If anyone is actually interested in the truth of Lord Monckton's membership of the House of Lords, google 'dont mock the monck' (it's on Watts Up With That blog) and read the pdf linked at the bottom of the page for the full response, that unequivocally states that he IS a member, in the manner that he always states.
A constitutional lawyer has just said that Monckton is right on all counts and is a member of the House of Lords so that wraps it up for now unless you are a constitutional lawyer.
This clown is NOT a member of the House of Lords and never has been. He inherited the title of Viscount on his father's death, which by protocol affords the appellation 'Lord Monckton' .
The clerk to the parliaments made a point of publishing a letter on the uk parliament website asking him to desist with his false claim.
So a leader with an enormous popular mandate who passes an act with a majority in the House of Commons cannot be challenged in the courts nor can the act be prevented except by a slight delay in its implementation.Reminds me of the rise to power of old what's his face in Germany a few years back.Nice to know he would have found Britain a pushover. Anyway I'm of now. My last comment.
@tincoffin, you quoted some of my statements without refuting ANY with facts.
You say "leader with an enormous popular mandate...majority in the House of Commons cannot be challenged in the courts nor can the act be prevented", yes assuming many culpable/unscrupilous PMs, except the Monarch could withhold royal assent and/or use reserve powers to dismiss the PM, etc
"in Germany", Hitler's case is different, the NAZIs engineered a crisis, secured martial law and circumvented the constitution
Your quotes: " parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality."
"Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act?... Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority."
"while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty"."
" parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality."
"Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act?... Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority." "while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty"."
". is wrong but "the commons has far more power "is not an answer 3. You might be right but you must justify it. 4." No the reverse an exercise in it " If the reverse is true you must say why. 5. Is simply an assertion.
In 1974 something else happened which did not arise out of a crisis .The constitution was working ,no problem needed resolving and for this reason as well as the fact that it entailed a loss of parliamentary sovereignty a referendum was held about Britain joining the EU. It was used this year about voting systems. I think it might have been used on another occasion . There is a precedent so why was it not used in 1999. An attack on the Lords was made by the Commons
@tincoffin Its authority was compromised first by removing the hereditaries and altering its composition, then by replacing them with government appointees and finally by removing its powers as a court . All this is done in secret ,the people are not consulted in any way and it obviously threatens parliamentary sovereignty. Its purpose appears to be to neuter one of the three branches of the executive. and so threatens parliamentary sovereignty .
@tincoffin So this matter is not just about Monckton and his peerage it affects everyone in the country.As the House of Lords is or was the highest court in the land (I dont know where we stand now) the Mereworh case in another court had no jurisdiction. Anything they said had no more relevance than a meeting of lawyers in a pub.I think the 1999 Act is invalid because it attacks parliamentary sovereignty.
1. "if Royal assent is left out How can the act be valid", a formality rubber stamp rarely denied
2. "House of Lords is or was the highest court in the land", NO, a much deminished legislature NOT a court. The Commons has far more power, a complete reversal over 350 years
3. Mereworth's case had no merit as the 1999 Act covers his issue
4. "attacks parliamentary sovereignty", NO the REVERSE, an exercise IN it
5. "finance bills or the consitituion" NO Monckton's fraud
@ZangaroZen To the question "If Royalty is left out How can the act be valid" the answer can be "Yes it is valid ""No it isn't " Yes but I disagree " or "No but I agree" Your reply : "a formality rubber stamp rarely denied " cannot be an answer. An argument must be conducted in a logical fashion .Otherwise what is the point?
1. "a formality rubber stamp rarely denied" sums up the reality of royal assent and the monarch's figurehead status. Besides you asked about a "supreme legislature", legislature meaning ability to create, pass, amend, and revoke laws. When was the last time the Monarch initiated such things? You do realize the 1999 Act received royal assent, and therefore by your insistence is valid.
2. "is not an answer", accept reality the House of Lords is a legislature NOT a court
3. "must justify it", NO Mereworth's FAILED case result is it's own justification
4. "if the reverse is true you must say why", parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality. The more powerful Commons can therefore change the legislature process, wihle the Lords can at best only delay such changes
5. "simply an assertion" rewatch the video, the topic is Monckton's fraudulent claims to membership in the House of Lords
A) Monckton's passport doesn't mention "House of Lords", while "The Right Honourable" refers to his 2006 inherited Viscount title ONLY, NOT membership in "the right honourable House of Lords", NOR a major city Majorship, NOR a Pivy Council seat, NOR a minister. Similarly Prior to 2006 Monckton's birth title of "Honourable" refered to being a Viscount's offspring NOT membership in "the honourable House of Commons"
@tincoffin, you say "authority was compromised", over 300 years authority has shifted from the Monarch to the Lords and then to the Commons. "Get use to it!". For all your complaining you should be exstatic that the Monarch now has a figurehead role, the Lords are a secondary legislature with definite limits as to what bills they can table, alter, delay, etc, while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty".
@tincoffin, you say "referendum was held about Britain joining the EU", WRONG, the UK joined the EEC in 1973, while the 1975 referendum, as per an election promise, was to gage CONTINUED membership, resulting in 67% in favor. The only UK wide referendum in history.
Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act? Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority.
Well you are nearly right . Parliamentary Supremacy refers to a three way arrangement .King,lords and commons. Three independent bodies operating in tandem and the country has been governed by it for 350 years and still is. But the obvious corollary of this is that none of the three parts or the whole can give away their powers to another body because then " parliament " is no longer "supreme"
@tincoffin Over the centuries there were numerous crises first with the monarchy and parliament later the House of lords and parliament notably in 1832 and then 1911. There was no notion of a referendum then but even if there had been it could not have resolved anything.They were triggered by a crisis and obviously one of the bodies was going to have to give way and most people accepted the outcome when they were eventually resolved
@tincoffin, "you are nearly right", should've been obvious that the formality of "Royal assent" as I've mentioned several times previously was deliberately left out, to entice you into making a fuss.
Bills originate in either house, are read, committeed, reported, passed, and sent to the other house for consideration. The Lords are excluded from finance bills and outright rejection. In other words the Commons can bypass the Lords rejection or after atmost a year. "Get use to it!"
@tincoffin, you say "And what does this 'supreme legislative' consist of?", so now you're trying to be enormously clever with an oh so very very obvious bait question. Not clever after all. Go ahead and answer your own question with your own IDEAL ANSWER, and you not being much of a lawyer, it will be trivial for a layman to pwn you on why you're wrong.
@tincoffin, unbelieveably you still clinging to your bait question, even after being called on it, and yet you can't muster up your own hoped for ideal answer. How sadly desperate.
You are hoping for the answer to "what does this 'supreme legislative' consist of" is "House of Commons AND House of Lords"
So let's see how clever a lawyer you are going to try to be now.
@tincoffin, "Parliamentary sovereignty" means SUPREME LEGISLATIVE above ALL other judicial bodies.
Monckton's admits his father LOST his House of Lords seat. It follows that he CAN'T INHERIT A LOST ITEM, furthermore parliamentary sovereignty as per the House of Lords Act revoked MEMBERSHIP "by virtue of patent letters". 568 peers accepted reality while Baron Mereworth's court challenged FAILED.
"Right Honourable" refers to Monckton's INHERITED Viscount TITLE AND NOTHING MORE.
1. How about the 1974 referendum on our accession to the EU . 2. the High court said that it had no jurisdiction on the matter of "letters patent" not that the argument was wrong.4.The constitution is not "non-existent".IThe UK has the oldest constitution in the world (Japan might challenge that or Iceland) It is contained in the laws of England. 5.I believe the 1999 act is invalid so do not accept judgments based on it
5. i believe as if have said that the 1999 act is invalid
1. "1974 referendum on our accession to the EU", that's your many "customary CASES [plural]...long before the 1999 Act", one solitary case in recent history, the ONLY UK wide example, which was NOT AN ACCESSION but a gauge of continued support to having joined the EU 2 years previous, as per an election promise. Admit you can't back up your demands for a House of Lords referendum
2. AGAIN the court deferred to 1999 Act which clearly revokes seats "by virtue" of Patent Letters
4. "UK has the oldest constitution in the world...contained in the laws of England", you admit the concept of a UK consitution spread over numerous documents, unlike traditional centralized US type constitution. By that/your measure any collection of laws would be a constitution. FACT is UK parliamentary sovereignty allows it to alter the way government functions, including the House of Lords WITHOUT a referendum. Disagree, then quote superior UK referendum law. You can't
5. "I beleive the 1999 ACt is invalid", again declaring your opinion as fact, delusional persistence doesn't trump you're inability to provide ANY supporting facts.
5. You also declare "do not accept judgments based on it". Are you a Lord? A hereditary peer? If not then stop pretending the 1999 Act requiers your acceptance. FACT is 568 ACTUAL Lords accepted the 1999 Act's judgement, while Baron Mereworth pursued a legal case and lost completely, and fined £8,800. "Get use to it!"
A. Monckton claims his passport's "The Right Honourable" proves he's a "non-sitting, non-voting, member of the House of Lords", instead of SOLELY a reference to a Viscount title inherited 7 years after Monckton admits his father lost his seat
B. House of Lords officially denounced Monckton as never being a member
C. Mereworth case deferred to the 1999 Act
D. Monckton so called non-seat/voting "membership" is without salary, office, staff, etc.
I am sorry Zangaro i can't be assed to go on answering your questions which are simply repeats of what you said before. If the House of Lords wants to shut Monckton up then all they need do is take him to court. That should do the trick .Goodnight
@tincoffin, you say "can't be assed to go on answering your questions", point is you DON'T answer questions, proving you're an extremely bad sport. You DIDN'T address any of the numbered points either. All you do is declare your opinion as fact.
AGAIN why of 569 peers who lost House of Lords seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims he's still a member?
