The Forums of Glennain

My Lords and Gentlemen,

Might as well quote the section being referenced:

Quote:29. If a trial should arise when the Court of King’s Bench has no permanent officers, the Privy Counsellors shall serve as Temporary Justices, under the leadership of a Temporary Chief Justice appointed by the King.

This does as my esteemed colleague says, assembles and disassembles on an as need basis, but it also does more than is needed. It demands a full blown trial for what should rightly be an administrative function.

Trials and courts, good ones at least, have rules of evidence, juries, procedures and so on that is far beyond the ability of this nation to support.

Plus, this actually gives the Justiciar something to do other than hold aloft his weighty title which, thus far, is his primary duty. He gets to name an actual law enforcement officer.

Which is another plus, something of consequence for someone to do. Should this planned revival have any success at all, then people will be registering new forum IDs complete with all sorts of wacky titles and other abominations, and we would be ready with a well laid out plan to deal with the influx of chaos.

Another thing that bothers me about the use of the Privy Councilor as Judges concepts is that it was thrown in at the last moment almost as an after thought to put up at least a token concept of a judicial system, but the effect will be to, once again, have all the positions of importance in the hands of the very few, namely, the Privy Councilors:

The Archbishop of Bergen
The Prince of Emden
Count of Damoneigh
Mr. Livingston
(Is the Duchess of Gottingen still on the council?)

Add to this list myself and James, and you have the big six. (The Duchess doesn't count even if she is on the council as she almost never graces the forums.)

The government needs to begin to find new roles for people, and then people to fill them. It is painfully obvious that politics and government service shall, at least in the short term continue to be the focus of activity in the nation. This means that, in order for the revival to be anything more than the common four week phenomena we witness time and time again, we are going to need people other than the big six doing things.

We have other people that could be doing things, Edgar and von Kassel. We should have things for them to do. And what of the new people that are supposed to, at this very moment, be flocking to our nation? What shall they do? If history is any guide, it will not be private sector things. The big six need to stop seeing themselves as the only way and this bill is a small step in breaking out of that mindset.

I'm not saying we shouldn't also publish an authoritative guide on proper etiquette, but that is just more gloss on the problem of leaving the big six in place with no place for anyone else to participate. This creates at a minimum one officer which is good for a entry level position, and should business be good, a flurry of short lived appeals boards giving people an real hand at self governance in this nation which is exactly what we are going to need.

God save the king

My Lords and Gentlemen,

Point of information, the Prince of Emden is now His Majesty King James II, and should not have been listed above as a councilor.

God save the King

My Lords and Gentlemen,

I just want to say, once again, that I think we need to eliminate bureaucracy and slim things down. We already have systems in place to take care of the issues mentioned above, I don't think we need more. I like Mr. Marchmain's idea of posting rules and regulations in a readily accessible area so that everyone can find them easily. This makes the most sense to me. I don't think we need to make a Golgotha out of a Tabor.

I feel I must humbly point out that both Mr. Marchmain and the Noble Lord, the Duke of Gottingen do not conform to aforementioned guidelines on user names...

My Lords and Gentlemen:

What guidelines? I'm not aware of any. This is where a forum guide would be helpful, you see. I'm not intentionally breaking a rule, but if I were made aware of it upon my return, either by way of a posting of the rules in a conspicuous place, or by the good offices of a guide, I would have at once conformed.

And rather than wade through all the legislation to try to figure out what guidelines I'm not compliant with, I'll simply ask what they are and how to remedy the matter.

My Lords and Gentlemen:

Considering that I hold not a single office or any sort of fancy title (foreign or domestic) to embellish my slim signature with, I find it amusing that my name should make of the 'Big Five' the 'Big Six'! I just show up for work every day, that's all.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

Mr. Marchmains ignorance of the law and his resulting violations are not germain to this discussion.

The Archbishop's pointing out the other violations highlight exactly the flaw of the current system. Who is going to enforce it? How shall it be enforced? What shall the penalties be for defiance?

God save the King

My Lords and Gentlemen,

The policy should, like all laws, be enforced by the Government, and the penalties should be set by the courts, or by Parliament. The current lack of enforcement is largely because of the negative response we have received when correcting people. One citizen made a big stink about it, and then later left the Kingdom entirely.

The problem here, in my eyes, is not with the law or the system. It is partially timidity on the part of the Government, and partially a lack of respect for the law in some people -- even when they have been politely notified of it.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

Can you imagine the nations of the world refusing to enforce the laws because the violators might not like it?

God save the King

My Lords & Gentlemen:

I believe that if the Most Noble Gentleman pays closer attention to the tabloids and celebrity news (which I don't actually recommend) he'll discover that the system fails to enforce the laws every day, because violators don't like it. Look at Elliott Spitzer. Never even charged, much less brought to trial.

That having been said, I believe that chronic offenders should be punished, but only after a reasonable number of polite requests have been made. It would be imprudent and unseemly if offenders were chastised and prosecuted straight away. In the grand scheme of things, after all, forum signatures are a matter of little importance (regardless of how annoyingly absurd some of them can be).

Of genuine importance, however, is that subjects and visitors demonstrate their acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Hanoverian State's real authority by observing the community's laws and by voluntarily submitting to the authorities and accepting the consequences for violating the law.

So, while employing a non-compliant forum ID or signature or title may be a minor offence, in and of itself, it develops into a major offence if the violator is obstinate, refusing to acknowledge that he is really subject to the law of the land. And if he refuses to acknowledge that, then we certainly don't want him around anyway, so by all means, let the law go double-barrel at him.

But we have to be sure to properly distinguish between genuinely defiant offenders and offenders who are merely a bit clueless, or who are procrastinators, or who genuinely weren't aware of the law. Like me, for example.

As of this moment, I ought to point out, the rules governing forum IDs have yet to be posted in a conspicuous place in the public (Ellicott Square) forum for ready reference.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

To my esteemed colleague I say only offer an amendment or amendments.

God save the King