Slashdot Mirror
Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?
DavidGilbert99 writes "This time last year the Queen officially introduced the Communications Data Bill (known as the Snooper's Charter to those opposing it). Last month it was effectively killed when the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said it went too far and he wouldn't support it. Today the Queen was back and while there was no official mention of the Communications Data Bill, there was mention of 'crime in cyberspace' and a very strong hint that more legislation to monitor people's online activity is on the way."
I don't think the queen had much to do with it so I'm not sure why she's getting a mention. This would fall under "official duties that have to be carried out or I lose my allowance". The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own.
Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry.
Worth every penny in my books.
The Queens speech is not written by the Queen.
It's a summary of the Governments plans for the next legislative period, written by the government.
She just reads it out.
The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We need to stop treating our president like he's the "king" of the U.S.A., and treat him/her more like the civil servant that they really are and were supposed to be originally.
..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.
Agreed. The alternative, US style at least, a politically motivated president that we treat with honour and respect? No thanks. Lets keep our politicians where they stand, a PM that we can hate and bad mouth in the commons and a powerless head of state to do the ceremonial guff who we can treat with honour and respect.
I think you might be taking this argument to extremes. The gender of our monarch doesn't matter here. Be they male, female, or a pot of icecream, what is put in front of the monarch by parliament is what shall be read out.
The queen is actually very forthcoming with her own opinions, especially when talking to lawmakers both here and abroad. We should consider this only ceremony, and not try to delve any deeper into it.
This is the most tenuous causal link I have ever come across.
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own. Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry. Worth every penny in my books.
you having a laugh?? this is the 21st century! why the hell should an accident of birth dictate your station in life or the influence you have over affairs of state??? :-
As it happens the queen and prince Charles DO have a fair bit of say and have actually VERY much influenced things and can VETO bills and acts of parliament and have done so on various occasions
check these
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prince-Charles-given-39-chances-veto-legislation-dont-want-law.html
and to be quite frank FUCK THAT.
they also cost the tax payer a fortune but the main point being... why the fuck should some unelected bunch have the right to veto democratically proposed and approved acts and bills just because of an accident of birth.???
value for money my aching ass , it's an affront to democracy and this idiocy has no place in the 21st century... not at all
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.
1975 Australian constitutional crisis
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I disagree. They should be removed and disbanded. A complete waste of taxpayers money and resources. Get rid of them.
He's got nothing on Prince Phillip.
But to answer your question, he hasn't done anything for most of them other than being present at some event or being where he's at in the royal family. Explanation of many of the medals.
I'll take the president. If he/she turns out to be a dick we can fire them. We would no longer be the Queen's subjects, we would be citizens of our own country. No-one is required to respect the president, beyond the military which has to respect all senior officers.
I'd shake the Queen's hand but wouldn't bow to her. I wouldn't touch Prince Philip. Royalists are all short sighted - the current Queen might be bland an inoffensive but there is no guarantee future ones will be.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you'd bothered to read the post you're replying to (or if you had any general knowledge at all) you'd know that it wouldn't make any difference; the monarch is ceremonial and has no real power.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The Queen has all the power in England and has taken away all their guns so they have no freedom. She is a tyrant in Australia, UK, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and England and those folks cower before her and they don't know what freedom is. If we let Obama take our guns and our pipe bombs we will be defenceless and the Queen on England will come here and we will have SOCIALIST OBAMACRE like in England. You go to a doctor but you can not pay so he sends you to a hospital and you can not pay them either because the Queen's law says so, so the death panel KILLS YOU!
In America we have the first amendment to make us free and we have the second amendment to stop socialists who use the first amendment. Without guns the Queen of England would come here and take away all our elected Washington lobbyists and we would not even have our fair and balanced TV news to get the real truth. Wake up American sheeple !!!!!
You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
There is no dishonesty. The speech is written by the leadership of the governing party (not Parliament) and is phrased to make it clear that they are the ones actually speaking. So she will say "My government will..." rather than "I will..."
The only falsehood, if there is any, is the pretence that she has any significant control over "her" government.
