The Lunatics HAVE taken over the Asylum

The Unspeakable in Pursuit By Edward Teague 9/3/05(william bowles.info)
This story originally written and published 5 months ago, illuminates a small corner of how our legislators and our Executive function – apparently, by mistake mis - laying an Act of Parliament. Now that treason rears it’s ugly head .. this comical nonsense takes on a new and deeper significance. This article is better read in toto but the following provides a flavour. It may serve to illustrate that there is much to be learned from a close examination of what exactly happens within the Palace of Westminster.(pic FO Minister Scotsman Robin Cook meets Baroness Scotland who worked closely with him)

The Crime and Disorder Bill 1998 (amongst other things) was an attempt to tidy up the legislation by which the State set about killing people, Lord Williams of Mostyn (31 Mar 1998 Hansard Column 209) moved Amendment No. 11: this, Hansard helpfully notes, relates to Clause 30 [Abolition of death penalty for treason and piracy, etc.]:
“Page 24, line 5, at beginning insert-
(”(A1) In section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 (practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason), for the words “have and suffer such pains of death and” there shall be substituted the words “be liable to imprisonment for life and to such”…
(A3) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, namely—
(a) the Treason Act 1790;
(b) the Treason Act 1795.”).
The repeal of the Treason Act 1817 and Section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 are consequential to the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 in Clause 30… etc
I hope that that brief summary of the researches nobly carried out by the officials will be of assistance. I beg to move.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I can only say that this exercise was precisely in order to remove from the statute book Acts with draconian penalties, which were never used. What he said we should be doing, we have done…

My Lord Onslow, … no doubt fortified by a decent lunch, perhaps at Boodle’s, lit upon an apparent inconsistency, we were to substitute death with life imprisonment under the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537 but repeal the Treason Act 1790. It evidently prayed on his mind …..
(see pic)The Earl of Onslow: “My Lords, this is the most glorious piece of information one could possibly come across. It has been worth waiting 30 years in your Lordships’ House to know that slandering the sovereign in Ireland is still a hanging offence. When was anybody last prosecuted under the Treason Act (Ireland) 1537, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542—introduced, incidentally, by King Henry VIII, who probably had about as much control over the House of Commons as does the present First Lord of the Treasury-or the Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560? Surely we should not have Acts of Parliament on the statute book which is never used and which contain vast and draconian penalties? It is fun to laugh at them, but it is a serious matter to have Acts on the statute book with this level of punishment which no one in their right mind would dream of using.”

………now fast forward to Monday March 7th 2005 and the Lords have assembled to discuss the controversial Anti Terrorism Bill, but first Lord Tebbit raised a point (Hansard 7 Mar 2005: Column 475), which the delicious Lady Scotland was happy to address
Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty’s Government:
“Why they have been unable to inform members of the public who have inquired the reason for the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):
“My Lords, neither the records of the relevant debates in Hansard during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill nor Bill papers held in the Home Office explain fully why the 1795 Act was repealed in its entirety. It is, however, evident from the Hansard records that the repeal was considered to be a necessary consequence of the decision to repeal the death penalty for treason.
The substantive offences that were contained in the 1795 Act are covered by other parts of the criminal law including the Treason Act 1351 relating to conspiracy and incitement. “
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, what on earth has been going on in the Home Office? Does the Minister recollect that on 16 November last, she told me in a Written Answer that the 1795 Act was still in force and subsequently had to correct that? Now her officials have written to members of the public saying that they have no idea why the 1795 Act was repealed. It seems that they are incapable of going to the Library, finding the Official Report for 19 March 1998 and reading in it the speeches made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and Lord Williams of Mostyn, who seemed to have some idea why he was advocating the Act’s repeal.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal entering into the fun of the proceedings, and wearing carefully colour co-ordinated spectacles to match her beautifully tailored suit, looked over her spectacles perched on the end of her exquisite nose and was anxious at elaborate, forced and courteous length to patronise my Lord Tebbit..

“My Lords, of course, I apologise for the fact that the 1795 Act was incorrectly referred to. I remind noble Lords that it is not every day that the 1300 Act, the 1870 Act or those other Acts are looked at. There was a mistake. I humbly ask the House’s pardon for this terrible mistake that was made by me through that dreadful inaccurate Answer.”

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: the comical ex leader of the Liberal party was anxious to point out that 1795 Act was the Terrorism Act (sic) of its day inspired by public hysteria about the threat of the French and introduced by a repressive Conservative administration under William Pitt the Younger.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern:
“My Lords, was the 1351 Act one that applied to the United Kingdom? If not, I wonder why it should be an important part of the law of the United Kingdom today.”
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:
“My Lords, we are grateful that that Act was followed by a number of other Acts that sought to bring it into force. To help your Lordships, there was the Treason Act 1351, the Treason Act 1702, the Treason Act 1842 and the Treason Felony Act 1848, which all amplified our splendid common law offence, so Scotland is safe.”
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:
“My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that European Union Commissioners affirm an oath of allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand would in itself be treasonable.”
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

“My Lords, I hesitate as always to give any disappointment to the noble Lord, but I have to tell him that the EU constitution is, unfortunately, not a treasonable document…” Ho, Ho, Ho.

So there we have it, in this House of Comedies, the Home Office for several years manages to mislay an Act of Parliament and yet inexplicably maintain on the Statutes, Life Imprisonment for any citizen…”who practising any harm etc. to, or slandering, the King, Queen or heirs apparent punishable as high treason” … as my Lord Onslow said in 1998 … “It is fun to laugh at them, but it is a serious matter to have Acts on the statute book with this level of punishment (Life imprisonment) which no one in their right mind would dream of using.” Ho, Ho, Ho indeed. The lunatics, it appears, have taken over the asylum.

The Lords then went on to listen to My Lord Charlie of Thoroton, the Prime Ministers pal and ex-flatmate explain why the Home Secretary wanted to put under house arrest citizens he suspected, but could not prove, nor publicly offer charges or evidence, of the entirely novel crime of “ terrorist related activity”, a law he wished to remain in perpetuity and would resist any attempt to have a pre-determined date of repeal.

In an interesting article in the New Statesman this week,(9/3/05) representatives of Addleshaw, Goddard, and Evershed’s leading London solicitors, and specialist in planning law, pointed out that should the Home Secretary so decide to domestically imprison a citizen, he would be obliged to; apply for change of use of their property, seek the approval of any other occupiers, deal with any objections neighbours may raise about inconvenience, effect on amenity, property values, regular presence of law enforcement personnel etc. The Home Secretary would also have to be certain that in so restricting the owners or tenants use of the property, they were not in breach of any entitlement in the Property Deeds or Rent Agreement that they may have to “quiet enjoyment “ of the premises.

There is of course the small matter that such an action overturns centuries of liberty and individual freedom, and the fundamental concept of habeas corpus enshrined in the Magna Carta. Handy briefing notes the Home Secretary had prepared earlier, pointed out that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, …… he also closed down newspapers, and had people summarily shot and hanged.

One could again be forgiven for thinking that the Lunatics have taken over the Asylum.