Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 23, 2014 22:37:00 GMT -6
BTW, let me reiterate: the legal aspect of this case - did Hooligan and Asmourescù form a criminal conspiracy? - is now in the hands of the Attorney-General to decide whether to prosecute.
I am aiming at the political aspects - 1) that the Head of State should not also be the private owner-operator of the major means of communication within this Kingdom; 2) that a fearful prejudice that one political party, associated with one "ethnic" group of citizens, represents "the enemy within" leads to, at best, mindless obstructionism; at worst, breaking the constitutional order "in order to save it". Look, I personally feel that the culture of the RUMP party is toxic and thus its influence within the Senäts and the "Deep State" is toxic. But I aim to combat that politically in the light of day. There are no conspiracies on this side of the fence.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2014 22:57:07 GMT -6
Okay, I'm finally back and ready to look at this stuff.
Looking through here, I see some improper stuff. First the fact that it seems like Hool was driving while on his smartphone and sending messages, which is very dangerous and not okay.
Second to that, we have a Justice who actively investigated/prosecuted a case and then hid that fact, which is pretty bad. I understand that he didn't want to appear partisan, but this was not good. Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure who could ever trust Tim with anything again, on any level. Sheesh. I know that the previous "leaks" weren't causing the desired damage, so you had to dig deep, but it's pretty bad that the main thing he could turn up to hurt me and the RUMP with was an incident in which he did most of what's wrong. "Sure I killed him, but that guy didn't tell anyone!"
It does help that he's now confessing, I guess, but it's rather less noble since he's doing it as a weapon and with the probably correct assumption that he will suffer no consequences: with no offices or rank or anything, it's not like he can be fired, and prosecutions have been so shockingly slow that it would be obviously partisan if one magically appeared before the other one we've been told to expect.
The whole improper award allegation is silly. I can see why Hool had a hard time even figuring out what was being alleged. It's the thing where Tim mentions that he wrote a book on the law, and Hool says, "Hey, we do have a book award!" But as anyone who's chatted with Hool knows, he says stuff like that all the time, looking for ways to recognize everyone's work. When Tim and Hool concluded that Tim probably wouldn't get any recognition for his work investigating ESB's enormous crimes, and Tim said, "wrote two editions of the practice ... Maybe I'll get a book award or something," that just prompted Hool to mention that a book award did exist - which Tim didn't even know! Let's focus on the actual wrongdoing here. Silliness.
Likewise the ESB "threat" thing, which was exhaustively discussed the last time it was brought up. ESB's story changed slightly each of the two times he tried to justify it, remember, and he certainly needed some way to mitigate his departure a bit. Alleging that he "felt" like he was being threatened is a way he could do it without needing to substantiate it (unlike the voluminous evidence of his crimes) and that would let him wiggle into a little less fault. ESB was a grand and serial fabulist of the most astonishing character - remember that he fooled many of his friends in the most convincing way! The very idea that anyone could take his word on anything is simply laughable.
Beyond that, I'd say that Hool showed poor judgment here. I guess I'll leave much more than that to the professionals, but even in the worst light, this all seems a little overblown here. We'll see, I guess.
Mick, let me urge you not to take Miestra too seriously about this. Remember that she plays hardball all the time, everywhere. When the ESB scandal broke, and it turned out one of her longtime allies and core members had illegally been voting en masse with fake votes for the ZRT, the folks in the RUMP thought it would be unfair to paint them all with that brush and try to get partisan advantage. We're still those sort of people, and let's stay that way.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 23, 2014 23:08:38 GMT -6
"Sure I killed him, but that guy didn't tell anyone!" I believe in law that's called an accessory during the fact? Or possibly aiding and abetting? You think? I would assume that the A-G will put both Hooligan and Asmourescù in the dock. Asmourescù is talking about pleading guilty in return for turning state's evidence; but that suggests a plea bargain rather than immunity. There is also the question of "civil disability" (eg banning from politics for an election or three). I really look forward to someone arguing that in front of the Cort pü Înalt. Well, luckily in this case, we don't have to take Asmourescù's word on anything. The evidence is in the A-G's hand. I'm sure both Asmourescù and Hooligan will be called as witnesses and Hool can explain why it's not his fault that Tim committed the cover-up that Hool suggested. You want to talk more about "Fortress Senäts", Sir Alexandreu? Or perhaps how the King deliberately wanted to avoid raising calls for the nationalisation of Witt? While not unethical or illegal in any way, that certainly shows that when I talk about the non-political aspects of the Kingdom of Talossa being thoroughly politicised in a RUMP direction, it's not just paranoid ravings. Even the other monarchist parties can see that now. Even some of your own members (at least, until you "get to them" and explain why whatever your members do is okay if it's to PROTECT THE MONARCHY?)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2014 23:12:54 GMT -6
Let's speak frankly about culture: Miestra, you're rude. A lot. And I feel comfortable saying that because I know that you know it's true, and that you prefer it as "straight talking" to what you view as a fancy rudeness clothed in better words. You've said that many times, recently even advocating that Witt should permit vulgar language.
