Newspaper Challenge

Subject: Newspaper Challenge
From: Fiolar
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:14 AM

The British newspaper "The Guardian" is launching a high court challenge under the Human Rights Act to the 153 year old law The Treason Felony Act which makes it a criminal offence to advocate the abolition of the monarchy in print. :-)

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: sledge
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 05:20 AM

Let us know how they get on please.

Sledge

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Gervase
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 05:18 AM

On a similar matter, I read this weekend that there is some concern over the panjandrum whose role in life is to walk backwards at a crouch when the Queen enters the Palace of Westminster for the State Opening.
The poor soul is apparently suffering from a bad back, and there are fears he may not be able to undertake such an onerous task.
Surely there's a simple solution -
Stand up man, for Crissakes!


Yes, I know, it's not easy being a rabidly republican, left wing, field sports-supporting traditionalist. But, heck, I have great arguments with myself in the car! Not that I always win them...

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 06:02 AM

So, at the risk of being acused of rampant monarchism, who is the backstop against political ambition? DON'T ask a politician, not if you want the question actually answered with just soupcant of truth attached.

Presidents? Er aren't they political? don't they cost an arm a leg and ten monarchs? And how much does it cost just to find two or threee protaganists in the States before they spend as much all over again? The money comes from somewhere, I know it's made of paper but it don't grow on trees. The phrase we are looking for is "profit margin". Then the hidden cost of political patronage, brown envelopes. It's not what a monarch actually does but what she can do constitutinally and would if pressed that keeps arrogant politicians on a lease.

How do I vote? I just hold my nose and place my signature.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Gervase
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 10:23 AM

Heads of State don't have to be overtly political. I know that most people in the UK give a shudder at the prospect of President Thatchler, but think of Mary Robinson in Ireland...

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 10:33 AM

It nearly was Dana. Now that is music to my ears. Or did I mean mental wallpaper? Better than a president who coyly pleads he can't play our Monica at least. There is also the "Hollywood Royalty" syndrome - shudder.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: GUEST,Kernow Jon
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 10:39 AM

This should be fun. To most of us born between 1940 - 1960 this dear old paper is known as the Grauniad. More famous for it's typo's than it's editorials. It would be great to read the challenge!
Good luck to them though!
Still the amount of typo's I make I should have been a Grauniad reporter.
KJ

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:54 PM

Going on about the royals strikes me as a cop-out for ignoring the real sharp-toothed predators who prey upon us all. If I could snap my fingers and abolish the British Monarchy, I'm not at all sure I'd even bother.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 02:44 PM

Here's the deal McGrath- you snap your fingers -we get rid of the Monarchy and then we deal with the real sharp tooth predators.....

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Fiolar
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 09:23 AM

An update. Two senior judges blocked the Guardian's attempt to challenge the 153 old law yesterday. Just to refresh peoples' memories, any who advocates the abolition of the monarchy in print can get life imprisonment.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 10:18 AM

I am an American who has been very interested in all aspects of British culture for several years, and this is the first time I have heard of this. I am surprised that such a law still exists. Does this mean that people actually don't advocate the abolition of the monarchy in print? Do they openly advocate it otherwise? Or is this one of those archaic laws that stays on the books, but nobody bothers to enforce, but that no politician has the guts to try to repeal either? (We have a lot of them. Sodomy laws, for instance. 55-mile-per hour speed limits.) Can you cite some articles?

By the way, I greatly admire the Guardian, though I don't read it enough to really understand British politics.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Fiolar
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 10:50 AM

The problem with some of these laws is that by being kept on the statute books, they can be resurrected at any time, if people get a bit uppity. Some of the British laws don't just go back to the 19th century, they go back a lot further than that to I understand the 13th century. Try the Guardian site www.guardianunlimited.co.uk for a more detailed report on the whole thing. The reason the Guardian raised the matter was a I think a wish to see if the thing could stand up to modern day thinking. It seems that you can talk about abolition (of course I could be wrong there) but if you write a letter suggesting it, bingo! life in the tower.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 10:57 AM

The article link

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 01 - 03:12 PM

Sounds like a holdover from the realm of Elizabeth or Charles. He had all kinds of problems making parliament behave prperly -- they kept wanting to add to their bill of rights at the cost of his God-given authority!! What a problem, eh? Hard times, hard times....

A

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Fiolar
Date: 24 Jun 01 - 05:31 AM

Bearing in mind that the "parliamentarians" of Charles' time were really rich landowners, is it surprising? The "common man" had little if any say at the time. We all know how Cromwell threated the "Levellers" when they tried to get social and religious reforms.

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Jun 01 - 08:27 AM

Actually the penalty for suggesting that Brenda, Phill the Greek, and Charles should go was transportation for life - Australia here we come !

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Lyndi-loo
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 04:24 AM

There are lots of archaic laws still on the statute book. One says that you can't beat carpets before 8.00 am, but my favourite is that Hackney carriages must carry a bale of hay on their roofs. Today a Hackney carriage is a London Black Cab. Oh and there is a rule at Glasgow University that students sitting exams can request a pint of porter

Subject: RE: Newspaper Challenge
From: Grab
Date: 25 Jun 01 - 05:03 PM

In a similar vein, there's an apocryphal story that an Oxford student spotted that under an ancient university rule, students were allowed to request food during exams (at their cost, of course). So during his exams, he duly piped up and asked for a pint and a steak-and-kidney pie. He pointed out the rule, handed over a fiver, and the lecturer had to go out and get him his food.

Next day, he was hauled up before the university disciplinary board, and fined ten pounds for not wearing his sword...

For the record, there's any number of ppl advocating the end of the monarchy in print, and none of them have faced criminal action. It may well still be on the books, but it'd never see action - it's just that it's more trouble than it's worth to get rid of the deadwood in this mound of ancient laws. Even the States has a similar deal with old laws, and you've only got a couple of hundred years' worth to deal with!

Graham.

Graham.