Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

The shame of select committees

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:54 pm

atticus wrote:Removal of the honour without due process (as your words in this thread indicate is your desire)...

Which words indicate this?
You are exposing your prejudice.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby atticus » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:55 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Are we talking about a certain knight here?
Is there no code of conduct inferred by the acceptance of a knighthood?
What is the delay in taking it off him?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby atticus » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:56 pm

Hairyloon wrote:If you could perhaps remind me how the removal of a knighthood impinges upon his freedom?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:04 pm

Still waiting.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:52 pm

I take it then, that in answer to my first comment, that you seek to suggest that the delay is down to due process, and that a knighthood is a meaningless platitude of no consequence, and in no way should be construed to indicate that the bearer is one who conducts himself in a manner befitting of a knight representing the British Empire, and at the same time, in response to my latter post, that a knighthood is a thing of great import, that its loss is akin to the loss by ordinary folk of their liberty.

You simply cannot have it both ways:
Either an honour is what it claims to be and puts those who hold them at a standard above the rest of us; in which case it is right that they are held to a higher standard, and if they behave dishonourably then they should be stripped of that honour as expediently as practicable.
Or it is a meaningless load of tosh, in which case it matters not if it is ripped from him in a lynching by a rabid rabble of Right Honourable rioters.

Which brings us back to the original question: what is the delay, when it quite clearly is not the action of due process?

Or have I got you entirely wrong, and that you think that somehow there is a reasonable and honourable explanation for the conduct which is known to have occurred?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby atticus » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:05 am

You have got me entirely wrong. In every single respect.

I have suggested nothing about the process other than that there must be a proper process. In that regard, i made observations about the meaning of what you had written.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby dls » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:47 am

when it quite clearly is not the action of due process?


Which entirely begs the question of whether any process should be starting.
Personally I doubt also that there is any fully developed process. What you seek is in effect 'Let's lynch him, but do it fairly'
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11920
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby atticus » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:48 am

Yep.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:55 am

dls wrote:
when it quite clearly is not the action of due process?


Which entirely begs the question of whether any process should be starting.
Personally I doubt also that there is any fully developed process. What you seek is in effect 'Let's lynch him, but do it fairly'

The existence of an "Honours Forfeiture Committee" suggests that the process is reasonably developed, and yes, that question is begged, but the answer would appear to be a clear and obvious yes, so perhaps one of you could suggest some of the less obvious reasons why this is not the case?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: The shame of select committees

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:00 am

Establishing a committee isn't the same as developing a process. It is just as likely to be (a) in order to create a process which doesn't already exist, or (b) to avoid doing anything. As the saying goes, when you don't want to commit yourself, committee yourself.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6180
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest