This came in a dream. It seems logical but there must be holes in it. I figure one nit picker may be able to prove the logic wrong. They should, the end result is ridiculous. This holds for anyone from a Monarchy like Saudi Arabia or Sweden or Spain too.

Citizens of a monarchy are, by their own admission inferior to me.

Posit the queen or king is their "better" or a < b

The queen or king is my equal or b = c (I am an American and if she wants me to bow I can tell her where to go. Technically her "subjects" can't. If I'm in a powerless airplane with Prince Charles and there is only one parachute I can rip it from his hands without committing treason against the crown or something.)

Therefore I am their better or a < c

OK, subjects of monarchies, kneel until I command you to rise.

Okay, how about this...

The Roman Republic lasted for 400 years and conquered Italy, the Balearics and a bit of France.

The Roman Empire lasted for 500 years, conquered virtually the entire known world, spread Christianity throughout it, and created the cultural background for the millennium that came thereafter.

Therefore, monarchies are more successful than democracies.

Therefore, I'm better than you. ()

I'm not contesting that Monarchies based on corrupted Republics are more efficient. I just want to know how justify me being your better.

No emoticon. (Maybe the queen is your better, but I doubt I am. Heck, you don't need me to quote Shakespeare about how if we are cut we bleed, do you?)

Then again maybe I am your superior. You missed my point. (But what should I expect of the lower classes?)

(Maybe I should revise that to point out I am better than a monarchist (other than the monarch). not My country is better than yours.

Oh, BTW, My country belongs to me (theoretically). You belong to your country (theoretically).

Ignoring the post by BMP, and focusing on the logic in the first post, I think a large part of the difficulty resides in not defining the word "better" clearly. One of the reasons for that is that we Americans like to pretend that "class," one of the words needed for a clear definition of "better" in this discussion, does not exist.

In other words, the claim is that the upper classes (royals and nobles) are somehow universally "better" than the lower classes (the common people), rather than situationally "better."


It's true that in the modern world (and especially here in the US) the bottom (slavery) and often the top (nobility) classes have been abolished. It's true that legally a person in one class has all the same rights as as a person in any other class. It's true that there is greater freedom of movement between classes, so that a person can "rise above his station" (or, conversely, do a spectacular crash and burn), but there are classes, and those classes are afforded priveleges in certain circumstances.

Anything that requires organization requires a hierarchy. Your boss (assuming you are not self-employed) enjoys more priveleges than you do within the company. But if you meet him at a ballgame, he has no natural advantage over you. Either of you can get a better seat than the other if he is willing to pay for the extra benefit. (The company pays your boss more, so he can afford the better seat more often, but that doesn't change the principle.)

It is the same with modern "constitutional" monarchies. Within the structure of the government, the royals and nobles have some priveleges and there is some "leakage" to non-governmental situations, but they do not really have any legal advantage over the "common" people.

It is the same as with the incumbents of the democratic portion of the government or the goverment of more universally "democratic" countries (such as the US), except that nepotism is both aknowleged and ritualized.

TomM,

So a Brit in a suit of armor who walks up to Prince Charles and hits him over the head with a chicken is guilty of battery and not some "class defined crime such as treason to the crown or something. (This assumes that Prince Charles has really poor security.)

What if Prince Charles gets into a suit of armor and hits the average Tommy over the head with a chicken?

(Hey, I'm introducing my kids to Monty Python. IT'S a grand show.)

I've been thinking about it and I think the problem is in the second step. My question for monarchists is if they recognize me being equal to the Monarch. If they don't and think I'm inferior to the monarch I think I should feel more insulted. As it is I just feel amused.

So a Brit in a suit of armor who walks up to Prince Charles and hits him over the head with a chicken is guilty of battery and not some "class defined crime such as treason to the crown or something.

I don't know if it is considered a treasonous crime or not, but if it is, it is more related to being a crime against a government official, than one against a devinely-appointed representative of God.

It's probably more than just Battery, since he is a part of the government. Just as "Assaulting an officer [of the law]" and "Interfering with a peace officer in the performance of his duty" are specific crimes over and above normal Assault and Battery.

I've been thinking about it and I think the problem is in the second step. My question for monarchists is if they recognize me being equal to the Monarch.

