Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United Kingdom

Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter? 214

Posted by timothy
from the by-the-way-monarchy-has-some-downsides dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09, 2013 @06:31AM (#43673213)

    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.

  • by Pax681 (1002592) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @07:16AM (#43673357)

    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 [guardian.co.uk]
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prince-Charles-given-39-chances-veto-legislation-dont-want-law.html [dailymail.co.uk]
    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

  • by WizardFusion (989563) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @07:20AM (#43673375)
    I disagree. They should be removed and disbanded. A complete waste of taxpayers money and resources. Get rid of them.
  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@woCURIErld3.net minus physicist> on Thursday May 09, 2013 @08:03AM (#43673559) Homepage

    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.

  • by tnk1 (899206) on Thursday May 09, 2013 @10:21AM (#43674529)

    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....

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...