You also, as I said, play hardball all the time. We saw this fairly recently when you accused Beric'ht of being a party organ to try to discredit some criticism from the paper, even though this is a little silly when half the lead reporting team is from a different party, the sole opinion columnist was from a third different party, and the paper had very recently done a positive profile piece on you. And when it suits you, the RUMP becomes the party that works to stop all laws... and yet it takes like thirty seconds to look back at the past couple of Cosas and see that the RUMP has been integral to making enormous changes. I mean, Cresti wrote the compromise that did away with the mandatory voting thing you'd been railing against for years, and I wrote the whole darn legal code you'd been demanding for years. I don't know if you really still believe that rhetoric, but I sure hope not (because it means you're not paying attention).
So yeah, I'm sure you've gotten under some people's skin, and they may privately say mean things about you. But there's no big culture of that, and if you saw more than a handful of carefully selected conversations flung out as revenge, then you'd see that. After all, at this point there's not many people who are less credible than Tim (except maybe ESB!). Take a moment and look over your private chat logs with someone you trusted and see what you said that could be selectively leaked to hurt you. Imagine what your embittered "enemy" might say if he wanted to spin a credible tale, by tinging the lie with a flavor of hurtful truth... "She hates the monarchy! She would lie and cheat and steal to bring it down!" We wouldn't believe it, and neither should you.
Don't believe this hokum, just because it fits into what you want to believe. If I didn't think it was wrong, I could substantiate this with several long speeches and discussions by the prominent people of our party internally, and the grudging admission of others, to the effect that we love that you guys are back! Reunision was a joy, we've said it consistently and seriously, and we're so very glad that it happened.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2014 23:20:37 GMT -6
I'm not really sure. Tim had a definite duty as a justice, and he violated his oath in some unfortunate ways. But I don't know what the standards are for wrongdoing when it comes to helping or failing to mention that. What I do know is that we should probably be upset way more at the guy who did the seriously wrong thing... but I guess there's no political advantage there, eh? You want to talk more about "Fortress Senäts", Sir Alexandreu? Or perhaps how the King deliberately wanted to avoid raising calls for the nationalisation of Witt? While not unethical or illegal in any way, that certainly shows that when I talk about the non-political aspects of the Kingdom of Talossa being thoroughly politicised in a RUMP direction, it's not just paranoid ravings. Even the other monarchist parties can see that now. Even some of your own members (at least, until you "get to them" and explain why whatever your members do is okay if it's to PROTECT THE MONARCHY?) Oh, poppycock. The fact that we chat and give clever names to fairly mild descriptors of the facts on the ground isn't some big conspiracy. I could call my kitchen sieve the T.S.S. Leaky Asmourescu, and it doesn't mean I'm plotting villainy with a clever name. We were just chatting about the obvious fact that we didn't have a majority in the Cosa at that time, so if the ZRT or another party wanted to pass a bill we hated, it would have to be stopped in the Senate (if at all). Our goofy name isn't a plan, it's a... well, a goofy name! All this wild exaggeration is just silly, even with menacing terse replies, and especially when accompanied by conspiracy theories about me "getting to" people.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 23, 2014 23:27:37 GMT -6
Of course, I give the RUMP credit for helping enact major parts of the ZRT programme, although I also give the ZRT credit for political pressure. But it's not the ZRT who have been throwing up their hands at, for example, the Senäts results in the last Clark. Well, only the voters of Benito, Vuode and M-M can change that this time round.