In medieval times the answer would be a resounding "NO!" In modern constitutional monarchies, the answer is probably a qualified "In most, but not all, contexts."

Several years back I read a profile of King Juan Carlos of Spain. It mentioned that he had to file Income taxes just like every other Spaniard. He listed his occupation as "public servant."

Oh, BTW, My country belongs to me (theoretically). You belong to your country (theoretically).

That does seem to be a sticking point with some subjects of even modern monarchies. Our own Voldemorte (i.e. "He who shall not be named" [aka Peter]) had trouble understanding the U.S. Bill of Rights because he couldn't see the government of a country as a corporation ruled by a contract between free citizens as opposed to a covenant between God and His duly appointed deputy ruling over their mutual subjects.

Thanks, TomM,

That explains it enough. It would have been nice to hear that from a person who claims they truly are inferior to the monarch though.

Maybe all the Brits, Swedes, Netherlanders, Spaniards, etc. on the board were away for the weekend. Maybe you'll here from them on Monday. Maybe not.

So a Brit in a suit of armor who walks up to Prince Charles and hits him over the head with a chicken is guilty of battery and not some "class defined crime such as treason to the crown or something.

I don't know if it is considered a treasonous crime or not, but if it is, it is more related to being a crime against a government official, than one against a devinely-appointed representative of God.

It's probably more than just Battery, since he is a part of the government. Just as "Assaulting an officer [of the law]" and "Interfering with a peace officer in the performance of his duty" are specific crimes over and above normal Assault and Battery.

Since I'm not a brit or well versed in british law, I'll simply assume that this wouldn't be considered treason because Prince Charles is royal; but I guess it would be considered more severe than attacking "any old civil servant" since Prince Charles (or rather, the Queen) is a symbol because of her function as representative head of state. (I have no idea how that is worded in the laws).

What would happen to an American who strikes the President of the US? Wouldn't that be considered more than assault, too, because of his function as symbol? (never mind how to get to him past the security guards, and never mind that in the present atmosphere, he would be shot as al'quaida terrorist without further investigation or proof.)

It's a funny thing. Back in the 1920s, and before, ordinary Americans could just wander into the White House and make appointments with the President with their grievances; and the security for the Royal Family in Britain was absolute. These days, Bush is locked up in a cordon which makes the Mona Lisa look open to theft, while someone dressed as Osama Bin Laden in a dress managed to gatecrash Prince Harry's birthday party. (In case you Yanks didn't get this bit of news...I'M NOT JOKING!!!)

The best bit about the British constitution is, er, that there isn't one. That's one of the reasons why we're so opposed to this new EU constitution, and why most of us are either amused or nervous at the U.S. constitution (especially the way they make the children pledge allegiance to it in school...brr...)

Queen Victoria was nearly assassinate 8 times - on one occasion on the same road by the same man an hour later when she was coming the other way! I think the culprits were given life imprisonment: even then, British law reserved the death penalty for treason (i.e. betraying the country, not killing the monarch) or the nastier sorts of murder.

If a man in a suit of armor walked up to Bush and hit him over the head with a chicken (without warning) then they would throw the book at him, but technically if he hit me I could merit the same treatment. (I wouldn't, but I could.)

I say without warning because threatening the President is a crime. I'm not sure of the law so I'll make the example historical. Oswald, if he wrote a letter to Kennedy saying he was going to kill him, would break the law. When he did shoot him he was guility of murder. (Note to conspiracy theorist: That's assuming he did it.)

Thande,

Was the guy dressed like Osama Bin Laden guilty of a special crime because Prince William was Prince William or would he be just as guilty if he trespassed at your birthday party?

Oh and Thande, if you think they are better than you then let me say: you are good enough, smart enough, and talented enough and, dog gone it, people like you!

The position in Britain is generally that the royals are allowed to pretend they're better than us providing they don't actually act like they believe they're better than us.

Ever since the Civil War, when Cromwell overthrew the Monarchy, and the subsequent Restoration, the monarchs haven't had much real power. (And that was in the 1600s!).

