Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dolly-scientist-should-be-stripped-of-his-knighthood-colleagues-tell-queen-776746.html

Former employees of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, where Dolly the sheep was cloned, have petitioned the Queen to strip the scientist Sir Ian Wilmut of his knighthood on the ground that he played only a minor role in the breakthrough.

But, doesn't she sort of toss out knighthoods like they have an expiry date anyway?

 n0t_u wrote:
But, doesn't she sort of toss out knighthoods like they have an expiry date anyway?

No, Her Majesty doesn't. The government decides who gets knighthoods.
The only honour HM The Queen has full control over is the Royal Victorian Order.

I think I see a solution to this: Knighthoods all around, they can go form The Order of the Test Tube Sheep or something.

Man, the Scots sure take their business with sheep seriously.

 daedalus wrote:
Man, the Scots sure take their business with sheep seriously.

There's a joke here. Hold please...

It's absurd that a scientist should receive a knighthood, they should be reserved for political doners.

Anyway i'm surprised liz doesn't have a sore arm by now, she hands them out like confetti

Doesn't the government give out the kinighthoods and Liz just handles the sword?

Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

As for stripping a knighthood, it can be done, and relatively easily, but its a major disgrace. What the lobbyists don't realise is that losing a knighthood is not a restoration of normality. Its far worse to lose a knighthood than never have one. If the scientist was a convicted peado then probably, but someone who the government honoured above what he deserved is an unfair case to be stripped. Removing undeserved knighthoods is like world peace and full equality for all a mythical standpoint and a hopeless dream. Besides who would determine deserving.

There are others who have been honoured who deserve to have their titles stripped far more than this fellow.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

 Testify wrote:

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

You referring to yourself here?

 Testify wrote:

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

They are her ministers in name only. They are also our ministers because we as the public elected them, and that counts as true whether we as individuals voted for them or not. Even so they are far more accountable to 'us' than Her Majesty.
while there is a technical accountability that has largely fallen by the wayside. Blair dispensed with it altogether, but then he deplored any form of accountability except to himself.

The Queen is by virtue of position neutral in terms of party politics, so she cant do much about what 'her' minsters do in 'her' name. The only influence she carries is via access to personal dislogue, and that accounts for less than little with the government with the previous government, and they elevated more knights and peers than anyone since William the Conqueror, almost entirely for their own partisan gain.

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

Yep, certainly is depressing. Especially so in this case, because you're wrong. Granting assent to legislation is a fairly big influence on the running of the state, technically. HM has a de facto hands-off role, but that's purely based in tradition. Constitutionally speaking, she could deny assent for a bill to be passed into law, particularly if that bill would violate the constitution, iirc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
It's absurd that a scientist should receive a knighthood, they should be reserved for political doners.

I don't know about political doners, but I once ate a chicken shawarma that had some fairly extreme views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

Yep, certainly is depressing. Especially so in this case, because you're wrong. Granting assent to legislation is a fairly big influence on the running of the state, technically. HM has a de facto hands-off role, but that's purely based in tradition. Constitutionally speaking, she could deny assent for a bill to be passed into law, particularly if that bill would violate the constitution, iirc.

t.

The main problem is that we are one of three countries IIRC that don't have a specific document that is their constitution (The others being Australia and Israel IIRC

I came to this thread since i misread it as "call of duty scientist to lose knighthood" needless to say i am disappointed it was not some super science tech fight with horrible re spawn locations

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It's absurd that a scientist should receive a knighthood, they should be reserved for political doners.

I don't know about political doners, but I once ate a chicken shawarma that had some fairly extreme views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I'd be fascinated about what the shawarma has to say.

Probably

"Oh god stop eating me, stop! I have a family!"

It just seems really small minded to argue someone else should lose their knighthood. I mean, arguing that you should get one too makes sense, but trying to get someone else to lose theirs - that just seems really petty. Them being knighted doesn't get them special parking bays or discounts at McDonald's, so why should you care?

 Orlanth wrote:

They are her ministers in name only.

Yeah, hence why I put "they're her ministers and they do what she tells them to". Oh wait, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth so you can trot out quotes from your A Level in Politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_majesty%27s_government
"Under the British constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch"
Can't get much more succinct than that, huh?