There were a few other positive signals in this year's Queen's Speech for those of us involved with technology as well.
For example, the government has apparently noticed the number of DRM schemes crippling new games when they go wrong and the plague of low quality software that people are selling, particularly on-line, even though it's so bug-ridden/unstable as to be useless, and it sounds like the consumer rights legislation is about to get an overhaul to make it clear that vendors are on the hook for these kinds of abuses.
Also, while there is mention of new patents and harmonisation across Europe, there seems to be no mention of new patents for things like software and business methods. Sometimes what is missing from the Queen's Speech is more telling than what is stated explicitly, so this could also be a good sign.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Why should we honor and respect the head of state? Especially when the state is not worthy of honor and respect? Make the president earn his respect.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The Cybersecurity issue is highly vexing. The Conservatives in Opposition were the "good guys" against attempted extension of those powers by the (then) Labour Government. Now they've been corrupted since they came to power and have succumbed to the Dark Side.....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.
HM Queen Victoria seems to have done well without a cheery visage.
HM Queen Elizabeth is certainly able to smile, as you can see in the second photo as she contemplates an object of delight (to many), as well as cause them.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
[...] it wouldn't make any difference; the monarch is ceremonial and has no real power.
Well, the current generations have none to speak of - at least since Edward or so. On the other hand, that's no guarantee of future monarchs, by any stretch. Imagine a monarch with enough political power and persuasion to take the reins and do it old-school...
I think I can help a bit on the contention, though...
I get the reason GP was so adamant about it - our governmental enterprise was founded on a tax revolt, against a king who had real life-or-death power and a rather powerful army at his disposal. The hatred of all things royal still lingers somewhat over here (in no small part thanks to the history books, etc), but now it's mostly against the institution, not the actors per se (which are often the subject of quite a bit of media).
All that said, I have a suspicion of leaving any monarch in place, even a figurehead. While I don't have the revulsion against it that, say, Lenin and his gang did? I don't see that the goodwill/tourism benefits outweigh the potential for abuse of the office by current or future generations. All it would take is an all-too-common combination of a weak parliament, a strong monarch, and a crisis that leaves the populace desperate for answers.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Prince Phillip is not going to be King, ever. And that's probably why no one has bothered to spend time correcting him. He's a guy who gave up his real naval career because his wife happened to become the Queen. Being a consort is no fun in this day and age when they don't actually expect (or want) you to become warleader or some other manly role. You sit around and go to charity benefits. I agree that this is definitely a First World problem, but at the same time, people's issues tend to be relative. To even give up his role, he would have to leave his wife or at least make her life difficult, or she'd have to abdicate, and there's every reason to believe that she believes she has a duty to do the job and be a good Queen.
As for the monarchy, there is a good reason that most countries have republics now, but a constitutional monarchy does have some benefits, if the royal family stays well behaved. And if you think the royals don't understand their place, consider that technically, the Queen has the same powers and authority that many of her more absolutist predecessors had, she just doesn't attempt to use the great majority of them.
There is actually quite a bit of British administrative law which is simply the Prime Minister and the Cabinet having a license to use the Royal Prerogative powers. Anything that is Royal Prerogative today is something the Queen could order herself, if she thought she needed to, and could get away with it. The Prime Minister's only official response would be to resign and force the Queen to attempt to rule on her own, risking revolt and deposition. If the revolt didn't happen, however...
The UK has no constitution, just the understanding that if it came down to Parliament or the Queen, Parliament would usually win because it actually represents the people. On the other hand, some people like the idea that the politicians might have to deal with someone who isn't as susceptible to having to buy votes, or be bought by moneyed interests. Or at the very least accept that there is some power theoretically higher than they are. Prince Phillip might be a fairly small price to pay for that, especially since he's not going to be the King.
Now, if you mentioned Prince Charles....
It is looking that his reign, if it ever happens, will probably be short. Or spent completely on life support where he isn't going to bother anyone.
