1917 Act Could Be Used to Strip Convicted Peers
Yesterday Guido pondered why there was no retribution for Peers who are convicted criminals and that it’s just unpopular Knights that get shredded. Well it seems to have got the ball rolling…
Tory MP Matthew Hancock tells the FT: “I don’t see why the rules for peers should be entirely different to the rules for MPs”. As Jim Pickard points out, legislation has already passed that, with an amendment or two, could make this happen. The 1917 Deprivation of Titles Act was used to strip Peers who supported Germany in WWI…
oops, oh lordy
Down on your knees, now f*ck off.
Start with Lord Adair Turner and Sir Mervyn King.
and Jeffrey Archer and Shirley Porter
What abourt Prescott – deceived the country by pretending there was no diviosion between Brown & Blair as to make the govt disfunctional and bad for country, pretended Brown was sane when clearly he was not and was unfit to lead – but mostly because he is a git.
Prescott is a self confessed criminal.
Misconduct in a public office’ is a serious criminal offence punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Why wasn’t he interviewed/charged/sacked. He is a thieving lying lard arse scumbag.
At first reading I thought the heading read “1917 Act Could Be Used to Ship Convicted Peers”.
And I thought of getting rid of the f***ers to the Colonies.
But why waste time and effort? Load them with the muzzy terrorists in an old place and dump them in the Atlantic.
Simples, – and so fitting.
place should read PLANE of course
And Gorbals Mick
I would hate to see any of these wrinkle bodies stripped.
Send ‘em round. With or without sheets.
With white sheets, in boxes, ready to be lowered in the crematorium.
They won’t be.
Section 1(1) of the 1917 Act states… “His Majesty may appoint a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least shall be members of the Judicial Committee, to enquire into and report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.”
It seem very specific to WW1
Oops tooth fairy,you’ve destroyed our hopes of using that Act. Dammit,it’s back to the drawing board.
Got to agree but there is no reason why a one clause bill amending the 1917 Act to replace that clause with “any peer convicted of an offence carrying a maximum sentence greater than 4 years….”
Knowingly NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, should be used as the level of infraction to be disbarred from the LORDS.
We can’t have people who LIE, Legislate.
good one, Mr. rage.
Whatever next, banning people who want power or the sound of their own voice from politics?
Is there any news on the so-called ‘sanity test’ that Cameron mooted for incoming Prime Ministers in the wake of the Maximum Imbecile’s reign of terror?
Any Peer or M.P. who gets convicted of any criminal offence should automatically be ejected from Parliament. If they make laws they mst obey them. Simples
Section 1 of the act limits the scope. Perhaps if you read the bloody thing rather than adopting your Ready, Fire, Aim approach…
“(1) His Majesty may appoint a committee of His Privy Council, of which two members at least shall be members of the Judicial Committee, to enquire into and report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.”
Can I suggest a 2012 act or is that to simple ?
The 1917 Deprivation of Titles Act could be eused to strip Peers who support Merkel in 2012…
Gott in Himmel!
Stripping an incompetent or a crook of a title is akin to throwing pebbles at a brick shit house… It’s not a sanction at all.
It’s important becase it stops the bxstxrds being able to influence current legislation. It is outrageous than they can do that while not obeying the existing laws themselves. EVICT THE FECKERS. Come on Dave — DO IT !!!
It appears we live in a country in which a Police officer whos job it is to enforce the laws of the land can be sacked for breaking them yet someone who actually is responsible for creating them in the first place cant ? Is it just me or what !!!
Any chance Baroness Uddin will get be de-Baronessed?
No.
Racist !
that just about sums up (what used to be called britain) today
Careful now. If Uddin gets evicted there will be a vacancy for another fat bleck cow in the H.of L. You would be right up there at the top of the queue.
Certtainly wouldn’t want to see her defrocked
Can we not use an act from the fifteen hundreds
and strip them of their flesh as well ?
The ducking stool is more fun. No, Bishop, I said “ducking”.
1917, how ironic.
Statute apart, surely the House of Lords can resolve that a member be not heard and could use this against convicted criminals?