George II was the last king to lead troops into battle. It's ironic but his son, George III (as you may know) was as mad as a shopful of hatters and had some crazy ideas about governing without government. Despite this, he didn't have much real power: all the taxes levied against the American colonies (which I might add constituted about 1/20th of the taxes levied against Britons at home) were decided by Parliament. Basically the American Revolutionary leadership used Mad King George as a propaganda target, even though he didn't really have much power over Parliament and the Prime Minister.

In the 1700s Britain had limited democracy, but only the rich and powerful had reliable voting rights: also the voting quotas had been drawn up years earlier, so new big cities like Birmingham had a vast non-voting population and could only elect about three MPs, while small towns which had been important centuries earlier could elect five. The Americans had a similar problem working out proportional representation when they realised that if they followed it to the letter, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New York would themselves have more than half the voting power in the first U.S. Congress.

Given that in the early USA only aristocrats were 'allowed' to stand for President, it was no more democratic in that respect than Britain; on the other hand the USA allowed all of its (white, male) people to vote, a right which did not appear in Britain until the early 1800s...so you can take that one home.

all the taxes levied against the American colonies (which I might add constituted about 1/20th of the taxes levied against Britons at home) were decided by Parliament) – Thande

What was the proportion of representation of the American colonies in Parliament(I might ask )?

Gee are you a little touchy on the subject. I ask a question not attack Bitons. Well if you want a fight against Monarchists, OK?

First let me defend the US.

The representation problem was solved with the Connecticut Compromise. True, the Articles of Confederation had that problem. In 1792 the Constitutional Convention addressed that after the war had been over, what, ten years?

White male landowners were allowed to vote, not aristocrats. If a ditch digger in Virigina wanted to vote he could, if he bought a small house in Rhode Island. Can a ditch digger become a nobleman? (I can see a 17th century ball with the major domo announcing guest as they arrive.Announcing Sir Edward of Sewage.)

If you were black or a woman, well... Of course you did not have to be an "Aristocrat".

Then you use that word again. I remind you that any American born in the United States can become president. Pick the most ignoble roots you can think of, say a swineherd's son. He can become President.

Of course if it was before emancipation proclamation and he was black...

Or, I'm unsure of the date since it changed on a state to state basis before 1920, a swineherd daughter...

Now to attack You Monarchists.

Can a swineherd's son who has learned Greek, Latin, French, German, Russian, Mandarin and served as a decorated soldier, invented a cure for cancer, etc. Ever rise above "his station" without the help of a nobleman who sat on the couch (excuse me, divan) and complained to Father about those riff-raff who don't know their place?

(Yes, the weakest positions can be attacked with questions. You provide your own rope. I'd recommend accusing me of not understanding the glory that is his lordship in the same way you misused a word meaning, if I am correct, one of "noble birth" to mean "land holder". BTW, I owned a house in Fairhaven Massachusetts. Get back to your station, knave.)

BTW, Thande, you don't answer my first question. Ws he arrested for more than he could be if he broke into your birthday party at your house?

Thande,

The best bit about the British constitution is, er, that there isn't one. That's one of the reasons why we're so opposed to this new EU constitution, and why most of us are either amused or nervous at the U.S. constitution (especially the way they make the children pledge allegiance to it in school...brr...)

After the fall of the Weimarer Republic in Germany, it was realized that one of the problems leading to its demise (there were many), and which was rectified in the post-war constitution, was that although civil and human rights were mentioned, they weren't protected, that is, there was no institution like the US Supreme Court or the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitution Court). This meant that after being legally elected chancellor, Hitler could suspend almost all important rights without any chance of stopping him (that he used the cover of wanting to end the streetfights - which his SA-troups heavily contributed to - called internal trouble also helped to keep the parliament silent.)

Yes, I've heard that the british don't have a writen-down constitution, so how can citizens protest if they feel that a new law is against their civil rights?

I didn't know there is such a big opposition in britain to the new european constitution, I thought these were only right-wingers like Peter and some uneasiness because the britains so often consider themselves a seperate entity from the continent.
Since the new constitution fits with both the improved post-war german constitution and the idea of the UN Human Rights declaration I haven't noticed many people having trouble with it over here.

Oh, and I feel uneasy about this (to us) overdone patriotic thing, too (The older generation here has seen too much patriotism and how quickly it is subverted)

Stick to the original (and highly entertaining) question, please. Any debates as to the relative merits of various constitutions can be continued in PM.

