal
or a High Court judge could be removed was by an address to the monarch
presented by both Houses of Parliament.
Other listed judges *may* be suspended or removed by the Lord
Chancellor.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50004--j.htm#133
>The situation regarding the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor is
>changing due to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
>
>This creates an explicit Supreme Court of the UK where currently we
>have the judicial committee of the House of Lords. The Supreme Court
>will sit in a separate building
Yes, but...
>and its members will not appear in the
>House of Lords as legislators.
And *where* is that stated in the Constitutional Reform Act?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050004.htm
Unless all the members of the new Supreme Court are to be bound or
strapped to the chairs on which they are to sit "in a separate
building", there appears to be nothing to prevent someone who is
presently a Lord of Appeal from whiling away his/her off-duty hours by
sitting, speaking and/or voting in the House of Lords.
>The Lord Chancellor will no longer be Speaker of the Lords. A separate
>Lord Speaker will be appointed separately.
Will the new Lord Speaker be obliged to wear the sort of knee-breeches
and stockings that Derry Irvine found so irksome?
>This still leaves the anomaly where ministers are also legislators.
And increasingly law-breakers...
>This contrasts with, for example, the US, where the president and
>cabinet are not and cannot be members of Congress.
But where the President appoints members of the Supreme Court whom he
hopes can be relied upon to do his bidding without necessarily having to
be instructed what to do.
>To cut a long story short, judges do not have a direct involvement in
>the lawmaking process, but we would hope they are at least as alert to
>the public debates on current affairs as anyone else in government.
Such as the apocryphal judge who is said to have asked, "Who are the
Beatles?" to be told by counsel, "A popular beat music combo, M'lud."?
>Therefore it's not appropriate to seek to influence them directly as
>individuals.
It would be illegal to seek to influence them on the conduct of a case
but to seek to influence them (or any of the House of Lords) before a
bill is even presented might merely be prudent.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Nov 2005 15:08:55
In message <20051112145019.32787.qmail@web86203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
>--- "Paul C. Dickie" wrote:
>> For another, she seems to have the quaint idea that law lords cannot
>> vote on bills before the House of Lords. The fact is that some do.
... or, at least, *have* done.
>Can you cite some examples?
To find your own, just do a Google search for "Law Lords" voting -- with
the quotes as above -- as I did to find:
For example, the rumpus caused by the reform of the role of the Lord
Chancellor in the Constitutional Reform act 2005 would simply not have
been possible if the Law Lords couldn't vote on it:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/story/0,9061,1164412,00.html
Then there was the terror bill which was being debated shortly before
the last Parliamentary election:
"Apart from Lord Irvine, Lord Donaldson, the former master of the rolls,
and two former law lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Lloyd, joined the Liberal
Democrats and Conservatives in voting against the government."
[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1432760,00.html]
Then there was the Hunting bill:
Lord Goodhart: Is the noble Lord aware that two serving Law Lords voted
in the principal Division on the Hunting Bill?
Lord Kingsland: I regard that as an entirely distinct matter. The vote
on the Hunting Bill was a free vote and therefore did not engage the Law
Lords' responsibilities politically; it simply engaged them in
expressing their own view of a matter on which all noble Lords had a
free vote. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, should
have raised that matter in the context in which I was speaking.
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/t
ext/41111-21.htm] or [http://snipurl.com/jsom]
I am sure there are quite a few other examples.
--
< Paul >
«No Name Set», 12 Nov 2005 16:39:39
stuff here//
as usual...
-OJT- writes:
>From the parliament.uk page on the House of Lords:
Ah. Right. There's a difference between "judges" and Law
Lords. Like there is between bishops and archbishops.
In their HoL role, the law Lords could and would pick up and
(attempt to) address matters of "bad law" (ie. unworkable,
impracticable, internally inconsistent). Indeed, they could
probably teach (most of) us more about that than we them.
getting involved in debates as to the desirability of what the
government of the day is intending to achieve is another matter.
--
Rosemary