1917. That’ll be, oh. let me see, ah yes, ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS AGO!
Meanwhile, society’s changed. It’s more flexible now. More accommodating now. More understanding now. (Except, it seems, the anachronism that is this blog.)
Just let the peers get on with their good work.
These distractions can’t help anyone.
Hear ! Hear !
..and more corrupt.
“These distractions can’t help anyone.”
My thoughts exactly about the house of lords.
More expenses available
Anachronism? Remind us; what is the most popular political blog on the interweb?
Now fuck off.
There will be some do-gooder who will insist that it infringes their human rights, and the European Court of Appeal will be choc-full.
Utter fantasy, I’m sad to say.
yes, house of lords just got hit by a flock of pigs
(not mps)
In a successful thriving economy, you can just about live with these opportunistic chancers (though I would prefer not to). However in the economic climate that we are in now, the sight of these people in their ermine, is more than my stomach can take. It’s hard to pin the medal of worst offender on any one individual, however I’ll give it a go. Baroness Uddin has defiled what should have been a wonderful achievement, not least because of her status as the first Muslim woman peer. The hypocrisy of this woman defies all belief and I fail to understand how she can have thus far avoided the long arm of the law, let alone kept her peerage along with access to the very trough that she has so richly abused.
Uddin didn’t break the rules. The rules didnt really say you have to live in your home.
However, poor old Lord Taylor didn’t realise that when the house is owned and lived in by people you’ve never even met, that breaks the rules.
@sockpuppet #4: Uddin claimed an allowance that was put in place to compensate peers who lived outside London for their attendance of the House of Lords. She claimed this allowance in respect of a London property, which her own website claimed had been her primary residence for over 30 years. The property in Maidstone was left unfurnished and unoccupied until the scandal erupted. Initially her husband denied that they even had a property in Kent (which in itself would have been worse, because it would have made her claim even more fraudulent!). Then she insisted that the property was furnished and that she did live there. No one local to the property could be found who had even seen her at the property and the family was observed moving furniture in later. The conclusion of the HoL Privileges and Conduct committee was that she should repay £125,349. On what basis do you believe that she didn’t break the rules, either in spirit, or in actuality? I understand that she has agreed to repay this amount from her attendance allowance of £300 per day. If she goes to the Lords for the full 136 days a year for 4 years and pays every penny (post tax?) back in, her debt will be clear in 4 years. Nice work if you can get it.
I was going a bit far with “not breaking the rules”.
What were the rules about a lords “home”, as I hint at, its ridiculously lax. I was under the impression that it was something like 1 day a month, which would be hard to prove in a court of law unless it had no roof or the like.
Fair enough I suppose. But this is going to annoy me for a very long time. BTW meant to mention earlier that I agree with you ref. ‘Lord’ Taylor. To go one step further, I believe strongly that there must be a change in law to prevent convicted felons, such as Taylor and Archer, from retaining what is intended as an honour.
How did this arrangement get signed off? FOI request, anyone?
Petition anyone?
petitions were a one minute wonder and have gone by the wayside
Here’s one…
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22604
3000 new Liebour laws and none that were there for the people but lots to make sure St Tone and his friends escaped retribution we were told when the expenses crap hit the fan we couldn’t do anything and all MPs and Lords were untouchables and a now we find out a law from 1917 can get at the Lords, how many laws that could have been used were hidden from public view by these beautiful politicians and their lawyer friends.
You could start with the theft act for simple theft then false accounting, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, perjury, forgery, possession of articles to commit fraud, and add purely social crimes like nepotism, self aggrandisement, adultery, public drunkenness, cronyism and conceit. I am sure there are others. Treason perhaps ?
Misconduct in public office covers a multitude of sins, its a catch all for any inappropriate behaviour ie shagging your staff on public time on public property financed by the public purse whist your meant to be carrying out your duties as a public servant MP or Minister of the Crown
Where to start. The list is endless.
Kinnocks, Prescott, Martin.
There will be some do-gooder who will insist that it infringes their h*man r*ghts, and the E*ropean C*urt of A*peal will be choc-full
do you really want to see them old farts stripped ? (all those wrinkles)
I have a good iron.
