It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Isn't it about time we have a constitution?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Source
Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, the Sovereign may nominate a number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to sit in the House of Lords. In practice, they are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (they are not covered by the recently established Judicial Appointments Commission). Only individuals who have held high judicial office for a minimum of two years or barristers who have been practicing for fifteen years may be appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. By convention, at least two of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are Scottish and at least one is Northern Irish.


When was the last time the Sovereign rejected who the Prime Minister had called for to be appointed?




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
The Queen's powers are all theoretical powers, her right to veto, dissolve parliament have not been used for some time.
We are not a Monarchy...
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY...
Thanks to Oliver Cromwell, Parliament now runs the country, though we do have safeguards against any tyrranical action in parliaments, and we are never left without a clear figurehead for the country.
The Monarch is above politics, but not above the law, though even in recent times her powers were used to sack the primeminister of Australia:
Australian constitutional crisis of 1975

So you see that though theoretical powers they still have bite. And the Queen owns all the swans in the land....
mmm roast swan...


Dan



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
When was the last time the Sovereign rejected who the Prime Minister had called for to be appointed?

When was the last time they needed to?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
The Queen's powers are all theoretical powers, her right to veto, dissolve parliament have not been used for some time.
We are not a Monarchy...
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY...
Thanks to Oliver Cromwell, Parliament now runs the country, though we do have safeguards against any tyrranical action in parliaments, and we are never left without a clear figurehead for the country.
The Monarch is above politics, but not above the law, though even in recent times her powers were used to sack the primeminister of Australia:
Australian constitutional crisis of 1975

So you see that though theoretical powers they still have bite. And the Queen owns all the swans in the land....
mmm roast swan...


Dan

Theoretical?
She picks the house of lords, a special commision was created in 2000 to "advise her" on it. She still has power.
She may not exercise it but she can and will use it if she needs to.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
When was the last time the Sovereign rejected who the Prime Minister had called for to be appointed?


Originally posted by devilwasp
When was the last time they needed to?


That's dependent on if you see them doing a good job or not, the fact is though the Labour Party are more likely to try and put people in power that will back up any of their policies - just like you have in the United state's.

The Crown on the other hand should be placing Judges in power that are best for the whole of society. Last I checked about 60% of the population didn't vote labour?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
That's dependent on if you see them doing a good job or not, the fact is though the Labour Party are more likely to try and put people in power that will back up any of their policies - just like you have in the United state's.

Yeah they will try but ultimately its up to the queen and any friction between the two would not be seen as good and so it would never find it way to the press.


The Crown on the other hand should be placing Judges in power that are best for the whole of society. Last I checked about 60% of the population didn't vote labour?

Your now telling the crown what to do?
The crown DOES pick whats best for the country, hell they dont pick the government. WE DO!



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Your now telling the crown what to do?
The crown DOES pick whats best for the country, hell they dont pick the government. WE DO!


That's not true and you know it, the system we use at present isn't that constructive. Blair, et al did not win a majority of the population in total only betweent 30 and 40% of the population. A large portion didn't even vote which shows us a lot more.

The Government though, is using the legal system to promote people who stick to their agenda and as these Judges go through the ranks they are the ones more likely to be promoted. Sorry but that's not democracy - in fact, a large portion of people have no idea whatsoever on how Judges are appointed because well most people are never taught about it...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
That's not true and you know it, the system we use at present isn't that constructive. Blair, et al did not win a majority of the population in total only betweent 30 and 40% of the population. A large portion didn't even vote which shows us a lot more.

Its not true? Its not true that the queen does whats best for the country because of self preservation?
Well mate, those 30-40% of the population that DID turn up shows who gives a damm and who is lazy, or are you saying that the government kept 60% of the population away?


The Government though, is using the legal system to promote people who stick to their agenda and as these Judges go through the ranks they are the ones more likely to be promoted. Sorry but that's not democracy - in fact, a large portion of people have no idea whatsoever on how Judges are appointed because well most people are never taught about it...

The government , may I remind you again, DOES NOT pick the judges. Yes thats right they DO NOT pick the judges, they suggest them but its still up to the queen to decide.

Unless your saying tony is now blackmailing the queen , which would be rather odd because she has an entire regiment of solidiers guarding her...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
So if you do not vote you're lazy? Let us think about that, oh wait maybe there are no parties you agree with so you do not vote? No wait...apathy is due to lazyness.

Fact is, Blair suggest who is going to best fit his agenda his agenda wasn't agreed upon by the majority of the population and even those who support Labour do not support every action. The Queen should appiont Judges who do the job well, who will best fit the country and not any one Government at any one period of time.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
So if you do not vote you're lazy? Let us think about that, oh wait maybe there are no parties you agree with so you do not vote? No wait...apathy is due to lazyness.

Well considering 60% didnt turn up I'd say thats not showing a hell of a lot of consideration for yourself.

No parties you agree with? You know there are over a hundred parties in england alone, right?


Fact is, Blair suggest who is going to best fit his agenda his agenda wasn't agreed upon by the majority of the population and even those who support Labour do not support every action.

The majority couldnt be bothered to vote, your blaming that on the system?

His agenda was agreed apon by those who gave a damm about the country, the majority of the population doesnt seem to give a damm.
Why should those who support labour support every action he does?


The Queen should appiont Judges who do the job well, who will best fit the country and not any one Government at any one period of time.

Should? Scuse me mate, but who are you to tell me or her majesty what she should or should not do?

She picks who SHE thinks is best for the job, not who you think , not who I think but who SHE thinks is best. If you dont like it well there's plenty of exits , dont let it hit your 6 on the way out.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Yes, there might be over 100 parties but does that mean they all are in this area or that they all run in this area? There were 8 in this area, one of which was the BNP, the three main parties, UKIP and a couple more independents - also do not assume I didn't vote. However, the case is many people do not have a party tht reprosents their interests and many can't afford to run for office.

Like it or not, Blair is suggest Judges who will help his agenda later on just like they do in the U.S. this is not what is best for the system in the United Kingdom.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
sorry guys it was one of my first posts and i jumped in mouth first.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Yes, there might be over 100 parties but does that mean they all are in this area or that they all run in this area?

No usually they are all run with a HQ in london with local centres (hence why sometimes the MP's from each area dont agree with others in their parties.


There were 8 in this area, one of which was the BNP, the three main parties, UKIP and a couple more independents - also do not assume I didn't vote. However, the case is many people do not have a party tht reprosents their interests and many can't afford to run for office.

So? You pick the one that will be the closest to your views, or are you saying that we should not have political parties because its unfair that some have them in thier area and some do not?


Like it or not, Blair is suggest Judges who will help his agenda later on just like they do in the U.S. this is not what is best for the system in the United Kingdom.

No blair suggests noone, its the independant commision or did you forget that little bit?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Source
Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, the Sovereign may nominate a number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to sit in the House of Lords. In practice, they are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (they are not covered by the recently established Judicial Appointments Commission). Only individuals who have held high judicial office for a minimum of two years or barristers who have been practicing for fifteen years may be appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. By convention, at least two of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are Scottish and at least one is Northern Irish.


Again, I repost this...

Also, I've made it clear on many occasions unless people actively are involved in the dicision making process than there isn't Democracy. I agree with views from all of the main parties, so I do not vote for any because they will do things I disagree with.

Like it or not, electing someone who picks for us what we think isn't democratic - until more people are involved on a local and National Level we do not have democracy. To quote someone from work; "I voted Tory because they'd do less harm than Labour"...speaks volumes already.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Also, I've made it clear on many occasions unless people actively are involved in the dicision making process than there isn't Democracy. I agree with views from all of the main parties, so I do not vote for any because they will do things I disagree with.

"In practice" I take it you mean that he "generally" picks them out?
He "mostly" picks them, come on be serios here we're talking specifics.
As I have said we are not a democracy, why do you think we are one?
So your saying that we should not have politcal parties, thats the only arguement that your making.



Like it or not, electing someone who picks for us what we think isn't democratic - until more people are involved on a local and National Level we do not have democracy. To quote someone from work; "I voted Tory because they'd do less harm than Labour"...speaks volumes already.

Tory does less harm than labour?
Tory managed to send our task force halfway across the world with bad weapons, bad ships and little to none air cover. Go tell the captain of the HMS SHEFFIELD that "tory's do less harm than labour".
We are not a democracy, you want one then go live in america or france.

Also might I add that if you do not trust the person you vote for then why do you live here?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I like the way you seem to claim that was my view...where do I say, I voted Tory? Or where do I say, I thought they did less harm?

In practice, the Royal Family have used the PMs word for a good 50+ years, I've gone through a list of Judge's I have in my books and they all have been appointed on the PMs advice - most for the worst. In fact, very few with the exceptions of Lord Woolf and Denning, to name but two of the most notible and recent ones.

You also forget one key thing, why should I leave? Am I not allowed to dislike the Government now? In fact, should I not attempt to change things? Oh no, wait...dislike the Administration, leave! Good idea!

How many millions of people is that? Such a fantastic arguement...got to love it.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
I like the way you seem to claim that was my view...where do I say, I voted Tory? Or where do I say, I thought they did less harm?

I I didnt claim it all, I am simply showing how stupid that qoute was.


In practice, the Royal Family have used the PMs word for a good 50+ years, I've gone through a list of Judge's I have in my books and they all have been appointed on the PMs advice - most for the worst. In fact, very few with the exceptions of Lord Woolf and Denning, to name but two of the most notible and recent ones.

So because they've done it for 50 years that means the queen doesnt care who she puts incharge?


You also forget one key thing, why should I leave? Am I not allowed to dislike the Government now? In fact, should I not attempt to change things? Oh no, wait...dislike the Administration, leave! Good idea!

Well your moaning about a system that has kept this country together for over 200 years, why change things that are not broken?
If you dont like the system why stay? Make YOUR OWN one if you cant agree with any of it.
Why should we change to suit you?


How many millions of people is that? Such a fantastic arguement...got to love it.

How many millions of people agree with you that we NEED to change it? Or are we going to play the "minority wins" rule so that everyone must change for the group of people who dont like the way the countries run?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The fact they've been looking at changing it and are changing it, speaks for my point...

The majority of people, do not like the Old Boys Network who move Judge's through the ranks or the Government having such a large say. It is in fact one of the most common complaints about our system and they are looking at ways of changing it. In fact, just two years ago they began to make the whole procedure much more transparent as a first step...

We'll just over-look that.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The fact they've been looking at changing it and are changing it, speaks for my point...

"They"?
The government you mean.


The majority of people, do not like the Old Boys Network who move Judge's through the ranks or the Government having such a large say. It is in fact one of the most common complaints about our system and they are looking at ways of changing it. In fact, just two years ago they began to make the whole procedure much more transparent as a first step...

We'll just over-look that.

So you speak for the entire british population then, or atleast the majority of it?
Oh and BTW they are changing it, the house of lords wont exist in 2008.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Which is what I just said?

And no, I do not speak for the majority but since it has been a constant problem one raised in almost every book I've seen on the Judiciary it is logical that a large portion of people would agree.

---

Also, it was an independent legal commission which first pointed out the problems. The age old conflict of interests...

---

Common sense displays it as a problem.

Members of the Bar = MPs.
Judge's can get a better job due to these people...

Problems can occur, and a lot of in fighting and biased results can and have happened. It is a risk that should not be taken when someone's life is at stake.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join