If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed? Ofcourse. Well guess what watch 9RPX4zFeMGw at 4:30
@tincoffin and as Monckton says the House of Lords..." has not so far found the courage to answer ". Perhaps they are less certain of their position than you are.
@tincoffin, (con't) you quote Monckton "not so far found the courage to answer" WRONG
1. officially and publically advised "letters patent"/Viscount title lacks membership "by virtue", as the 1999 act removed "membership" (word used) to the House of Lords as upheld in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice
2. Upon House of Lord's Viscount Colville death, Monckton as a hereditary peer offered himself but garnered NOT ONE VOTE
Monckton has NEVER been a member and is NOT WANTED. "Get use to it!"
@tincoffin, you claim "i have answered all your questions", and as per Lord Monckton "May I perhaps refer the Honourable [Sir]" to the 3 questions in the VERY LAST POST, repeated here:
AGAIN why of 569 peers who lost House of Lords seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims he's still a member?
AGAIN If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed? Ofcourse. Now watch 9RPX4zFeMGw at 4:30
AGAIN You DIDN'T address any of the previous 6 numbered points either
@ZangaroZen For the last time :1.I do not think that a temporarily elected government has the right to change the constitution . The House of Lords is an independent body and cannot be dictated to in this manner.Neither does the House of lords have the right to dictate the composition of their members.2.That right belongs to the people directly not through their elected representaves and the options decided through a referendum as was customary long before the 1999 Act .
@tincoffin 3.That the hereditaries have no rights to give away their rights unless agreed by 2.above.I said that so far that has meant surrendering to government bureaucrats and jobsworths.4. That the absence of a written constitution cannot be used as an excuse for unconstitutional acts although it probably means that the matter can be addressed only through the courts.
@tincoffin, (con't) note my last post on your points 1 and 2. If the UK reality is unclear then name cases where "decided through a referendum as was customary long before the 1999 Act" or admit you're BSing
3. "hereditaries have no rights to give away their rights", reality is a "letter patent" is NOT a House of Lords "by virtue" seat as per 1999 Act and Mereworth v MoJ
4. "absence of a...constitution...", can't violate the non-existant
5. "1999 Act is invalid" WRONG, 569 seats were revoked
@tincoffin, you say "I do not think", and that's your problem "thinking" your declared wishful opinions amounts to fact. Your empty opinions are irrelevant. "Get use to it!"
Reality is the UK: is NOT Australia, LACKS a single constitution document, allows its government to alter its make up. "Get use to it!"
1999 Act as passed by Parliament and Royal assent, is legal in the UK, as per Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice. "Get use to it!"
"Parliamentary sovereignty meaning parliament can pass any legislation" No it does not.It has no right to change the constitution.For example : No branch has the power to abdicate its responsibilities because that would imply handing them over to someone else . A dictator for example. Equally the hereditary peers have no right to debar others from exercising their rights anymore than MPs in the Commons can debar any of their elected members.
@tincoffin As the American constitution has it ,these truths are self-evident .it does not require a lawyer or anyone else to see the validity of them.
@tincoffin There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that says that the congress can't amend the constitution to change the structure of Congress! In fact, the U.S. constitution can be amended much more easily than the Australian constitution!
In fact, it is a completely undemocratic assertion to say that the existing structure of the legislature can't be changed, irrespective of the will of the legislature and the voters that elect members to it! You should read some Thomas Paine.
@tincoffin Dear oh dear. The Parliament represents the people!
Again, you are completely confused about the power of the UK Parliament. Australia has a constitution that means there are some things the parliament simply can't change (such as the relative ratio of Senators in each original state). But the UK doesn't have such a document, so the parliament has the power to change arguably any law, perhaps with the exception of some treaties that it has entered into.
@ShowsOn Look you are quite right . The British constitution is a moth eaten old fabric . Full of holes ,anomalies ,non-sequiters and the rest . One of which is the absence of a written constitution . After 1000 years it is distinctly tired . As a result a bunch of adventurers with whom you seem to identify thinks they can step in and tell us what it all means.
@tincoffin Um no, the courts tell us what the constitution means (of-course the ultimate court in the UK is the Privy Council, whereas Australia cut its ties to the Privy Council in the 1970s, so the ultimate court for Australia is the High Court which is the supreme constitutional court and the supreme federal court.)
But I think we have found something we agree on. The UK should have a written constitution.
@tincoffin Completely wrong. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, it simply has conventions and some Acts that determine how parliament operates. Since they are simple Acts, they can be amended with other Acts that amend or even repeal prior Acts. That's how the make up of the House of Lords was amended, the Parliament passed the House of Lords Act 1999 to change the structure of the House of Lords. Again, you seem to be arguing that the UK should have a constitution like Australia!
Very true . And the 1999 act was passed largely on the understanding that the House of Lords would be reformed . But guess what.. they conveniently forget this part of it and replace the hereditaries with government jobsworths and bureaucrats and believe me it is not an improvement.
@tincoffin Well it should be a democratically elected chamber, like the Australian Senate has been for almost 110 years. I'm pretty sure the Liberal Democrats want it to be at least a partly elected chamber.
Wiki says this : . "Significant power is conferred upon the Senate by the Australian Constitution, including the capacity to block legislation initiated by the government in the House of Representatives, making it a distinctive hybrid of British Westminster bicameralism and American-style bicameralism." So it is not as you said based entirely on the US senate and the role of the Senate is pretty well identical to that of the House of Lords.
@tincoffin Never said it was based "entirely" on the U.S. Senate, but it is more like the Senate than the House of Lords, primarily because it has always been a democratically elected chamber that doesn't require the presence of a minister to function. It's function is NOT "pretty well identical" to the House of Lords at all, because to become a Senator a person must be ELECTED.
The House of Lords differs from the Australian & US models in that it has evolved over 700 years.There is no written constitution . All sorts of odd rules have come about over that period so I don't disbelieve you . Where did you get this information from ? It may well be that a minister has to be present for some reason but it has absolutely no significance. I mean look at the ministers who are members .Under secretary of state for this and that.
@tincoffin HOORAY! Finally you have realised your assertion that the Australian Senate is "the equivalent" of the House of Lords is wrong! Another major difference is that the Australian Senate has always been an elected chamber, with a membership determined by the Constitution.
Now, the changes to membership of the House of Lords that you talk about was the 1999 House of Lords Act that was, wait for it, passed by The UK Parliament, including the House of Lords!
@ShowsOn The 1999 Act would be illegal in Australia. Without a written constitution an elected government in the UK can do what it wants. It is an obvious flaw and it has never been addressed because in the past governments of all political parties were prepared to act within the constitution.
@tincoffin What the hell are you going on about? The structure of the House of Lords can be changed with an Act of the UK parliament, that is what the UK Parliament did in 1999. It crafted a bill that the House of Lords, which at the time had a conservative majority, supported. The Australian parliament CAN increase or decrease the size of the Senate, but all the original states must have at least 5 Senators; anything less than that would require a constitutional amendment via a referendum.
Monckton's confused. "Ad hominem" means to attack the person and not the arguement.
Since Monckton admits to "exploit it [his inheredited title] quite shamelessly", dropping "Lord" and "Member of the House of Lords" at every opportunity, to lend credibility to all his claims, it's therefore fair game to note that "the house of Lords says [he's] not a member of it".
As for Monckton's passport, obviously a clerk was hoodwinked. That grievise error should be corrected on passport renewal.
@ZangaroZen, UPDATE, from BIRTH Monckton's title has been "The Honourable" meaning son of a Viscount, NOT a member of the House of Lords as he now claims. WHAT A FRAUD.
Former journalist Monckton's current title of "Lord" or "Third Viscount" (third meaning grandson) was INHERITED only in 2006 from his father (an army Major General and decorated veteran of WW2 and Korea) whom inherited that title from Monckton's grandfather (politician of many senior government cabinet posts).
@ZangaroZen, (con't), as per my previous posts, "The Honourable" on Monckton's passport is a grievise passport clerical error, as:
1. Monckton's formal title of "Viscount"/"Lord" supercedes the use of "The Honourable" which again means son of a Viscount NOT member of the "Right Honourable" House of Lords
2. members of "The Honourable" House of Commons, do use "The Honourable" but only as a VERBAL courtesy
Monckton is either "Lord" or "3rd Viscount of Brenchley" only NOT a "(Right) Honourable"
The House of Lords writes Monckton their pathetic little letters because they don't dare take him to court.. The House of Lords is supposed to be an independent body so what right did a temporarily elected government have to determine its composition ? It now wants to remove its function as a court. These constitutional matters should only be decided by a referendum as in Australia
@tincoffin What a load of absolute crap. Are you seriously saying to me that if someone went around Australia claiming to be a Senator, when they weren't, that the Clerk of the Senate wouldn't have something to say about that?
It's hilarious the absurd contortions the Moncktonites put themselves through in order to avoid dealing with the fact that Monckton is not only a pompous git, but also a frequent teller of untruths.
@ShowsOn So you would be quite happy if the Australian government decided to remove a third of the Australian senate on the grounds that it did not like them ? Because that is what has happened in UK.
@tincoffin What the hell are you going on about? How did i write anything close to your assertion that I would be happy if "a third of the Australian Senate" was removed? I simply made the observation that if someone was going around Australia saying they are a Senator even though they aren't, the Clerk of the Senate would probably refer the matter directly to the police. Australia has a constitution that details the make up of the Senate, maybe you should read it before asserting such nonsense
@ShowsOn You are missing the point . The House of Lords is more or less equivalent to the Australian Senate. I asked how you would feel if the government arbitrarily removed the right of a senator to take his seat as Monckton was prevented from taking his.In Australia it would be illegal but Britain has no written constitution and so cannot be deemed illegal unless tested in court. If an senator was removed in this way and went on calling himself a senator I think people would understand.