Mod,

I feel that the original question (which wasn't very nicely put to begin with) has been answered by Thande.
And I didn't want to debate the merits, I just was pointing sth. out and am interested in Thandes answer.

This is a test

AAAAAARRRGGGH!!!! I just typed an amazingly long, succintly worded answer to Constanze and Mr. Berry and the Internet crashed! KRAJ KRAJ KRAJJING KRAJ!!!

(Calms down)

Sorry folks. Will rewrite as soon as possible.

Constanze: A recent poll showed that 85% of Britons (who voted) want a referendum on the EU constitution; as the Government just wants to take us into it, I guess the only people who would want a referendum are those who don't want the new Constitution.

Britain has a great tradition of not having any of its core laws actually written down. The idea running through it is the image of the defiant working-class people saying stubbornly 'I know my rights'. I suppose you could say that we try to obey the spirit of the laws without setting them down in writing, which can be (mis)interpreted by lawyers and politicians. It doesn't always work, but certainly since the 1600s (when, after our Civil War, the monarch lost most of his/her power) British politics has been known for being relatively moderate compared to most of Europe and, indeed, the USA. We tend to work via precedent rather than constitutional law; this tend to preclude far-left and far-right extremists having much success (the BNP and Imperial Fascists League are relatively minor compared to similar groups in several European countries, both in the past and now), but it also means our Civil Service are renowned for never wanting to change anything: if it was good enough for George II, it's good enough for me!

Mr. Berry: The 'Osama Bin Laden' prankster (whose real name is Aaron Barshach - ironically he's a Jew) has not actually been prosecuted for breaking into the Prince's party, though the Palace Security have understandably been criticised. Of course, it would have been different if he'd actually harmed the Prince - but all he did was walk up to him (dressed as Osama Bin Laden in a dress, remember) and kiss him!

Anyway I think he got off rather lightly - think what havoc would have been caused if he'd done it to a big celebrity (who of course would almost certainly not be of noble blood).

You also have to bear in mind that the royal family belongs to the country, not the other way around. Our entire royal family has been wiped out before, but (after mourning) we always just fob some more royalty off a handy European country, e.g. Spain, Russia, Germany or Holland. Our current royal family is German (Hanoverian to be precise); during World War I they were criticised by the man in the street for having the German surname Wettin (which shows you how different the British monarchy system is to most others) - of course the royals changed Wettin to the more respectably British, current surname of Windsor.

There are still jokes, though, along the lines of (during World War 2, General: Who do you want to live under, the King or Hitler? Soldier: Well, they're both the same nationality...) even though Hitler was Austrian of course.

Our royal family is also closely related to the Romanovs of Russia: if Russia ever does decide to restore its monarchy (the monarchists are a potent political force there) it will probably put one of our minor royals on the throne. Notably the Duke of Kent is a dead ringer for Czar Nicholas II.

constanze,

Wrong again! TomM answered the original question. (And unlike actual Monarchist he actually answered it instead of saying the US is bad. More people should actually answer the question instead of attacking something else first.

Impolitely worded? Oh I forgot all questions that are difficult to answer are impolite.

Thande,

I sympathize. I can't count the number of brilliant replies that ended in a blue screen of death.

So the guy was not prosecuted. What charges would he have faced if it were pursued? (Or, to drive constanze crazy, if he was in a suit of armor and hit Prince William over the head with a chicken? [Your a Brit, do you get the Monty Python referential humor or are you shocked at how impolite that scenario is?])

constanze, I appreciate the clarification...but you're getting uncomfortably close to ad hominem there.

Berry, some day you're going to defend yourself in a manner that doesn't inflame the situation further and I'm going to fall over dead from the shock. Play nice, OK?

Moderator, if you think this question belongs to PM, could you please move the relevant parts of the discussion there?

Thande,

...I suppose you could say that we try to obey the spirit of the laws without setting them down in writing, which can be (mis)interpreted by lawyers and politicians. It doesn't always work, but certainly since the 1600s (when, after our Civil War, the monarch lost most of his/her power) British politics has been known for being relatively moderate compared to most of Europe and, indeed, the USA. We tend to work via precedent rather than constitutional law; this tend to preclude far-left and far-right extremists having much success ....