As I say above, go read up on the British constitution before arbitrarily telling foreigners wrong information. The ministers of the crown act in the queen's stead, that's how our constitutional monarchy works. The fact that it is in practice no different to a symbolic head of state isn't terribly important, but the distinction is there.

 Orlanth wrote:

They are also our ministers because we as the public elected them, and that counts as true whether we as individuals voted for them or not.

Are we just saying things here, or do you actually expect me to not know that we vote for our politicians in the UK?

 Orlanth wrote:

while there is a technical accountability that has largely fallen by the wayside. Blair dispensed with it altogether, but then he deplored any form of accountability except to himself.

Weird, there were all these elections I remember...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

Yep, certainly is depressing. Especially so in this case, because you're wrong. Granting assent to legislation is a fairly big influence on the running of the state, technically. HM has a de facto hands-off role, but that's purely based in tradition. Constitutionally speaking, she could deny assent for a bill to be passed into law, particularly if that bill would violate the constitution, iirc.

The entire British constitution, indeed our laws, are "based in tradition". Not sure what your point is? The executive of our country is the monarch, and the cabinet act in her stead. Do you disagree with this? If so, please cite your reference.

It is tradition that cabinet is appointed by the queen based on elections. There are no written laws governing whom she can and cannot appoint.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

Yep, certainly is depressing. Especially so in this case, because you're wrong. Granting assent to legislation is a fairly big influence on the running of the state, technically. HM has a de facto hands-off role, but that's purely based in tradition. Constitutionally speaking, she could deny assent for a bill to be passed into law, particularly if that bill would violate the constitution, iirc.

t.

The main problem is that we are one of three countries IIRC that don't have a specific document that is their constitution (The others being Australia and Israel IIRC

We don't have one single document, we have several specific documents that make up our constitution.

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Constitutionally the government acts in her maj's stead, so it's still her giving them out.

A twisted viewpoint of it. The Queen has little influence on hands on running of the state, she honours a lot of people she would rather not by all accounts.

She's still the head of state. Those ministers are her ministers. and the queen has *no* influence on the running of the state.

It's depressing how little the average British citizen knows about how our constitution works.

Yep, certainly is depressing. Especially so in this case, because you're wrong. Granting assent to legislation is a fairly big influence on the running of the state, technically. HM has a de facto hands-off role, but that's purely based in tradition. Constitutionally speaking, she could deny assent for a bill to be passed into law, particularly if that bill would violate the constitution, iirc.

What someone can technically do and what they can actually do are two different things. You could 'solve' the local drugs/immigration/pigeon problem with a shotgun, all you need is a shotgun, technically. Police might have something to do about it though.
Her Majesties authority, once used, may well be removed altogether. Consequently it is not used, but saved for real emergencies, such as a Prime Minister using his emergency powers to stay in power. The Prime Minister also has a lot of unused authority.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

The main problem is that we are one of three countries IIRC that don't have a specific document that is their constitution (The others being Australia and Israel IIRC

Not having a formal single constitution is an advantage. The US is plagued by theirs, it has good parts and parts that were good in the 18th century. By not having a fixed constitution the nation state is more flexible. The Queen takes the place of a Constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

They are her ministers in name only.

Yeah, hence why I put "they're her ministers and they do what she tells them to". Oh wait, I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth so you can trot out quotes from your A Level in Politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_majesty%27s_government
"Under the British constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch"
Can't get much more succinct than that, huh?

As I say above, go read up on the British constitution before arbitrarily telling foreigners wrong information. The ministers of the crown act in the queen's stead, that's how our constitutional monarchy works. The fact that it is in practice no different to a symbolic head of state isn't terribly important, but the distinction is there.

The wrong information to give to anyone is to assume culpability on behalf of Her Majesty. So back to the OP its not the Queens fault if the wrong people are knighted.

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

They are also our ministers because we as the public elected them, and that counts as true whether we as individuals voted for them or not.

Are we just saying things here, or do you actually expect me to not know that we vote for our politicians in the UK?