@tincoffin WRONG! The Australian Senate is modelled more closely on the United States Senate! That is one of the reasons it is called "Senate". Unlike the House of Lords, the Australian Senate is completley separate from executive government and can operate even without the presence of a minister (unlike the House of Representatives). Again, you should read the Australian constition before lecturing people on the powers of the Senate and the executive.
@ShowsOn And of course the same is true of the House of Lords . You have unwittingly conceded the point I was making . the House of Lords ,US Senate ,Australian Senate are supposed to be separate from the executive government . It follows then that the government has no right to exclude members it happens not to like such as Monckton .
@tincoffin Completely wrong! Again you demonstration that you have no understanding of how the Australian Senate works as described by the constitution. The House of Lords requires the presence of at least one minister of the Crown to function because only ministers can move procedural motions. This is not the case for the Australian or U.S. Senates. Again, you need to actually read about what you are describing before lecturing people about how their Upper-houses work.
@ShowsOn I don't know where you get that idea from . Very few of the government ministers sit in the House of Lords. The whole purpose of the House of Lords is to hold government bills up to scrutiny and for that they must be independent. Now their role as a court has been abolished that is the only role left to them.
@tincoffin Wow! So not only do you have absolutely no idea how the Australian Senate operates, you have just demonstrated that you have no idea how the House of Lords works. If all ministers, and the Leader of the House of Lords refused to attend the House of Lords, it wouldn't be able to do any businesses because no one else can move procedural motions to bring on consideration of bills. This does not apply to the Australian Senate, because it was modeled more closely on the U.S. Senate.
@tincoffin, Monckton is such a pathetic title fraudster, that the title he inherited from his father in 2006 should be revoked.
"The Honourable" means son/daughter of a Viscount, granted at BIRTH. All Monckton's siblings have the title "The Honourable". According to your logic all the Monckton children have been members of the House of Lords since birth. ROFLMAO
The moment Monckton inherited the title "3rd Viscount of Brenchley"/"Lord" that title superceded the use of "The Honourable".
@ZangaroZen No only the head of he family ,which he now is, is entitled to a seat in the House of Lords and he is not an Honourable . He was until he succeeded to the title.
1. "entitled to a seat" WRONG the "House of Lords Act" of 1999, 7 years before Monckton inherited title, expelled all but 92 hereditary peers, that's 569 peers including Monckton's father. The father was a member of the House of Lords from 1965 until 1999, however Monckton himself has NEVER been a member.
2. "not an Honourable", RIGHT Monckton's passport should omit "The Honourable" for your stated reason not to mention his dishonesty and gross lack of ethics
@ZangaroZen Well as I say I disagree with you very strongly . I don't think that the power to amend a constitution should be in the government's hands but in the peoples and should be decided by referendum.
@tincoffin, as for a referendum to amend a constitution, and thereby make clear Lord Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, that's not the way the republics nor parliamentary governments work, as obviously every citizen can't participate continually in government. The practical compromise is to elect representatives, and those elected officials make decisions on the voter's behalf, such as the "House of Lords Act" and it's huge popular support. (con't)
@ZangaroZen Where are the elected members of the House of Lords ? .Nowhere to be seen. That's what happens when you allow governments and not the people to amend the constitution.
@tincoffin, you've conceed that Monckton's passport quote "The Right Honourable" is a reference to his 2006 inherited title of Viscount, and not membership in "The Right Honourable House of Lords", just as Monckton and his siblings at birth title of "Honourable" is a reference to being a Viscount offspring and not membership in the elected "The Honourable House of Commons".
You demand "People to amend the constitution", the people elect those that amend the constitution. BASIC
@ZangaroZen 1. You are right . 2. Wrong .Noone not even elected officials have the right to amend the constitution. That power rests with the people directly. 3.Wrong . For the reasons given above. 4. Wrong Monckton is not a Right honourable or an honourable.
2. Provide a reputable link noting Monckton's father's House of Lord seat survived after the House of Lords Act of 1999 revoked 569 peer seats
4. Wrong, as with point 1 which you conceeded, Viscount offspring inherit the title "The Honourable" at birth, while the eldest surviving son inherits the title Viscount/Lord/Right Honourable upon their father's death. "Right Honourable" in the UK is a title bestoyed on Earls, VISCOUNTS, Barons, and Privy councillors
@tincoffin, "House of Lords Act" was passed by Parliament and received the FULL WEIGHT OF ROYAL ASSENT in 1999. Act provisions for grandfathering 92 seats was by ascending peer votes. Those without suffiicent votes, 569 hereditary peers including Monckton's father, LOST their seats. 7 years later Monckton inherited a tile NOT a House of Lords seat.
"The Right Honourable" refers ONLY to Monckton's inherited "Viscount" title NOT a House of Lords seat. Claiming otherwise is Monckton's fraud.
@ZangaroZen The executive does not have the right to change the constitution. It is the one power that an elected government does not possess. Where does this right which you have given them end ? Getting rid of unpopular members of the Commons maybe or abolition of the monarchy . This form of constitutional change is unprecedented .Nothing like it has been done before it has not been challenged at law.
5. The UK has NO single/core constitution document, but a set of rules, laws, statues, court judgements, treaties, conventions, Royal prerogatives, etc, under the umbrella of supreme legal parliamentary sovereignty
6. Parliamentary sovereignty meaning parliament can pass any legislation, including how it functions, as per the Reform Act of 1832, Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 (removing the House of Lords input under certain instances), and House of Lords Act of 1999
@ZangaroZen You don't need the brains of an archbishop to see the difference between the earlier cases you cite and the 1999 act.If the Lords had not been reformed in the earlier cases there would have been a constitutional crisis.No crisis threatened in 1999.
@ZangaroZen 1832 Reform : It is hardly controversial that when a place like Old Sarum (Google it.There is a good photo!) returns two members to parliament and a great northern industrial city can send one or even none at all that something needs to change.
1911 Reform: The House of Lords tried to block the legislative program of the Commons. Again no surprises that something had to change.
@ZangaroZen 1949 Act: Lords perceived though not actual threat to Labour Nationalisation program.Small curtailment of Lord's delaying powers.Its validity has been contantly questioned because the threat did not exist but too slight to merit much attention
1999 Act:Vast wide ranging constitutional change. Differed completely from earlier reformsin that there was no constitutional problem to confront. Entirely at the whim of a temporarily elected governing party.
@tincoffin, asked "What above SPECIFIC point confuses you?", you couldn't quoting ANY point, conceeding that ALL points are correct
So you dislike the 1999 Act, as Monckton would say "get use to it"
Why of 569 peers who lost seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims his passport's "The Right Honourable" is not solely a reference to his inherited "Viscount" title but proves he's a member of the House of Lords?
If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed?
Would an MP have the right to say " Oh I give up the seat to which I have been elected Oh look here's another nice bloke I will give it to him instead. "
Monckton has absolutely no right to give up the rights he has inherited from his father.
If the people decide through a referendum that he should give them up then he is obliged to do so.
@tincoffin, listed 6 numbered points and challenged you to refute any SPECIFIC POINT and you DIDN'T NOTE ANY POINT. Do so now, or conceed on all points
You cry "MP...I give up the seat...to him instead", as you VERY WELL KNOW a byelection is held for an MP seat. The House of Lords is not elected and subject to Parliamentary soverengnty and royal assent changes, ie 1999 Act having wide electorate and hense parliamentary support.
"inherited from his father", father LOST it in 1999
@ZangaroZen Alright take a non-elected office. Chief Justice of Australia.... and the executive votes for it's abolition. I hope he would say to them " Why do you not just eff of to where you came from... We are an independent body and my position does not depend on your consent " said in the language of Australian Shouted which I cannot imitate
Australia's Chief Justice is irrelevant to the UK House of Lords. Stay on topic.
You've had 2 opportunities to address 6 POINTS OF FACT, and couldn't muster anything. That's 6 concessions.
As for your reasoning and SUPPORT for 1832 and 1911 acts, both did not require a referendum, neither did 1999 Act which addressed too many completely incompetent morons inheriting seats without merit to the House of Lords. As Monckton would say "Get use to it!"
Again Monckton's father LOST his seat in 1999, and what he no longer has can't be inherited. Agreed?
While a Lord by title and deed, he is not a member of the House of Lords because most hereditary lords were kicked out of the House of Lords in 1999 due to a change in the Law (House of Lords Act 1999).
Also, Buckingham Palace was drawn into the debate, and requested the Lord Chamberlain to tell Monckton to stop using a portcullis symbol on his website and slides (a symbol for the House of Lords). He has altered its design a bit.
Monckton couldnt lie straight in bed.....although its probably because his eyes are crooked.......but even if he could see straight he lies about eveything. He said he has a nobel peace prize, he said he has a cure for cancer and MS and AIDS, he said he was a policy adviser to Thatcher, its just lie after lie. If i was on the side of the climate deniers i would find another spokesman, this guy has bad form.
@Jayro1870 YAWN plus SNORE. Thank you for your reply which demonstrates again that Lord Monckton is a teller of untruths as he is not actually a member of the House of Lords.
@Jayro1870 Yes I agree with you that Lordy Monckton (non-Member of the House of Lords) spreads lies. Thank you for agreeing with this self evident fact.
@Jayro1870 Yes I know you never said that, because people who say Lord Monckton is a member of the House of Lords (including Lord Monckton himself) are at best ill-informed and at worst lying.
@alSation81 Well that's the funny thing, Monckton's response to the question is a complete non sequitor. He very theatrically gets the 'debate' moderator to read his passport, but that has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not he is a member of the House of Lords! He did a similar thing earlier in the debate when he referred to the fact he was wearing a Democratic Labor Party tie! He is great with props, and performing, but terrible with putting forward coherent arguments.