I must admit I'm still a little bit confused about why judging by precedent is connected to aversion against a written EU constitution. For example, the first paragraph of the german constitution is "The human dignity shall not be touched. To protect and respect her is the duty of all government." (I hope I translated it correctly). The new EU constitution says sth. similar, I think.
Now, when a citizen going to court and claiming that a specific law violates his/her dignity, its still the judges who will decide the case and intention of that phrase. I certainly agree with lawyers and politicians misinterpreting written laws, but I'd think that applies mostly with specific worded laws. With a general constitution, you'd still need the judges to rule each specific incident, but people have a definite claim. How does a British citizen go to court and claim that a new law violates precedene? I just have trouble seeing how it works.

Moderator,

I won't say that Blue started it since that would be childish. But I do wonder why Blue can say on most boards what he likes, but when someone replies, they are warned off.

Blue Berry: If he had hit Prince William over the head with a chicken I guess the tabloids, and probably the public, would be baying for blood...but our current judiciary system is somewhat more "Soft", you might say, so he'd probably get 3 hours community service and a free safari (OK, OK that's a slight exaggeration, but you really haven't seen some of the court decisions in the UK ) Now if he'd hit Prince Charles over the head with a chicken, f'ristance, that'd be different: he has less sympathy with the press and people because of the breakup with Princess Diana and his controversial views on science and technology (i.e. there shouldn't be any - or at least that's what it often seems like when excessively polarised by the press).

Constanze: I agree it's difficult to explain, and it probably wouldn't work in most countries, but most countries didn't gradually ease into democratic "constitutional" monarchy from absolute monarchy the way Britain did (I know, I don't understand why we call ourselves a "constitutional" monarchy when we don't have a constitution, either). When you've suddenly got a republic after years of absolute rule, e.g. in current Russia, you really need a constitution so people know their rights; on the other hand, a constitution alone does not guarantee someone taking over, e.g. in Germany the Weimar Republic falling to the Nazis - though admittedly they had voter apathy and the Depression on their side.

The closest thing in Britain to a constitution was the Magna Carta, which was signed between King John (Useless) and the powerful barons in 1200-something. This essentially limited the power of the king and made the wider nobility have a bigger say in the running of the country, which was the first step toward democracy.

I may have been unclear: though we don't have a constitution, it doesn't mean we don't write the laws down: we just don't encapsulate core values in a single document. I guess one of the main reasons is that core values can change pretty quickly. Look at the USA: in 1790 (or whenever it was when they wrote their constitution) no-one objected to slavery, but sixty years later it turned into an issue so important it split the country apart. It's much harder to rewrite a hallowed, set-in-stone constitution than just some obscure law paper in a back cupboard somewhere. Though the Yanks have been successful several times in pushing through Amendments, so their system does work: I'm just not sure if it would be so easy in bureaucracy-swamped Europe.

Actually (and not entirely incidentally) one thing I have noticed is that all the criticisms levelled at the EU constitution are the same as those levelled by the US revolutionaries at their constitution. The Economist, for instance, although in favour of an EU constitution, complains that the current draft is too weak, compromising, leaves too many important decisions to the individual members, and too open-ended. All the same accusations were levelled at the US constitution - it was nearly abandoned until the requisite nine states (I think) approved it. Oddly enough, the one thing that the EU constitution includes that the US one doesn't is the right for a member state to secede - one wonders if Giscard d'Estaing sees trouble ahead...

Moderator: if you feel this is getting off-topic, would you prefer me to start a new conversation in PM?

1215 at Runnymede.

Thande,

I know the difference between everyday laws and a general constitution. That's why I was asking how a British citizen can go to court to challenge a specific law that violates his right, just by claiming precedence. Because laws passed by parliament are frequently challenged in the special high court by citizens and organizations, and when the court decides the laws are unconstitutional, they send them back to parliament, with a note attached "Fix this part, so it contains these elements". ;)

That the EU constitution is too weak, too compromising, too open-ended is a criticism from the british is surprising to me. Sofar, I thought they object because any written constitution is too tight, open to mis-interpretations by politicians?
As for member states seceding - remember that at the outset, the EU was supposed to be a union of several states for higher goals - coming together in peace and general understanding, brotherhood of man, free exchange of ideas, people, science, art, cooperation - , not a trade zone (although it has, sadly, degenerated into just a trade zone, and no more, in the last years.)
So everybody is free to leave and go. (And see if it wouldn't hurt the state more in a few years run.)

oh, and Thande, I just love your precise summary of the situation of the royals in Britain:

The position in Britain is generally that the royals are allowed to pretend they're better than us providing they don't actually act like they believe they're better than us.