On the other hand, while he's... uninspiring... he has struck me as not actually being a moron. He has his causes and interests, and most of them are not actually fox hunting. Unfortunately, he's been in his mom's shadow for so long that it's likely he needs to deal with the same issues anyone might have being under their mom's shadow for decades.
If the state itself is not worthy of respect, you have a bigger problem than deciding what figurehead to salute.
Presumably, in this day and age, most people at least profess to like the nation-state they live in, at least at some minimal flag waving patriotic level.
Because we should respect each other from the get-go, even if the person holds public office. Then, since everyone gets treated better, everyone starts acting better. Then everything gets better! Yay Us!
If the state itself is not worthy of respect, you have a bigger problem than deciding what figurehead to salute.
Yes, we have much, much bigger problems. Feigning respect for the President only serves to cover them up.
Presumably, in this day and age, most people at least profess to like the nation-state they live in, at least at some minimal flag waving patriotic level.
And that's the problem. Primative nationalistic sentiments have overridden the need for good government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Because we should respect each other from the get-go, even if the person holds public office.
You're absolutely right. But holding public office is not a neutral act. If you hold power in a country with unjust laws, you are an agent of injustice and deserve to be treated like one. Our country exists in order to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, and to protect the rich from the poor. Anyone who is associated with that is completely undeserving of respect or honor.
I'll respect Obama when he starts jailing bankers and bailing out common people. Until then, he deserves no more respect than any other leader of a criminal organization.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1) The President - the head of state - does not make the laws. His authority over the laws is simply veto or sign. In many cases, his veto will be overridden.
And he should be judged by what he vetos and doesn't veto. And as executive, he should be judged by who he prosecutes (pot smokers and whistleblowers) and doesn't prosecute(racketeering bank executives). He should not be granted honor by default.
2) Not every law you happen to disagree with is "unjust"
3) Not everything that happens that you don't like that doesn't have a law against it yet is "unjust"
True, some are just bad ideas. But there are plenty of truly unjust laws Obama is responsible for enforcing. That's enough to disqualify him from honor.
4) The existence of a few unjust laws does not make an entire country and government corrupt and unjust
No, but decades of facilitating the plundering of the middle class, imprisoning thousands of people for harmless lifestyle choices, and building the largest military in the world so you can pillage the developing world does. We're not talking about a few unjust laws, but the major thrusts of US policy for at least my entire lifetime, have been nothing but harmful to anyone who is not one of the elites. The good that has come out of the US, e.g. the creation of the internet, has mostly been incidental.
5) The purple class warfare prose is kinda stale.
It's stale, because the upper classes have been waging war on the lower classes for 50 years now. You're going to keep hearing about it until it changes.
6) If you treat everybody in power as if they're your enemy, then you will NEVER convince them of the need for change, or get them on your side to help effect that change.
If you have to beg people in power to help you out, you're not going to win anyway. The right way to win is to get the people on your side, and make those in political office beg US to help them out.
Sweeping rhetoric is great for getting a +5 on Slashdot, but it does fuck-all to actually change the situation you're grand-standing about.
And cupping the balls of those who exploit you is going to accomplish what exactly? When has sycophancy ever lead to better policy?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You do realize the UK Government makes more money off the Queen then they pay to support her right? The Queen and her family still own all of the royal lands they are leased to the Government in exchange for them supporting the royal family. The lands make 130+ million pounds a year for the government and the royal family only costs around 40 million to support and it all reverts back to the royal family if the government stops supporting them as stupid people seem to want them to do which mean taxes would have to be raised to cover the shortfall.
Ceremonial power is real. All power is real. There is no such thing as "fake power", that is total nonsense. If she has no power then she isn't a queen. The basis of the problem is that Britons (and others) accept the concept that their leaders can be born into the role. That is an immoral belief. Moral people reject birthright. If you like the queen (and who wouldn't? she seems dandy) then vote for her.
Phil the Greek is ace. He produces a never-ending torrent of politically-incorrect and quite amusing quips. LIke the one he asked the local driving instructor on a remote Scottish island: "How do keep the locals sober long enough to get them through the driving test?"
Money and/or votes can't buy that. It's priceless.
Stick Men