@alSation81 He suffers from something called Graves disease (in fact, he says he has discovered a drug that cures, among other things Graves disease, HIV/AIDS and the common cold)
@Jayro1870 Yes I agree with you that Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords, he never has been, he isn't currently, and given his infamy it is extremely unlikely that he ever will be.
@Jayro1870 No, the subject of this video is the disinformation spread by Lord Monckton. That's all I'm interested in. Somehow Monckton can repeatedly assert something that is untrue, but his followers don't think that they should stop and question the character of someone who makes such claims that are wrong.
If Monckton says misleading things about his membership of the House of Lords, what other inaccurate things does he say?
@Jayro1870 Don't worry about enlightening everybody about why Lord Monckton continues to claim he is a member of the House of Lords as requested by Showon. I just did it. Come to the comments section of this video to check it out. ;-).
Law can be a tricky thing to understand sometimes.
In the in the House of Lords Act 1999 it states "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
In the letter to Lord Monckton Mr Justice Lewison is quoted as stating in judgement of the act in question(& only the act in question) "In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House"
---> Now in the act if you replace 'a member of the House of Lords' with what Justice Lewison stated in his judgement this means, "right to sit and vote in that House", you would get the following.
No-one shall have right to sit and vote in the house of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
Looks to me that Lord Monckton is correct. The act doesn't remove him as a member of the house of Lords only his right to sit and vote in the house.
@steam0001 Stop making shit up. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords; he isn't now, nor has he ever been.
@ShowsOn I am sorry. I did not intend to "make shit up". Can you please point out to me were I have misquoted from the act or the letter in question. Which "facts" did I make up?
@steam0001 You misread the fact that the Clerk of the UK Parliament says that Lord Monckton says he has never been a member of the House of Lords and he isn't a member of the House of Lords now.
You are arguing against the person who's role is to defend the integrity of the UK Parliament. Good luck with that.
@ShowsOn I didn't misread what the clerk of the UK Parliament stated. I disagree with his interpretation of the law & the judge's decision on said law.
You are making an appeal to authority. Stating you are right because that is what the clerk stated. I could also make an appeal to authority. I am right because of what Lord Monckton stated. But I would be just as wrong as you to so. Argue the facts.
So am I to take that you do not find any of my facts to be incorrect? If so you should apologize.
@steam0001 The authority I am appealing to is a judge who wrote a judgement that says you are completely wrong, hence everything you have written is also completely wrong, and Lord Monckton is wrong, and a charlatan, and a teller of untruths, and an obfuscator, and a pompous git who should stop going around telling Australians how they should run their country.
You'll reply saying that you know more about the UK Parliament than the Clerk of the UK Parliament. I'll defend your right to be wrong
@ShowsOn Your interpretation of what Justice Lewison's judgement in this case is incorrect. His judgement is in reference to & only to the meaning of the act. Nothing else. His statement is a direct reference to the law were it states 'a member of the House of Lords' & what that means in the law. That what judges do in civil a suit. Interpret law. He is not making a statement of who is or is not a member of the house of Lords.
If anything this judgement strengthens Lord Monckton's position.
@steam0001 Um, no the Clerk of the UK parliament says Monckton isn't and never has been a member of the House of Lords. Anyone arguing otherwise is thus a buffoon.
Yes, the judgement strengthens Monckton's position as a charlatan, snake oil salesmen, teller of untruths, andvaudeville artist who's medium of choice is manure.
@ShowsOn Why is those on the left always resort to name calling when they know they cannot provide a valid counter argument?
Again that what is with the appeal to authority? Are those in authority always right? If the clerk of the UK Parliament told you to jump off a bridge would you? Appeal to authority is not a valid argument.
Either provide a valid argument or stop wasting my time. Show me were I "made shit up" &/or were I have miss quoted. Provide a valid argument or admit you were wrong.
@steam0001 Yes I agree it was wrong for Lord Monckton to call Professor Ross Garnaut a Nazi. That is the sort of name calling that Monckton has to revert to because he doesn't have a valid argument.
I also note that Professor Garnaut had to earn his title, it wasn't simply inherited.
@ShowsOn I did a little checking & in the same judgement he rule that the law didn't remove letters Patent. The letters Patent are what is given to someone by the crown to make them a Lord & gives them the right to sit in the house of Lords. Unfortunately the judge rule that he didn't have jurisdiction to decide if the government was wrong to not call upon the Lord who brought the case to take the oath & sit in the house of Lords with full rights!
Since you like to appeal to authority so much I hear by trump your Clerk of the parliament with the crown of the UK H.R.M. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@steam0001 Why thank you for invoking the Queen of Australia, or as I like to call her Frau Battenberg. It is interesting to know that Her Maj's legal advisers asked the UK Parliament to get Lordy Monckton to stop using Crown trademarks when he isn't a member of the House of Lords.
@steam0001 I did a little checking and discovered on the UK Parliament website a letter from the Clerk of the Parliament that says Lord Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords and has never been a member of the House of Lords. I do notice that when he last put his name forward to become a member of the House of Lords his fellow Lords (the ones that actually are members) awarded him a grand total of ZERO (0) votes.
@ShowsOn I do not not know more then the clerk. I merely looked at what he stated & quoted, & pointed out his misinterpretation of the law & the judges interpretation of the law.
@steam0001 That's fine and I thank you for this clarification. I simply pointed out that Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords even though he has repeatedly claimed otherwise.
@steam0001 YAWN Clerk of the UK Parliament: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
@Jayro1870 Maybe you could enlighten everybody about why Lord Monckton continues to claim he is a member of the House of Lords when that is a blatant untruth?
@dessipura Ha ha. Yeh you go ahead with your toothless "pwned". Better to be a leftard who listens to experts in the field than a retard who believes a totally unqualified non-scientist blowhard who is the only public representative of the 5% of scientific 'deniers'.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill." - The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome, 1992, ISBN-10: 0671711075
@nepta00 Oh no there were many other misstatements, half truths and obfuscation. But this was the most blatant instance where he said something that is demonstrably untrue.
@ShowsOn Actually it is a sad indictment on the quality of Australian jounalism that the media coverage of what was an important debate, with plenty of issues from both sides, is so far focused on one petty side issue raised in an impertinent manner by a junior jounalist. The debate was about climate change. Convene another debate on Monkton`s title if you want, he would probably win it too.
@sangstar1 Yes I was disappointed that more media organisations didn't show this clip in order to demonstrate that Monckton had said something that is untrue and that he has been told to stop saying three times by the UK Parliament. I mean hey, I like a bit of theatre and that handing over of his passport in order to get the moderator to read out his full title was a nice touch, but just because someone is a hereditary peer doesn't make them a member of the House of Lords.
@sangstar1 You are talking about the, House of Lords Act 1999. There was a compromise, (a) the Act did permit ninety-two hereditaries to remain in the House on an interim basis (b) House of Lords Act in 1999 also made another ten hereditaries were created life peers to be able to remain in the House.
@ShowsOn Have you read my description site on Lord Christopher Monkton Debate Dr Richard Dennis at the, National Press Club Address 19/07/2011? Click were it says show more.
@nepta00 Ask ShowsOn what credentials he is claiming as untrue! Then ask "what temperature drop is proven fact that we will receive from the introduction of a CARBON TAX" The replies will be answered by questions & not one fact! Its worth a laugh just to ask the questions to giggle at the replies!
@unreal22000 I'm claiming that Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords when he says he is. If you don't believe me, go and read the UK Parliament's website where the Clerk of the Parliament has published a cease and desist letter to encourage Monckton to stop spreading untruths.
If anyone is actually interested in the truth of Lord Monckton's membership of the House of Lords, google 'dont mock the monck' (it's on Watts Up With That blog) and read the pdf linked at the bottom of the page for the full response, that unequivocally states that he IS a member, in the manner that he always states.
snertvart 2 months ago
A constitutional lawyer has just said that Monckton is right on all counts and is a member of the House of Lords so that wraps it up for now unless you are a constitutional lawyer.
tincoffin 2 months ago
This clown is NOT a member of the House of Lords and never has been. He inherited the title of Viscount on his father's death, which by protocol affords the appellation 'Lord Monckton' .
The clerk to the parliaments made a point of publishing a letter on the uk parliament website asking him to desist with his false claim.
widebody123 3 months ago
So a leader with an enormous popular mandate who passes an act with a majority in the House of Commons cannot be challenged in the courts nor can the act be prevented except by a slight delay in its implementation.Reminds me of the rise to power of old what's his face in Germany a few years back.Nice to know he would have found Britain a pushover. Anyway I'm of now. My last comment.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you quoted some of my statements without refuting ANY with facts.
You say "leader with an enormous popular mandate...majority in the House of Commons cannot be challenged in the courts nor can the act be prevented", yes assuming many culpable/unscrupilous PMs, except the Monarch could withhold royal assent and/or use reserve powers to dismiss the PM, etc
"in Germany", Hitler's case is different, the NAZIs engineered a crisis, secured martial law and circumvented the constitution
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
Your quotes: " parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality."
"Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act?... Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority."
"while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty"."
tincoffin 6 months ago
" parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality."
"Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act?... Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority." "while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty"."
tincoffin 6 months ago
". is wrong but "the commons has far more power "is not an answer 3. You might be right but you must justify it. 4." No the reverse an exercise in it " If the reverse is true you must say why. 5. Is simply an assertion.
tincoffin 6 months ago
Are we discussing finance bills or the constitution ?
tincoffin 6 months ago
In 1974 something else happened which did not arise out of a crisis .The constitution was working ,no problem needed resolving and for this reason as well as the fact that it entailed a loss of parliamentary sovereignty a referendum was held about Britain joining the EU. It was used this year about voting systems. I think it might have been used on another occasion . There is a precedent so why was it not used in 1999. An attack on the Lords was made by the Commons
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Its authority was compromised first by removing the hereditaries and altering its composition, then by replacing them with government appointees and finally by removing its powers as a court . All this is done in secret ,the people are not consulted in any way and it obviously threatens parliamentary sovereignty. Its purpose appears to be to neuter one of the three branches of the executive. and so threatens parliamentary sovereignty .