LOL

Constanze, I should clarify that the position that the EU constitution is too weak is limited to those interests in the UK (mostly business-related) who want to see Ever Closer Union in Europe. General British opinion is opposed to most ventures aimed at Ever Closer Union, i.e. the Euro, the Rapid Reaction Force and the European Constitution etc.

Occasionally the tabloids will act outraged at this law or that coming out of Brussels which means we can't measure sausages in pounds and ounces anymore (or whatever) but generally we tend to just ignore the European Parliament (the public, not the Government). I should point out for balance that European law has occasionally worked in our favour, such as forcing the Spanish and Italians to label British chocolate as 'chocolate' rather than 'chocolate substitute'

\xenophobia on{I understand that they don't consider it chocolate unless it has leaves and cocaine still in or something}xenophobia off/

The general position re European unity in Britain was I believe best summarised by the fictional civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby in the BBC comedy Yes, Minister:

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

Jim Hacker (Minister for Administrative Affairs): "That's all ancient history, surely."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

Thande,

Rapid Reaction Force ...??? What is that? Sounds like some superhero team

I should point out for balance that European law has occasionally worked in our favour, such as forcing the Spanish and Italians to label British chocolate as 'chocolate' rather than 'chocolate substitute'

\xenophobia on{I understand that they don't consider it chocolate unless it has leaves and cocaine still in or somethingxenophobia off/ }

I completly missed that. I only know that sometimes people from paranoialand start talking about there being cows blood in english choclate to give it a darker, fuller colour (during the BSE scare, which is now forgotten again).

Occasionally the tabloids will act outraged at this law or that coming out of Brussels which means we can't measure sausages in pounds and ounces anymore (or whatever) ....

???Huh? I thought the british had converted to the metric system for general purposes some 20 or thirty years ago? I mean, suddenly you stopped all that confusing 20 shillings, half pound whatever business, and made it simply 100 pence=1 pound. And temperatures are measured in Celsius, too. I mean, I noticed the pound being used, but I thought apart from that, everything else is metric? (Here in germany, a pound is used informally, though its a metric pound= 500g or 1/2 kg).

In the beginning of the EU several years ago (can't remember which year - I have a terribly bad memory), the consumer organisations cried out in protest that 700 food additivies had to allowed again after a lot of work to get them outlawed for health reasons.

And of course, since champagne or mozzarella or anything like isn't protected anymore under EU law, farmers and communities have tried the roundabout route sort of like a trademark, that there is only one true champagne, made in the specific area in france, with the specific method prescribed. Everything else has to use a different name. So some paper trouble and back to as it was before.

Thande,

another question. If courts decide by precendence, how do they decide how far back they will go before they stop? After all, the freedoms of a common man were more restricted in the 13th or 16th century than today. So if the person in the streets knows his rights and goes to court, why doesn't the court say "For centuries, right up to George III, you had no right to work less than 12 hours a day/ get public health service, even if you are older than 65/ etc..., so why should you have that right now? The last 50 years aren't enough precendence"? (Or is it a question of records going back not being available, having been burned/ destroyed in wars etc in between? Which would make judging by precedent a bit shaky, if you only have records reaching back a mere 100 years.)
Sorry for the dig, no offense meant. But you said it so well yourself "what was good enough for king george is good enough for us."

constanze,

Maybe because I am in the right. You sound like a Colts fan complaining about the referees.

(Sorry Kerriem, did want you to drop over dead.)

Thande,

Maybe your the wrong person to be asking. (Your not a barriseter by any chance, are you?) I am not asking what would likely happen to the assailant. I am asking what laws would he break. (Like I said, you are not a barrister are you?)

I'm rushed and did not spellllcheeeck.