The point is our politicians are accountable to us, but we are not culpable for their actions. Same with Her Majesty.

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

while there is a technical accountability that has largely fallen by the wayside. Blair dispensed with it altogether, but then he deplored any form of accountability except to himself.

Weird, there were all these elections I remember...

Being snarky and ignorant of the facts is an unflattering combo.

The Prime Minister is expected to report to the Monarch in person on every Tuesday. The Monarch can ask the Prime Minister any question, it cannot be refused, she is privy to any secret the state possess if she chooses, nothing without exception is 'above her clearance level'. All the Monarch can do is question and listen, not act. Its simply an exercise in accountability. Blair was the only Prime Minister to do away with that, which says alot about him. IIRC Brown reported by email, Cameron reports.

As for accountability and elections. The two are not directly linked, you can deny accountability and still get elected if you lie enough, conceal what you do or buy the electorate, or send them to sleep.

 Testify wrote:

It is tradition that cabinet is appointed by the queen based on elections. There are no written laws governing whom she can and cannot appoint.

So you think the Queen appoints ministers? If so I will sell you London Bridge.

 Orlanth wrote:

What someone can technically do and what they can actually do are two different things. You could 'solve' the local drugs/immigration/pigeon problem with a shotgun, all you need is a shotgun, technically. Police might have something to do about it though.
Her Majesties authority, once used, may well be removed altogether. Consequently it is not used, but saved for real emergencies, such as a Prime Minister using his emergency powers to stay in power. The Prime Minister also has a lot of unused authority.

Actually it is more like a nuke. MAD. We do not say we technically have nuclear weapons because we have never used them. The queen can veto any act of parliament by refusing royal assent. Rather like nukes using it would be a last resort, but having that power, and the assurance that it would be a one shot job, assures allot of the freedom we have in the UK.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

The main problem is that we are one of three countries IIRC that don't have a specific document that is their constitution (The others being Australia and Israel IIRC

Not having a formal single constitution is an advantage. The US is plagued by theirs, it has good parts and parts that were good in the 18th century. By not having a fixed constitution the nation state is more flexible. The Queen takes the place of a Constitution.

Our constitution works perfectly well, the gak parts we've fixed with constitutional amendments. Now off with you, go eat a crumpet or something.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

The main problem is that we are one of three countries IIRC that don't have a specific document that is their constitution (The others being Australia and Israel IIRC

Not having a formal single constitution is an advantage. The US is plagued by theirs, it has good parts and parts that were good in the 18th century. By not having a fixed constitution the nation state is more flexible. The Queen takes the place of a Constitution.

Our constitution works perfectly well, the gak parts we've fixed with constitutional amendments. Now off with you, go eat a crumpet or something.

With the exception of gun laws, brought in at a time when it was everyones right to blow away natives who didn't want you taking their land.

 Orlanth wrote:

With the exception of gun laws, brought in at a time when it was everyones right to blow away natives who didn't want you taking their land.

Explain to me why US gun laws are broken.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

With the exception of gun laws, brought in at a time when it was everyones right to blow away natives who didn't want you taking their land.

Explain to me why US gun laws are broken.

Things I disagree with are gak and should be changed to appease me.


Am I doing it right?

 AustonT wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

With the exception of gun laws, brought in at a time when it was everyones right to blow away natives who didn't want you taking their land.

Explain to me why US gun laws are broken.

Things I disagree with are gak and should be changed to appease me.


Am I doing it right?

I think that sums the forth coming argument up nicely. I'm going to go buy an AR-15 and a drum magazine just because I can.

 daedalus wrote:
Man, the Scots sure take their business with sheep seriously.

You're American so I'll forgive you. But it's the Welsh you want.

 phantommaster wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Man, the Scots sure take their business with sheep seriously.

You're American so I'll forgive you. But it's the Welsh you want.

or Aberdonians

 phantommaster wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Man, the Scots sure take their business with sheep seriously.

You're American so I'll forgive you. But it's the Welsh you want.

It's by my understanding that the Welsh are the whipping boy of the UK. Where's the fun in that? That's like beating a dead horse. JUST LEAVE TAFFY ALONE!