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin So this matter is not just about Monckton and his peerage it affects everyone in the country.As the House of Lords is or was the highest court in the land (I dont know where we stand now) the Mereworh case in another court had no jurisdiction. Anything they said had no more relevance than a meeting of lawyers in a pub.I think the 1999 Act is invalid because it attacks parliamentary sovereignty.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say
1. "if Royal assent is left out How can the act be valid", a formality rubber stamp rarely denied
2. "House of Lords is or was the highest court in the land", NO, a much deminished legislature NOT a court. The Commons has far more power, a complete reversal over 350 years
3. Mereworth's case had no merit as the 1999 Act covers his issue
4. "attacks parliamentary sovereignty", NO the REVERSE, an exercise IN it
5. "finance bills or the consitituion" NO Monckton's fraud
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen To the question "If Royalty is left out How can the act be valid" the answer can be "Yes it is valid ""No it isn't " Yes but I disagree " or "No but I agree" Your reply : "a formality rubber stamp rarely denied " cannot be an answer. An argument must be conducted in a logical fashion .Otherwise what is the point?
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin,
1. "a formality rubber stamp rarely denied" sums up the reality of royal assent and the monarch's figurehead status. Besides you asked about a "supreme legislature", legislature meaning ability to create, pass, amend, and revoke laws. When was the last time the Monarch initiated such things? You do realize the 1999 Act received royal assent, and therefore by your insistence is valid.
2. "is not an answer", accept reality the House of Lords is a legislature NOT a court
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't)
3. "must justify it", NO Mereworth's FAILED case result is it's own justification
4. "if the reverse is true you must say why", parliamentary sovereignty means they can attend to laws WITHOUT courts challenging the constitutionality. The more powerful Commons can therefore change the legislature process, wihle the Lords can at best only delay such changes
5. "simply an assertion" rewatch the video, the topic is Monckton's fraudulent claims to membership in the House of Lords
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't) Monckton's frauds:
A) Monckton's passport doesn't mention "House of Lords", while "The Right Honourable" refers to his 2006 inherited Viscount title ONLY, NOT membership in "the right honourable House of Lords", NOR a major city Majorship, NOR a Pivy Council seat, NOR a minister. Similarly Prior to 2006 Monckton's birth title of "Honourable" refered to being a Viscount's offspring NOT membership in "the honourable House of Commons"
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't)
B) House of Lords declared Monckton has never been a member
C) Parliamentary sovereignty allows any law changes
D) 1999 House of Lords Act revoked 569 hereditary peer membership, Monckton's father included
E) Monckton can't inherit in 2006 what his father lost
F) an inherited title (patent letter) does not "by virtue" include a Writ of Summons
G) Baron Mereworth contested points E) and F) and lost
H) Monckton has NO House of Lords benefits: salary, office, staff, etc
Monckton's a fraud
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say "authority was compromised", over 300 years authority has shifted from the Monarch to the Lords and then to the Commons. "Get use to it!". For all your complaining you should be exstatic that the Monarch now has a figurehead role, the Lords are a secondary legislature with definite limits as to what bills they can table, alter, delay, etc, while the ELECTED Commons has most of the power to exercise "parliamentary sovereignty".
You say "done in secret", NO an election promise
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say "referendum was held about Britain joining the EU", WRONG, the UK joined the EEC in 1973, while the 1975 referendum, as per an election promise, was to gage CONTINUED membership, resulting in 67% in favor. The only UK wide referendum in history.
Why no referendum regarding the 1999 Act? Parliamentary Sovereignty, and huge landslide popular support for an election promise by the incoming Labour majority.
Monckton's "membership" lacks a: seat, vote, office, salary, staff, etc
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
Well you are nearly right . Parliamentary Supremacy refers to a three way arrangement .King,lords and commons. Three independent bodies operating in tandem and the country has been governed by it for 350 years and still is. But the obvious corollary of this is that none of the three parts or the whole can give away their powers to another body because then " parliament " is no longer "supreme"
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Over the centuries there were numerous crises first with the monarchy and parliament later the House of lords and parliament notably in 1832 and then 1911. There was no notion of a referendum then but even if there had been it could not have resolved anything.They were triggered by a crisis and obviously one of the bodies was going to have to give way and most people accepted the outcome when they were eventually resolved
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, "you are nearly right", should've been obvious that the formality of "Royal assent" as I've mentioned several times previously was deliberately left out, to entice you into making a fuss.
Bills originate in either house, are read, committeed, reported, passed, and sent to the other house for consideration. The Lords are excluded from finance bills and outright rejection. In other words the Commons can bypass the Lords rejection or after atmost a year. "Get use to it!"
Your point?
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
Comment removed
tincoffin 6 months ago
And if you think I am trying to trick you you can always look it up on Google or in a constitutional history and see what it means
tincoffin 6 months ago
And what does this "supreme legislative " consist of ?
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say "And what does this 'supreme legislative' consist of?", so now you're trying to be enormously clever with an oh so very very obvious bait question. Not clever after all. Go ahead and answer your own question with your own IDEAL ANSWER, and you not being much of a lawyer, it will be trivial for a layman to pwn you on why you're wrong.
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen You use the term so you obviously have a pretty good idea what you mean by it . It can't be difficult for you to answer.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, unbelieveably you still clinging to your bait question, even after being called on it, and yet you can't muster up your own hoped for ideal answer. How sadly desperate.
You are hoping for the answer to "what does this 'supreme legislative' consist of" is "House of Commons AND House of Lords"
So let's see how clever a lawyer you are going to try to be now.
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
What do you think constitutes the parliament of the "parliamentary sovereignty " which you talk about ?
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, "Parliamentary sovereignty" means SUPREME LEGISLATIVE above ALL other judicial bodies.
Monckton's admits his father LOST his House of Lords seat. It follows that he CAN'T INHERIT A LOST ITEM, furthermore parliamentary sovereignty as per the House of Lords Act revoked MEMBERSHIP "by virtue of patent letters". 568 peers accepted reality while Baron Mereworth's court challenged FAILED.
"Right Honourable" refers to Monckton's INHERITED Viscount TITLE AND NOTHING MORE.
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
1. How about the 1974 referendum on our accession to the EU . 2. the High court said that it had no jurisdiction on the matter of "letters patent" not that the argument was wrong.4.The constitution is not "non-existent".IThe UK has the oldest constitution in the world (Japan might challenge that or Iceland) It is contained in the laws of England. 5.I believe the 1999 act is invalid so do not accept judgments based on it
5. i believe as if have said that the 1999 act is invalid
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin,
1. "1974 referendum on our accession to the EU", that's your many "customary CASES [plural]...long before the 1999 Act", one solitary case in recent history, the ONLY UK wide example, which was NOT AN ACCESSION but a gauge of continued support to having joined the EU 2 years previous, as per an election promise. Admit you can't back up your demands for a House of Lords referendum
2. AGAIN the court deferred to 1999 Act which clearly revokes seats "by virtue" of Patent Letters
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't)
4. "UK has the oldest constitution in the world...contained in the laws of England", you admit the concept of a UK consitution spread over numerous documents, unlike traditional centralized US type constitution. By that/your measure any collection of laws would be a constitution. FACT is UK parliamentary sovereignty allows it to alter the way government functions, including the House of Lords WITHOUT a referendum. Disagree, then quote superior UK referendum law. You can't
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't)
5. "I beleive the 1999 ACt is invalid", again declaring your opinion as fact, delusional persistence doesn't trump you're inability to provide ANY supporting facts.
5. You also declare "do not accept judgments based on it". Are you a Lord? A hereditary peer? If not then stop pretending the 1999 Act requiers your acceptance. FACT is 568 ACTUAL Lords accepted the 1999 Act's judgement, while Baron Mereworth pursued a legal case and lost completely, and fined £8,800. "Get use to it!"
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
(con't)
Review:
A. Monckton claims his passport's "The Right Honourable" proves he's a "non-sitting, non-voting, member of the House of Lords", instead of SOLELY a reference to a Viscount title inherited 7 years after Monckton admits his father lost his seat
B. House of Lords officially denounced Monckton as never being a member
C. Mereworth case deferred to the 1999 Act
D. Monckton so called non-seat/voting "membership" is without salary, office, staff, etc.
E. You my yourself meet conditions D
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
Comment removed
tincoffin 6 months ago
I am sorry Zangaro i can't be assed to go on answering your questions which are simply repeats of what you said before. If the House of Lords wants to shut Monckton up then all they need do is take him to court. That should do the trick .Goodnight
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say "can't be assed to go on answering your questions", point is you DON'T answer questions, proving you're an extremely bad sport. You DIDN'T address any of the numbered points either. All you do is declare your opinion as fact.
AGAIN why of 569 peers who lost House of Lords seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims he's still a member?
If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed? Ofcourse. Well guess what watch 9RPX4zFeMGw at 4:30
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen i have answered all your questions including the one you put here about his claims vanishing but you just go on repeating them ad nauseam
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin and as Monckton says the House of Lords..." has not so far found the courage to answer ". Perhaps they are less certain of their position than you are.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't) you quote Monckton "not so far found the courage to answer" WRONG
1. officially and publically advised "letters patent"/Viscount title lacks membership "by virtue", as the 1999 act removed "membership" (word used) to the House of Lords as upheld in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice
2. Upon House of Lord's Viscount Colville death, Monckton as a hereditary peer offered himself but garnered NOT ONE VOTE
Monckton has NEVER been a member and is NOT WANTED. "Get use to it!"
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you claim "i have answered all your questions", and as per Lord Monckton "May I perhaps refer the Honourable [Sir]" to the 3 questions in the VERY LAST POST, repeated here:
AGAIN why of 569 peers who lost House of Lords seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims he's still a member?
