General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

and the cover-up continues .... the cabinet office are trying to stop the people of this country knowing that we're still a feudal state - which is of course how feudal states and not democracies operate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/25/government-fights-release-royal-veto-guidelines

[Ed209]

nope it's not "her duty".

If we're the democracy that we as a country like to claim then she has no place making any interference in politics. She should sign everything which is put in front of her, without need of her to even read it.

[eFestivals]

Liz is supposedly not allowed to refuse to sign a new law. As far as we the public are told she's never refused to sign a new law.

But given the fact that she gets to amend any new law before it's passed so that it's to her liking, she's not going to have a problem with signing any new law, is she?

I can't think of any bit of political news in my lifetime that is bigger than this - so why the fuck isn't this a huge media scandal????

[Spindles]

Yeah, what mr eFestivals has shown, however, is a little beyond that, that the royal household (more recently to include the Duke of Cornwall) has a right to be consulted prior to the publication of a bill in order to attain consent and not just the rubber stamping at the end of the process or a nudge from the queen at the weekly meetings (if I have read all the articles right), which is, as he quite rightly says, a hell of a lot more than we have been led to believe.

*edit* reply was to ed209's post.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Spindles

[kaosmark2]

If the people of this country has an IQ of over 50

[eFestivals]

constitutionally it is her duty

from royal.gov.uk

The Queen gives a weekly audience to the Prime Minister at which she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters. If either The Queen or the Prime Minister are not available to meet, then they will speak by telephone.

These meetings, as with all communications between The Queen and her Government, remain strictly confidential. Having expressed her views, The Queen abides by the advice of her ministers.

there's a HUGE difference between the 'constitutional oversight' that those meeting are supposedly about, and her harranging the Home Office minister over something specific about a particular individual - that's waaaaay outside of what that says.

But that 'constitutional oversight' is a joke, given that all laws are being written for her personal benefit.

[eFestivals]

Regarding why it isn't a huge media scandal? Well the status quo, and more importantly the public accepting the status quo, is in the interests of the vast majority of the media. The BBC, the hate mail, the Murdoch press, the Telegraph. Who stands to gain if this is widely reported and known?

The "british public", the taxpayer.

We are being ripped off more than we've known by these fucking leeches. Not only that, we have no democracy when an individual has the right of amendment for personal benefit.

This is a massive scandal. They don't come any bigger in politics.

[kaosmark2]

The "british public", the taxpayer.

We are being ripped off more than we've known by these fucking leeches. Not only that, we have no democracy when an individual has the right of amendment for personal benefit.

This is a massive scandal. They don't come any bigger in politics.

[eFestivals]

Next up, we're gonna have worm posting in this thread, to tell us how he's done some research for Liz, and how the Guardian has got it all wrong.

[kaosmark2]

In other tragic news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/bacon-sausage-shortage_n_1909609.html

[eFestivals]

Yet the public has no power, as this shows. The democracy is a farce.

yep - that's the whole fucking point!!!!

As I say, political scandals don't get bigger than this.

[5co77ie]

constitutionally it is her duty

from royal.gov.uk

The Queen gives a weekly audience to the Prime Minister at which she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters. If either The Queen or the Prime Minister are not available to meet, then they will speak by telephone.

These meetings, as with all communications between The Queen and her Government, remain strictly confidential. Having expressed her views, The Queen abides by the advice of her ministers.

[kaosmark2]

yep - that's the whole fucking point!!!!

As I say, political scandals don't get bigger than this.

[Spindles]

In other tragic news:

http://www.huffingto..._n_1909609.html

[abdoujaparov]

Liz is supposedly not allowed to refuse to sign a new law. As far as we the public are told she's never refused to sign a new law.

But given the fact that she gets to amend any new law before it's passed so that it's to her liking, she's not going to have a problem with signing any new law, is she?

I can't think of any bit of political news in my lifetime that is bigger than this - so why the fuck isn't this a huge media scandal????