Mr. Berry,
Yes, I'm not a barrister or solicitor, but I don't think there are any Men (or Women) of Albion posting on here with a law background. I could be wrong, of course. I don't know what specific law he would break, though knowing us it would be something like the Assault With Intent To Cause Injury Using Unwilling Poultry Act of 1756.

Constanze,
Yes, we REALLY DO have laws going back to about 1100! (No smiley on purpose - I mean it!) However, all the archaic ones are overturned and superseded by new laws and acts as sensibilities change.

Despite this, there are a lot of loopholes left where people forget to change laws: until about 1970 in some towns it was legal to kill a Welshman on Sundays as long as you used a longbow, for instance (I repeat, I'm not joking!) Usually, though, if someone tries to invoke an archaic law for a technicality, the judge is allowed to use his/her discretion to overturn it. Presently we have a committee of Law Lords led by a Lord Chancellor overseeing this sort of thing: Tony Blair wants to replace it with an American-style elected Supreme Court (as with the EU constitution, no-one ever asks us!)

Oh, and the European Rapid Reaction Force is apparently the official name of what our tabloids like to call the Euro Army (with Napoleonic or Nazi overtones). It may well not be called that anymore, but the phrase has sunk in over here. As I understand it the idea behind the R.R.F. was to put together a multinational E.U. force to quickly force ceasefires and get aid to trouble spots in places like Africa. Not really that ambitious, but the Americans are still worried it'll undermine NATO.

Officially, yes, everthing in Britain is metric. Unofficially... Most people, certainly of any generation up to the 1970s, still prefer to measure via the imperial system. When my father has to think about kilograms he thinks of them in terms of bags of sugar from the supermarket (which are 1kg) as he doesn't have an automatic feel for the weight of a kilogram as he does for a pound (did that make sense?). Personally I prefer the metric system generally, but I can't think in terms of kilometres (all our roads are still in miles...sometimes the more paranoid accuse France etc. of only using kilometres to make their countries seem bigger than they actually are ).

It's only recently that butchers, grocers etc. have had to display weights in kilograms (by law) and several of them have become 'heroes' in the tabloids and public consciousness for refusing to comply with these rules. Our national character is indelibly tied up with the little man in the street resisting government oppression, which is another reason why very few people like the idea of the EU.

Even decimalisation of the pound (as in money) is still decried by many people older than about 35, who occasionally drop back into "Six shillings and sixpence" by habit. Basically the British people would not have voted even to slightly reform their own currency (if given a choice), so I have a feeling that they won't touch the Euro either (a recent poll showed 80% against the idea, about 5% undecided and only 15% in favour).

Thande,

Care to go to a pub and have a 472 ml of beer with me, or would rather have a pint?

Oh, my info is old if a Brit says, "I want a fag and a joint," they mean something completely different than I think, right?

B.B: Yes. It means they're a Liberal Democrat.

And I'd sooner have a cider any day.

---
Despite this, there are a lot of loopholes left where people forget to change laws: until about 1970 in some towns it was legal to kill a Welshman on Sundays as long as you used a longbow, for instance (I repeat, I'm not joking!)
---
I believe that there still exists a local law in York which says something similar, but about Scots rather than Welsh. Then again, there's some even wierder laws in the US.

As for the metric system, I believe we managed to get made a special case, in that goods must be sold by metric weights and measures, except for beer which is still sold as pints, distances can be measured in miles due to the expense of redoing every single road sign in the country (I think certain tabloid papers would have organised an invasion of europe if we'd had to cover that cost through taxes) but measurements in media (tv etc) must be metric.

I'm sure it'll eventually change, after all it seems smiling Tony's after becoming EU president when he finally gets booted from Downing Street. That's why I'm not convinced we'll get a free referendum on the euro, whenever they decide we should get it.

Gloomy, but accurate.

The only way the Euro debate can turn out well, I think, is if it eventually turns out that T.B. was just nodding and smiling while waiting for the French and Germans to either destroy their own economies or else break all those vaunted rules (which they already seem to be doing).

Can someone explain to me WHY the police is searching Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch AGAIN? Didn't they search it before? What are they hoping to find this time that they didn't find last time?

This reeks of conspiracy and suggests the possibility of "planting" evidence at the Ranch

I wondered exactly the same thing. If there ever was anything incriminating there, it must have been removed long ago.