AGAIN If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed? Ofcourse. Now watch 9RPX4zFeMGw at 4:30
AGAIN You DIDN'T address any of the previous 6 numbered points either
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen For the last time :1.I do not think that a temporarily elected government has the right to change the constitution . The House of Lords is an independent body and cannot be dictated to in this manner.Neither does the House of lords have the right to dictate the composition of their members.2.That right belongs to the people directly not through their elected representaves and the options decided through a referendum as was customary long before the 1999 Act .
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin 3.That the hereditaries have no rights to give away their rights unless agreed by 2.above.I said that so far that has meant surrendering to government bureaucrats and jobsworths.4. That the absence of a written constitution cannot be used as an excuse for unconstitutional acts although it probably means that the matter can be addressed only through the courts.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin 5.The specific points you raise have no relevance if the 1999 Act is invalid
You might not agree but you cannot again say that I have not answered your questions.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't) note my last post on your points 1 and 2. If the UK reality is unclear then name cases where "decided through a referendum as was customary long before the 1999 Act" or admit you're BSing
3. "hereditaries have no rights to give away their rights", reality is a "letter patent" is NOT a House of Lords "by virtue" seat as per 1999 Act and Mereworth v MoJ
4. "absence of a...constitution...", can't violate the non-existant
5. "1999 Act is invalid" WRONG, 569 seats were revoked
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say "I do not think", and that's your problem "thinking" your declared wishful opinions amounts to fact. Your empty opinions are irrelevant. "Get use to it!"
Reality is the UK: is NOT Australia, LACKS a single constitution document, allows its government to alter its make up. "Get use to it!"
1999 Act as passed by Parliament and Royal assent, is legal in the UK, as per Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice. "Get use to it!"
Monckton's claims are pure fraud."Get use to it!"
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
"Parliamentary sovereignty meaning parliament can pass any legislation" No it does not.It has no right to change the constitution.For example : No branch has the power to abdicate its responsibilities because that would imply handing them over to someone else . A dictator for example. Equally the hereditary peers have no right to debar others from exercising their rights anymore than MPs in the Commons can debar any of their elected members.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin As the American constitution has it ,these truths are self-evident .it does not require a lawyer or anyone else to see the validity of them.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that says that the congress can't amend the constitution to change the structure of Congress! In fact, the U.S. constitution can be amended much more easily than the Australian constitution!
In fact, it is a completely undemocratic assertion to say that the existing structure of the legislature can't be changed, irrespective of the will of the legislature and the voters that elect members to it! You should read some Thomas Paine.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@ShowsOn Of course it can be changed !
It can be changed with the consent of the people
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Dear oh dear. The Parliament represents the people!
Again, you are completely confused about the power of the UK Parliament. Australia has a constitution that means there are some things the parliament simply can't change (such as the relative ratio of Senators in each original state). But the UK doesn't have such a document, so the parliament has the power to change arguably any law, perhaps with the exception of some treaties that it has entered into.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@ShowsOn Look you are quite right . The British constitution is a moth eaten old fabric . Full of holes ,anomalies ,non-sequiters and the rest . One of which is the absence of a written constitution . After 1000 years it is distinctly tired . As a result a bunch of adventurers with whom you seem to identify thinks they can step in and tell us what it all means.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Um no, the courts tell us what the constitution means (of-course the ultimate court in the UK is the Privy Council, whereas Australia cut its ties to the Privy Council in the 1970s, so the ultimate court for Australia is the High Court which is the supreme constitutional court and the supreme federal court.)
But I think we have found something we agree on. The UK should have a written constitution.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@tincoffin Completely wrong. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, it simply has conventions and some Acts that determine how parliament operates. Since they are simple Acts, they can be amended with other Acts that amend or even repeal prior Acts. That's how the make up of the House of Lords was amended, the Parliament passed the House of Lords Act 1999 to change the structure of the House of Lords. Again, you seem to be arguing that the UK should have a constitution like Australia!
ShowsOn 6 months ago
Very true . And the 1999 act was passed largely on the understanding that the House of Lords would be reformed . But guess what.. they conveniently forget this part of it and replace the hereditaries with government jobsworths and bureaucrats and believe me it is not an improvement.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Well it should be a democratically elected chamber, like the Australian Senate has been for almost 110 years. I'm pretty sure the Liberal Democrats want it to be at least a partly elected chamber.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
Wiki says this : . "Significant power is conferred upon the Senate by the Australian Constitution, including the capacity to block legislation initiated by the government in the House of Representatives, making it a distinctive hybrid of British Westminster bicameralism and American-style bicameralism." So it is not as you said based entirely on the US senate and the role of the Senate is pretty well identical to that of the House of Lords.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Never said it was based "entirely" on the U.S. Senate, but it is more like the Senate than the House of Lords, primarily because it has always been a democratically elected chamber that doesn't require the presence of a minister to function. It's function is NOT "pretty well identical" to the House of Lords at all, because to become a Senator a person must be ELECTED.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@Jayro1870 YAWN
ShowsOn 6 months ago
The House of Lords differs from the Australian & US models in that it has evolved over 700 years.There is no written constitution . All sorts of odd rules have come about over that period so I don't disbelieve you . Where did you get this information from ? It may well be that a minister has to be present for some reason but it has absolutely no significance. I mean look at the ministers who are members .Under secretary of state for this and that.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin HOORAY! Finally you have realised your assertion that the Australian Senate is "the equivalent" of the House of Lords is wrong! Another major difference is that the Australian Senate has always been an elected chamber, with a membership determined by the Constitution.
Now, the changes to membership of the House of Lords that you talk about was the 1999 House of Lords Act that was, wait for it, passed by The UK Parliament, including the House of Lords!
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@ShowsOn The 1999 Act would be illegal in Australia. Without a written constitution an elected government in the UK can do what it wants. It is an obvious flaw and it has never been addressed because in the past governments of all political parties were prepared to act within the constitution.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin What the hell are you going on about? The structure of the House of Lords can be changed with an Act of the UK parliament, that is what the UK Parliament did in 1999. It crafted a bill that the House of Lords, which at the time had a conservative majority, supported. The Australian parliament CAN increase or decrease the size of the Senate, but all the original states must have at least 5 Senators; anything less than that would require a constitutional amendment via a referendum.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
Monckton's confused. "Ad hominem" means to attack the person and not the arguement.
Since Monckton admits to "exploit it [his inheredited title] quite shamelessly", dropping "Lord" and "Member of the House of Lords" at every opportunity, to lend credibility to all his claims, it's therefore fair game to note that "the house of Lords says [he's] not a member of it".
As for Monckton's passport, obviously a clerk was hoodwinked. That grievise error should be corrected on passport renewal.
ZangaroZen 7 months ago
@ZangaroZen, UPDATE, from BIRTH Monckton's title has been "The Honourable" meaning son of a Viscount, NOT a member of the House of Lords as he now claims. WHAT A FRAUD.
Former journalist Monckton's current title of "Lord" or "Third Viscount" (third meaning grandson) was INHERITED only in 2006 from his father (an army Major General and decorated veteran of WW2 and Korea) whom inherited that title from Monckton's grandfather (politician of many senior government cabinet posts).
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen, (con't), as per my previous posts, "The Honourable" on Monckton's passport is a grievise passport clerical error, as:
1. Monckton's formal title of "Viscount"/"Lord" supercedes the use of "The Honourable" which again means son of a Viscount NOT member of the "Right Honourable" House of Lords
2. members of "The Honourable" House of Commons, do use "The Honourable" but only as a VERBAL courtesy
Monckton is either "Lord" or "3rd Viscount of Brenchley" only NOT a "(Right) Honourable"
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
The House of Lords writes Monckton their pathetic little letters because they don't dare take him to court.. The House of Lords is supposed to be an independent body so what right did a temporarily elected government have to determine its composition ? It now wants to remove its function as a court. These constitutional matters should only be decided by a referendum as in Australia
tincoffin 7 months ago
@tincoffin What a load of absolute crap. Are you seriously saying to me that if someone went around Australia claiming to be a Senator, when they weren't, that the Clerk of the Senate wouldn't have something to say about that?
It's hilarious the absurd contortions the Moncktonites put themselves through in order to avoid dealing with the fact that Monckton is not only a pompous git, but also a frequent teller of untruths.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn So you would be quite happy if the Australian government decided to remove a third of the Australian senate on the grounds that it did not like them ? Because that is what has happened in UK.
tincoffin 7 months ago
@tincoffin What the hell are you going on about? How did i write anything close to your assertion that I would be happy if "a third of the Australian Senate" was removed? I simply made the observation that if someone was going around Australia saying they are a Senator even though they aren't, the Clerk of the Senate would probably refer the matter directly to the police. Australia has a constitution that details the make up of the Senate, maybe you should read it before asserting such nonsense
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn You are missing the point . The House of Lords is more or less equivalent to the Australian Senate. I asked how you would feel if the government arbitrarily removed the right of a senator to take his seat as Monckton was prevented from taking his.In Australia it would be illegal but Britain has no written constitution and so cannot be deemed illegal unless tested in court. If an senator was removed in this way and went on calling himself a senator I think people would understand.
tincoffin 7 months ago
@tincoffin WRONG! The Australian Senate is modelled more closely on the United States Senate! That is one of the reasons it is called "Senate". Unlike the House of Lords, the Australian Senate is completley separate from executive government and can operate even without the presence of a minister (unlike the House of Representatives). Again, you should read the Australian constition before lecturing people on the powers of the Senate and the executive.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn And of course the same is true of the House of Lords . You have unwittingly conceded the point I was making . the House of Lords ,US Senate ,Australian Senate are supposed to be separate from the executive government . It follows then that the government has no right to exclude members it happens not to like such as Monckton .