[eFestivals]

So it may be that her maj doesnt get changes to Bills before they are presented to parliament. The problem is that it's all done in secret, so noone really knows....

oh c'mon - the fact that it's trying to be kept secret gets to show what's going on.

As the govt likes to say to its people: if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

[kaosmark2]

oh c'mon - the fact that it's trying to be kept secret gets to show what's going on.

As the govt likes to say to its people: if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

[eFestivals]

that's not quite right...she doesnt get to amend any Bill before it's passed only those that affect the crown's prerogative powers or her personbal interests (which isnt every Bill - although it is a lot).

can they pass a law which says that I'm allowed to change proposed laws to enrich myself via?

The process, officially at least, is a rubber stamp. The government informs the queen that such and such a Bill may affect her prerogative powers or personal interests and she gives consent for the Bill to be considered by parliament.

It's clearly NOT a rubber stamp. A rubber stamp does not require a guidance manual.

As the parliament website says:

that can't be the same thing - because what has been revealed is something that was previously unknown to be taking place.

And if we're talking the Parliament website, it's clearly full of non-factual crap, such as this...

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law.

Mind you, it does reveal that Liz is boss....

Crown Prerogative

Powers held by the Queen or her Ministers which can be used without the consent of the Commons or Lords.

It's a fucking sham.

[abdoujaparov]

It's clearly NOT a rubber stamp. A rubber stamp does not require a guidance manual.

[eFestivals]

the guidance manual, as I understand it, sets out when a Bill should be referred for consent and when it shouldn't (ie when the preoragtive or personal interests are affected

but if it's *only* a rubber stamp, then no guidance is needed. They can simply send every bill over to Liz whether or not it impacts on her, for her to rubber stamp everything. That would mean that no royal prerogative exists in any meaningful way (which is what the state likes to tell us).

If she is only rubber stamping things whether she likes them or not then she doesn't even need to read what is being rubber stamped - so it's not like they'd be any overhead from that rubber stamping.

The fact that it needs guidance proves it to be more than you're presuming. It gets to show that that royal prerogative is something of substance and meaning and effect.

[abdoujaparov]

but if it's *only* a rubber stamp, then no guidance is needed. They can simply send every bill over to Liz whether or not it impacts on her, for her to rubber stamp everything. That would mean that no royal prerogative exists in any meaningful way (which is what the state likes to tell us).

If she is only rubber stamping things whether she likes them or not then she doesn't even need to read what is being rubber stamped - so it's not like they'd be any overhead from that rubber stamping.

The fact that it needs guidance proves it to be more than you're presuming. It gets to show that that royal prerogative is something of substance and meaning and effect.

[eFestivals]

there are two separate issues here, which you're mixing up a bit

I might be mixing up the terms, but the effect of what exists *has* to be there.

If there's no effect from what's sent to Liz then everything could be sent to Liz for rubber stamping, or the whole thing of sending draft bills to Liz can be ended.

If it's merely a effect-less rubber stamping then either of those things covers the effect-less rubber stamping without any extra workload put on Liz and nothing lost by Liz.

But it's not that, it's something entirely different. And people don't invent these things if they're pointless.

I remember 20 odd years ago which I worked in the Home Office ....

We probably know many of the same people. In fact, we might even have met.

I've got a lovely Home Office memento on my bog door - "Judge Stephen Tumim, Chief Inspector of Prisons" (nicked from his office door ... 9th Floor QAG, I think?).

[abdoujaparov]

I might be mixing up the terms, but the effect of what exists *has* to be there.

If there's no effect from what's sent to Liz then everything could be sent to Liz for rubber stamping, or the whole thing of sending draft bills to Liz can be ended.

If it's merely a effect-less rubber stamping then either of those things covers the effect-less rubber stamping without any extra workload put on Liz and nothing lost by Liz.

But it's not that, it's something entirely different. And people don't invent these things if they're pointless.

[kaosmark2]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/09/28/the-blackberry-typo-that-landed-a-man-in-jail/

Swimming coach on sex offenders register for accidentally sending a text to his entire address book....

[Paul ™]

Oh dear