Reply to: Something going on in Parliament - RIP QE2

[vetran]

As a society we do seem very of the view "anything that isn't perfect should be torn down" of late. Maybe that's always how it's been and only now am I aware of it, but my default position tends to be not "if it's been this way for centuries it's OK" but "if it's been this way for centuries, nothing has changed in the last decade to suddenly invalidate it". When I say "default position" I am open to being convinced otherwise but if we start changing entrenched systems because they are not fully aligned with modern views, we'll never stop tearing them down and rewriting them such is the pace of change right now.

A point made - by Russell Brand of all people - that I found thought-provoking is that the death of the queen who has been such a symbol of constancy and lived through (or outlived) so many changes, will inevitably be a bit of a dam-breaking in terms of societal change and challenging established ways of thought.

Its worrying when Russell Brand has a point instead of his best attempt is phoning up King Charles and claiming to have taken Meghan or Kate up the jacksie.

But he has hit it on the head, with change comes opportunity. Lets hope they take it.

[northernladuk]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

There has been a lot of reform in recent years and I'm absolutely certain that will continue at pace, particularly under Willam. Very difficult to provide top down reform when the top hasn't changed. She did great but such a long service doesn't always give the opportunity for new ways of thinking. We've got that now and I'm sure there will be lots of good stuff happening.

[d000hg]

Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.

As a society we do seem very of the view "anything that isn't perfect should be torn down" of late. Maybe that's always how it's been and only now am I aware of it, but my default position tends to be not "if it's been this way for centuries it's OK" but "if it's been this way for centuries, nothing has changed in the last decade to suddenly invalidate it". When I say "default position" I am open to being convinced otherwise but if we start changing entrenched systems because they are not fully aligned with modern views, we'll never stop tearing them down and rewriting them such is the pace of change right now.

A point made - by Russell Brand of all people - that I found thought-provoking is that the death of the queen who has been such a symbol of constancy and lived through (or outlived) so many changes, will inevitably be a bit of a dam-breaking in terms of societal change and challenging established ways of thought.

[ladymuck]

You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?

Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.

[d000hg]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?

[vetran]

So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.

So someone dying due to poor management and precautions is exactly the same as the prince sending someone out to the courtyard to have his head chopped off because his majesties egg wasn't runny enough. Seems reasonable.

[SueEllen]

No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.

So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.

[malvolio]

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.

[ladymuck]

Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.

So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?

[malvolio]

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.

[vetran]

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

only after we adopt sharia law, we can apply it to those living in sin!

OK it might be stoning but vive la difference!

[ladymuck]

If you cant be bothered to find out then perhaps stop digging....

Here's a hint. The reigning monarch is the state

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

[malvolio]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property



I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.

If you cant be bothered to find out then perhaps stop digging....

Here's a hint. The reigning monarch is the state

[d000hg]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property



I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.

Democratically elected MPs are also excluded or protected from certain laws. The King wouldn't/couldn't go repealing laws that apply to the Crown, that would be for the government to bring a bill.

[ladymuck]

I don't think they paint the whole article though. We are a constitutional monarchy so while we have a head of state the power to amend and pass legislation sites with parliament. The head of state may be presented with the bill and they put their Monica on it as the top person in the chain i.e it's vetted by them I don't believe they have any power in it really. Happy to be proven otherwise if something untoward is going on but that's how I believe it to be. Did they meddle in some, I expect they have but that's not really their role and it won't have been done as Head of State with full and final control. I think there is a bit more to that story than just the having a look and signing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property

As monarch, the Queen has a public and a private legal persona. The first, Elizabeth II, is the public figure who serves as head of state and owns historic assets such as Buckingham Palace or the royal art collection, which cannot be sold. The second, Elizabeth Windsor, is a private individual who can buy and sell investments and assets like any other citizen. Although famous for their royal association, the Sandringham and Balmoral estates are private assets of the Windsor family.

Unlike other private individuals, however, Elizabeth Windsor has also had personalised carve-outs and exemptions written into swathes of British law, often in areas where she has private interests or investments.
...
The most controversial exemptions ban the Queen’s employees from pursuing sexual and racial discrimination complaints. Even the most modern piece of anti-discrimination law, the Equality Act 2010, is designed not to protect those employed by the Queen.

Other laws contain carve-outs exempting the Queen as a private employer from having to observe various workers’ rights, health and safety, or pensions laws. She is fully or partly exempt from at least four different laws on workers’ pensions, and is not required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
...
Thirty-one laws contain Queen’s immunity clauses banning police or environmental inspectors from accessing the Windsor family’s private properties unless they obtain her permission first. Sixteen relate to Scotland, where she is the owner of the 24,800-hectare (61,500-acre) Balmoral estate, which is held on her behalf by a private trust.

Three laws contain clauses immunising her private property holdings against compulsory purchase. In a case first reported last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied for her to be immune from parts of a major Scottish law cutting carbon emissions.

I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.