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Completely wrong! Again you demonstration that you have no understanding of how the Australian Senate works as described by the constitution. The House of Lords requires the presence of at least one minister of the Crown to function because only ministers can move procedural motions. This is not the case for the Australian or U.S. Senates. Again, you need to actually read about what you are describing before lecturing people about how their Upper-houses work.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@ShowsOn I don't know where you get that idea from . Very few of the government ministers sit in the House of Lords. The whole purpose of the House of Lords is to hold government bills up to scrutiny and for that they must be independent. Now their role as a court has been abolished that is the only role left to them.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin Wow! So not only do you have absolutely no idea how the Australian Senate operates, you have just demonstrated that you have no idea how the House of Lords works. If all ministers, and the Leader of the House of Lords refused to attend the House of Lords, it wouldn't be able to do any businesses because no one else can move procedural motions to bring on consideration of bills. This does not apply to the Australian Senate, because it was modeled more closely on the U.S. Senate.
ShowsOn 6 months ago
@tincoffin, Monckton is such a pathetic title fraudster, that the title he inherited from his father in 2006 should be revoked.
"The Honourable" means son/daughter of a Viscount, granted at BIRTH. All Monckton's siblings have the title "The Honourable". According to your logic all the Monckton children have been members of the House of Lords since birth. ROFLMAO
The moment Monckton inherited the title "3rd Viscount of Brenchley"/"Lord" that title superceded the use of "The Honourable".
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen No only the head of he family ,which he now is, is entitled to a seat in the House of Lords and he is not an Honourable . He was until he succeeded to the title.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you say:
1. "entitled to a seat" WRONG the "House of Lords Act" of 1999, 7 years before Monckton inherited title, expelled all but 92 hereditary peers, that's 569 peers including Monckton's father. The father was a member of the House of Lords from 1965 until 1999, however Monckton himself has NEVER been a member.
2. "not an Honourable", RIGHT Monckton's passport should omit "The Honourable" for your stated reason not to mention his dishonesty and gross lack of ethics
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen Well as I say I disagree with you very strongly . I don't think that the power to amend a constitution should be in the government's hands but in the peoples and should be decided by referendum.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, as for a referendum to amend a constitution, and thereby make clear Lord Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, that's not the way the republics nor parliamentary governments work, as obviously every citizen can't participate continually in government. The practical compromise is to elect representatives, and those elected officials make decisions on the voter's behalf, such as the "House of Lords Act" and it's huge popular support. (con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen Where are the elected members of the House of Lords ? .Nowhere to be seen. That's what happens when you allow governments and not the people to amend the constitution.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you've conceed that Monckton's passport quote "The Right Honourable" is a reference to his 2006 inherited title of Viscount, and not membership in "The Right Honourable House of Lords", just as Monckton and his siblings at birth title of "Honourable" is a reference to being a Viscount offspring and not membership in the elected "The Honourable House of Commons".
You demand "People to amend the constitution", the people elect those that amend the constitution. BASIC
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't) Monckton's case:
1. "The Honourable" means a Viscount's child, NOT an elected "The Honourable House of Commons" member
2. Monckton's father was a House of Lords member from 1965 until 1999 "House of Lords Act" when 569 hereditary peers seats were REVOKED
3. Monckton INHERITED his father's title in 2006, NOT the 1999 REVOKED House of Lords seat
4. "The Right Honourable" refers to his 2006 INHERITED Viscount title NOT a 1999 REVOKED "The Right Honourable House of Lords" seat
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen 1. You are right . 2. Wrong .Noone not even elected officials have the right to amend the constitution. That power rests with the people directly. 3.Wrong . For the reasons given above. 4. Wrong Monckton is not a Right honourable or an honourable.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't)
2. Provide a reputable link noting Monckton's father's House of Lord seat survived after the House of Lords Act of 1999 revoked 569 peer seats
4. Wrong, as with point 1 which you conceeded, Viscount offspring inherit the title "The Honourable" at birth, while the eldest surviving son inherits the title Viscount/Lord/Right Honourable upon their father's death. "Right Honourable" in the UK is a title bestoyed on Earls, VISCOUNTS, Barons, and Privy councillors
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen You are right about the Right Hon I thought only Privy councillors were entitled to it. It seems the others are as well.
Monckton,s entitlement to H of L membership would have to be tested in court . I think he'd win but the cost of proving it would be massive.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, "House of Lords Act" was passed by Parliament and received the FULL WEIGHT OF ROYAL ASSENT in 1999. Act provisions for grandfathering 92 seats was by ascending peer votes. Those without suffiicent votes, 569 hereditary peers including Monckton's father, LOST their seats. 7 years later Monckton inherited a tile NOT a House of Lords seat.
"The Right Honourable" refers ONLY to Monckton's inherited "Viscount" title NOT a House of Lords seat. Claiming otherwise is Monckton's fraud.
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen The executive does not have the right to change the constitution. It is the one power that an elected government does not possess. Where does this right which you have given them end ? Getting rid of unpopular members of the Commons maybe or abolition of the monarchy . This form of constitutional change is unprecedented .Nothing like it has been done before it has not been challenged at law.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, AGAIN wake up and smell the facts:
1. "House of Lords Act" PASSED in 1999 by parliament and ROYAL ASSENT
2. As per the act 92 seats were grandfathered by ascending peer votes
3. 569 hereditary peers including Monckton's father, lacked enough votes and LOST their seat
4. 7 years later Monckton's INHERITED "Viscount" implies use of "Lord" and "The Right Honourable" NOT a seat in the House of Lords
What above SPECIFIC point confuses you?
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't)
5. The UK has NO single/core constitution document, but a set of rules, laws, statues, court judgements, treaties, conventions, Royal prerogatives, etc, under the umbrella of supreme legal parliamentary sovereignty
6. Parliamentary sovereignty meaning parliament can pass any legislation, including how it functions, as per the Reform Act of 1832, Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 (removing the House of Lords input under certain instances), and House of Lords Act of 1999
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen You don't need the brains of an archbishop to see the difference between the earlier cases you cite and the 1999 act.If the Lords had not been reformed in the earlier cases there would have been a constitutional crisis.No crisis threatened in 1999.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen 1832 Reform : It is hardly controversial that when a place like Old Sarum (Google it.There is a good photo!) returns two members to parliament and a great northern industrial city can send one or even none at all that something needs to change.
1911 Reform: The House of Lords tried to block the legislative program of the Commons. Again no surprises that something had to change.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen 1949 Act: Lords perceived though not actual threat to Labour Nationalisation program.Small curtailment of Lord's delaying powers.Its validity has been contantly questioned because the threat did not exist but too slight to merit much attention
1999 Act:Vast wide ranging constitutional change. Differed completely from earlier reformsin that there was no constitutional problem to confront. Entirely at the whim of a temporarily elected governing party.
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, asked "What above SPECIFIC point confuses you?", you couldn't quoting ANY point, conceeding that ALL points are correct
So you dislike the 1999 Act, as Monckton would say "get use to it"
Why of 569 peers who lost seats, ONLY Monckton dishonestly claims his passport's "The Right Honourable" is not solely a reference to his inherited "Viscount" title but proves he's a member of the House of Lords?
If Monckton admitted his father's seat was lost, his claims would vanish. Agreed?
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen Absolutely not !
Would an MP have the right to say " Oh I give up the seat to which I have been elected Oh look here's another nice bloke I will give it to him instead. "
Monckton has absolutely no right to give up the rights he has inherited from his father.
If the people decide through a referendum that he should give them up then he is obliged to do so.
tincoffin 6 months ago
Comment removed
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, listed 6 numbered points and challenged you to refute any SPECIFIC POINT and you DIDN'T NOTE ANY POINT. Do so now, or conceed on all points
You cry "MP...I give up the seat...to him instead", as you VERY WELL KNOW a byelection is held for an MP seat. The House of Lords is not elected and subject to Parliamentary soverengnty and royal assent changes, ie 1999 Act having wide electorate and hense parliamentary support.
"inherited from his father", father LOST it in 1999
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
Comment removed
tincoffin 6 months ago
@tincoffin, you removed this post:
@ZangaroZen Alright take a non-elected office. Chief Justice of Australia.... and the executive votes for it's abolition. I hope he would say to them " Why do you not just eff of to where you came from... We are an independent body and my position does not depend on your consent " said in the language of Australian Shouted which I cannot imitate
Australia's Chief Justice is irrelevant to the UK House of Lords. Stay on topic.
(con't)
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@tincoffin, (con't)
You've had 2 opportunities to address 6 POINTS OF FACT, and couldn't muster anything. That's 6 concessions.
As for your reasoning and SUPPORT for 1832 and 1911 acts, both did not require a referendum, neither did 1999 Act which addressed too many completely incompetent morons inheriting seats without merit to the House of Lords. As Monckton would say "Get use to it!"
Again Monckton's father LOST his seat in 1999, and what he no longer has can't be inherited. Agreed?
ZangaroZen 6 months ago
@ZangaroZen Replied above
tincoffin 6 months ago
While a Lord by title and deed, he is not a member of the House of Lords because most hereditary lords were kicked out of the House of Lords in 1999 due to a change in the Law (House of Lords Act 1999).
Also, Buckingham Palace was drawn into the debate, and requested the Lord Chamberlain to tell Monckton to stop using a portcullis symbol on his website and slides (a symbol for the House of Lords). He has altered its design a bit.
Diamonddavej 7 months ago 2
can't hear it on full volume, noob.
chrisdrabsch 7 months ago
I'd love to head butt his phoney-ship.