Tumbrils and the guillotine. It’s the only language these people understand.
Never going to happen.
They are all in it together.
Vote UKIP.
got to wait a few years yet, more’s the pity
wonder whenthe common market is going to give up on gease?
And Sally Bercow – on Radio 4′s PM yesterday – wants all honours scrapped. She told Eddy Mair, who said that if her husband is enobled (as he put it, “under ‘buggins’ turn”) she would be ‘Lady Bercow’. “Over my dead body”, she said. How succinct.
just like prescott, when she’s offered it she’ll take it.
these lot are motivated by jealousy. they hate the honours right up to the point they get one.
see that turd kinnock for the same
Can’t wait to see her say no when the time comes. Really cannot wait. Silly woman
Pres*ot took the car a few yards to the conference hall ‘cos his wife didn’t want her hairdo disturbed by the wind.
Mrs. Ber*ow doesn’t want the Baroness tag so perhaps she will also be able to “persuade” hubby to turn it down.
One problem is that a very partisan Prime Minister, like Gordon Brown, could use it against a lot of opposition Lords on gaining office.
The House of Lords is the greatest political anachronism we have in Britain, once the hereditary principle was made irrelevant it became a source of primeministerial patronage and nothing else. The only reform worth anything is to to make the second chamber fully elected. Other democracies have elected second chamberswhy not here?
+1
hope he gets enobled quick
Of course, we could always bring back Bills of Attainder. In the case of life peers, there’s no “corruption of the blood” and you’re not penalising anyone else (like the family). The bills could specify what of their property must be forfeited, and an Act of Parliament can set the rules for determining that, i.e., “Anyone so attainted shall have his/her property, obtained in the commission of the crime for which they shall have been convicted or come by with the fruits of such crime, confiscated to the Crown, and shall stand legally liable in tort or contract nonetheless for any derelictions associated with ownership or use of said property during that person’s tenure as peer, (blah blah blah, ya da da, etc.)” Just because there hasn’t been a Bill of Attainder so called since 1798 doesn’t mean we can’t bring them back, subject to procedural due process of course. I’m not kidding.
IIRC some North African government “destituted” malefactors who enriched themselves while in high office. And what’s wrong with that? You get a mud house, a robe to wear, enough to eat frugally and you’ve memorised the Koran. What else do you need?
NB you don’t get Sky, beer or fags. British scroungers please note.
Zambia has just had a grand clear out of corrupt thieving bastards. Google for details of a useful precedent.
Problem is that any stripping of honours depends on the integrity of both Honours forfeiture committee and the PM, all of whom are part of the parliamentary machine. ’nuff said.
Goodwin is a token gesture, much like those few MPs who were offered in sacrifice while the many were ‘exonerated’. A few crumbs to appease the electorate which serves as a poltical distraction from other matters like the economy, EU and Scotland.
Yes let’s get these thieving bastards out of the House of Frauds
Let’s get rid of the House of Frauds and have a proper elected Senate.
The problem with an elected Upper House is that there would be an inevitable piddling contest between them and the HoC as to which has the greater legitimacy.
Pretty soon, no business would get through either House, and the government would grind to a halt.
Sounds pretty good, when you think about it…
Won’t work.
The 1917 Act refers specifically to enquiring into peers “who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.”
Since no such persons are now alive, the Acts only exisitng purpose is to permit descendants to apply for restoration of the titles.
Only three deprivations took place, notably those of the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Albany.
But it is a precedent for a new Act to permit deprivation.
I assume as Baroness Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz I’m quite safe from this hue and cry.
Off topic, justed watching daily politics. french Socialist name of Pervenche
Beres.This specimen reinforces my theory that the majority of socialists are pug ugly. My theory is that ugly people become Socialists because they feel inferior to normal/good looking/successful winners and so ally themselves with losers.
Now I know that some Socialists maybe beautiful, but lets be honest,there’s not many are there?
Why has nobody nominated mandelscum?
Yes, but Fred has not been convicted of anything. The Act of 1917 only applied to peers who fought for their country when that happened to be Germany in the First World War and is spent.
Lord Kagan lost his K but not his peerage when he was convicted!