ThePositiveAussie 7 months ago
Monckton couldnt lie straight in bed.....although its probably because his eyes are crooked.......but even if he could see straight he lies about eveything. He said he has a nobel peace prize, he said he has a cure for cancer and MS and AIDS, he said he was a policy adviser to Thatcher, its just lie after lie. If i was on the side of the climate deniers i would find another spokesman, this guy has bad form.
tubester4567 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 YAWN plus SNORE. Thank you for your reply which demonstrates again that Lord Monckton is a teller of untruths as he is not actually a member of the House of Lords.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
ShowOn you are a knob
16rmb1 7 months ago
@16rmb1 YAWN
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 Yes I agree with you that Lordy Monckton (non-Member of the House of Lords) spreads lies. Thank you for agreeing with this self evident fact.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 Yes I know you never said that, because people who say Lord Monckton is a member of the House of Lords (including Lord Monckton himself) are at best ill-informed and at worst lying.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
DICKHEAD.
blogotube 7 months ago
DICJHEAD.
blogotube 7 months ago
What a HEAD my god
xGamingxCentralx 7 months ago
and since when do passport officials bestow titles?
alSation81 7 months ago 2
@alSation81 Well that's the funny thing, Monckton's response to the question is a complete non sequitor. He very theatrically gets the 'debate' moderator to read his passport, but that has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not he is a member of the House of Lords! He did a similar thing earlier in the debate when he referred to the fact he was wearing a Democratic Labor Party tie! He is great with props, and performing, but terrible with putting forward coherent arguments.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
no offense but were his parents brother and sister?
alSation81 7 months ago
@alSation81 He suffers from something called Graves disease (in fact, he says he has discovered a drug that cures, among other things Graves disease, HIV/AIDS and the common cold)
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn oh I didnt realize he had an illness ... shouldnt have said that
alSation81 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 Yes I agree with you that Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords, he never has been, he isn't currently, and given his infamy it is extremely unlikely that he ever will be.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 No, the subject of this video is the disinformation spread by Lord Monckton. That's all I'm interested in. Somehow Monckton can repeatedly assert something that is untrue, but his followers don't think that they should stop and question the character of someone who makes such claims that are wrong.
If Monckton says misleading things about his membership of the House of Lords, what other inaccurate things does he say?
ShowsOn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jayro1870 Don't worry about enlightening everybody about why Lord Monckton continues to claim he is a member of the House of Lords as requested by Showon. I just did it. Come to the comments section of this video to check it out. ;-).
steam0001 7 months ago
he should be a member of the house of buged out eyes.
MrBrooklynbandit 7 months ago
@MrBrooklynbandit It's better to attack the nonsense that Monckton spouts rather than his appearance (which is caused by a medical condition).
ShowsOn 7 months ago
Law can be a tricky thing to understand sometimes.
In the in the House of Lords Act 1999 it states "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
In the letter to Lord Monckton Mr Justice Lewison is quoted as stating in judgement of the act in question(& only the act in question) "In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House"
Continued -->
steam0001 7 months ago
---> Now in the act if you replace 'a member of the House of Lords' with what Justice Lewison stated in his judgement this means, "right to sit and vote in that House", you would get the following.
No-one shall have right to sit and vote in the house of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.
Looks to me that Lord Monckton is correct. The act doesn't remove him as a member of the house of Lords only his right to sit and vote in the house.
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 Stop making shit up. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords; he isn't now, nor has he ever been.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn I am sorry. I did not intend to "make shit up". Can you please point out to me were I have misquoted from the act or the letter in question. Which "facts" did I make up?
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 You misread the fact that the Clerk of the UK Parliament says that Lord Monckton says he has never been a member of the House of Lords and he isn't a member of the House of Lords now.
You are arguing against the person who's role is to defend the integrity of the UK Parliament. Good luck with that.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn I didn't misread what the clerk of the UK Parliament stated. I disagree with his interpretation of the law & the judge's decision on said law.
You are making an appeal to authority. Stating you are right because that is what the clerk stated. I could also make an appeal to authority. I am right because of what Lord Monckton stated. But I would be just as wrong as you to so. Argue the facts.
So am I to take that you do not find any of my facts to be incorrect? If so you should apologize.
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 The authority I am appealing to is a judge who wrote a judgement that says you are completely wrong, hence everything you have written is also completely wrong, and Lord Monckton is wrong, and a charlatan, and a teller of untruths, and an obfuscator, and a pompous git who should stop going around telling Australians how they should run their country.
You'll reply saying that you know more about the UK Parliament than the Clerk of the UK Parliament. I'll defend your right to be wrong
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn Your interpretation of what Justice Lewison's judgement in this case is incorrect. His judgement is in reference to & only to the meaning of the act. Nothing else. His statement is a direct reference to the law were it states 'a member of the House of Lords' & what that means in the law. That what judges do in civil a suit. Interpret law. He is not making a statement of who is or is not a member of the house of Lords.
If anything this judgement strengthens Lord Monckton's position.
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 Um, no the Clerk of the UK parliament says Monckton isn't and never has been a member of the House of Lords. Anyone arguing otherwise is thus a buffoon.
Yes, the judgement strengthens Monckton's position as a charlatan, snake oil salesmen, teller of untruths, andvaudeville artist who's medium of choice is manure.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn Why is those on the left always resort to name calling when they know they cannot provide a valid counter argument?
Again that what is with the appeal to authority? Are those in authority always right? If the clerk of the UK Parliament told you to jump off a bridge would you? Appeal to authority is not a valid argument.
Either provide a valid argument or stop wasting my time. Show me were I "made shit up" &/or were I have miss quoted. Provide a valid argument or admit you were wrong.
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 Yes I agree it was wrong for Lord Monckton to call Professor Ross Garnaut a Nazi. That is the sort of name calling that Monckton has to revert to because he doesn't have a valid argument.
I also note that Professor Garnaut had to earn his title, it wasn't simply inherited.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn I did a little checking & in the same judgement he rule that the law didn't remove letters Patent. The letters Patent are what is given to someone by the crown to make them a Lord & gives them the right to sit in the house of Lords. Unfortunately the judge rule that he didn't have jurisdiction to decide if the government was wrong to not call upon the Lord who brought the case to take the oath & sit in the house of Lords with full rights!
steam0001 7 months ago
Since you like to appeal to authority so much I hear by trump your Clerk of the parliament with the crown of the UK H.R.M. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 Why thank you for invoking the Queen of Australia, or as I like to call her Frau Battenberg. It is interesting to know that Her Maj's legal advisers asked the UK Parliament to get Lordy Monckton to stop using Crown trademarks when he isn't a member of the House of Lords.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@steam0001 I did a little checking and discovered on the UK Parliament website a letter from the Clerk of the Parliament that says Lord Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords and has never been a member of the House of Lords. I do notice that when he last put his name forward to become a member of the House of Lords his fellow Lords (the ones that actually are members) awarded him a grand total of ZERO (0) votes.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn I do not not know more then the clerk. I merely looked at what he stated & quoted, & pointed out his misinterpretation of the law & the judges interpretation of the law.
steam0001 7 months ago
@steam0001 That's fine and I thank you for this clarification. I simply pointed out that Lord Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords even though he has repeatedly claimed otherwise.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@steam0001 YAWN Clerk of the UK Parliament: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@Jayro1870 Maybe you could enlighten everybody about why Lord Monckton continues to claim he is a member of the House of Lords when that is a blatant untruth?
ShowsOn 7 months ago
He Pwned you Leftard Warmists today.
dessipura 7 months ago
@dessipura Ha ha. Yeh you go ahead with your toothless "pwned". Better to be a leftard who listens to experts in the field than a retard who believes a totally unqualified non-scientist blowhard who is the only public representative of the 5% of scientific 'deniers'.
D'uh (slaps forehead).
WaltHawtin 7 months ago
rolled - get used to it!
LisaDunn71 7 months ago
nepta00 7 months ago
@nepta00 ... and ...
WaltHawtin 7 months ago
PS
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill." - The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome, 1992, ISBN-10: 0671711075
nepta00 7 months ago
If that is the only 'fault' you can find with his address to the National Press Club today then that is absolutely pathetic.
nepta00 7 months ago
@nepta00 Oh no there were many other misstatements, half truths and obfuscation. But this was the most blatant instance where he said something that is demonstrably untrue.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn Actually it is a sad indictment on the quality of Australian jounalism that the media coverage of what was an important debate, with plenty of issues from both sides, is so far focused on one petty side issue raised in an impertinent manner by a junior jounalist. The debate was about climate change. Convene another debate on Monkton`s title if you want, he would probably win it too.
sangstar1 7 months ago
@sangstar1 Yes I was disappointed that more media organisations didn't show this clip in order to demonstrate that Monckton had said something that is untrue and that he has been told to stop saying three times by the UK Parliament. I mean hey, I like a bit of theatre and that handing over of his passport in order to get the moderator to read out his full title was a nice touch, but just because someone is a hereditary peer doesn't make them a member of the House of Lords.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@sangstar1 You are talking about the, House of Lords Act 1999. There was a compromise, (a) the Act did permit ninety-two hereditaries to remain in the House on an interim basis (b) House of Lords Act in 1999 also made another ten hereditaries were created life peers to be able to remain in the House.
sangstar1 7 months ago
@sangstar1 Yes, hence when Monckton says he is a member of the House of Lords he is at best spreading disinformation.
ShowsOn 7 months ago
@ShowsOn Have you read my description site on Lord Christopher Monkton Debate Dr Richard Dennis at the, National Press Club Address 19/07/2011? Click were it says show more.
sangstar1 7 months ago
@nepta00 Ask ShowsOn what credentials he is claiming as untrue! Then ask "what temperature drop is proven fact that we will receive from the introduction of a CARBON TAX" The replies will be answered by questions & not one fact! Its worth a laugh just to ask the questions to giggle at the replies!
unreal22000 7 months ago
@unreal22000 I'm claiming that Monckton isn't a member of the House of Lords when he says he is. If you don't believe me, go and read the UK Parliament's website where the Clerk of the Parliament has published a cease and desist letter to encourage Monckton to stop spreading untruths.
ShowsOn 7 months ago