I will repeat my central contentions: 1) the King should not be the Witt Admin because that's a confusion of hats which lead to perverse effects. 2) Republican politics operating within the Organic and Statutory Laws is legitimate in Talossa, rather than an existential threat, and no fundamental constitutional change will happen without a broad majority. 3) The discourse of the RUMP party seems to deny the above, breeding an attitude of prejudice, fear and contempt, which not only poisons the environment - making valuable collaboration such as you mention more difficult - but leads to people making silly, unethical or even illegal or inOrganic choices in the belief that they must do this to "protect Talossa and the Monarchy". In other words - if the RUMP hadn't ginned up fears of what "the Republicans" might do, the alleged criminal acts would not have happened. 4) the above poison is much more corrosive on this Kingdom than that of a few Anglo-Saxon four-letter words.
To deny the above seems to argue that Admiral Asmourescù conceived a hatred and fear of Republicans so great that he was willing to break the law to "get" us, without in any way being influenced by the rhetoric of the party to which he belonged. To give an analogy which you might understand, it's like hellfire anti-abortion preachers suggesting it's not their fault when someone murders a gynaecologist. (I must say I'm particularly disappointed with Litz's comments.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 23, 2014 23:34:41 GMT -6
Hey, you don't have to convince me about the Witt thing... I have very long been saying that alternative private Witts should be started. Remember I tried to convince you of that just recently, when you were calling for the freedom to swear (in English, I mean... I've started to puzzle out some of your Talossan and it made my vision blue). I've been saying this for many, many years. It will improve the diversity of our community, decentralize power, and generally make things better. I'm loathe to nationalize and usurp this Witt, of course, because the reason His Majesty runs it is that he has been admining it for a very long time. And of course he's paid for the sites out of pocket for almost as long.
Nor do you have to convince me about the existential... wait, what? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course it's valid to argue that Talossa should be a republic. Your entire party strongly advocates for that point of view, and no one says that you shouldn't. You're completely wrong, of course, but we just disagree.
Repeating the third thing doesn't make it true. I'm telling you, as a very longtime member and current leader of the RUMP, that it's just not true. We have said time and time again to the contrary, both publicly and privately (for all that some grousing might have happened in private, as it does with everyone). This is just spinning up and alleging a whole fabric of weirdness out of a single thread supplied by a very vengeful smiling man, and of course you're really ready to believe it since it confirms your biases and it benefits your own party.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jul 23, 2014 23:35:25 GMT -6
Two brief points, and then I'm out of town away from computers for four days.
1. This afternoon, I read the leaked chats between S:reu Asmourescu and Sir Iustì, an act for which I did *not* have Sir Iustì's permission. I didn't think, until I was done reading, that those chats were the kind of private thing that honest people keep private. If someone "leaked" private chats of mine, I'd feel (reasonably, I think) that honourable people would avoid reading them. So I apologize to Sir Iustì for my inadvertence and my participation in the invasion of his privacy.
2. I honestly don't recall Lord Hooligan's saying anything to me about S:reu Asmourescu's having been the tipster who originally alerted Sir Iustì to suspicious patterns in various "people's" email. If you'd asked me yesterday, I would have hemmed and hawed a bit, and said I *thought* I remembered that the revelations had begun with Sir Iustì, didn't they? Which is to say, I probably should try to pay better attention to things people tell me. For whatever reason, I didn't really focus on this one.
— John R
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 23, 2014 23:42:44 GMT -6
Yeah, "poisoning the well" (making out Admiral Asmourescù to be a sinister force) won't work as long as every Talossan can read the leaks for themselves, which they can.
BTW, if I'm terse with you, it's not to be menacing, it's that: a) I want the general public to read this debate, and they get turned off by walls of text; b) there's no point arguing stuff that will be decided by the A-G and the Courts, and you might want to save your best arguments in case you get hired as a lawyer.
Sir Alexandreu, you are a valued Talossan - a more than competent legislator and administrator. I don't care for your style of courtroom practice, but it gets the job done. This is not personal. This is about a party's culture. At least you must admit that Admiral Asmourescù's anti-Republican animus, which blinded him to the point of illegality, was at least not made unwelcome in the RUMP, even if not actively encouraged by it?
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jul 24, 2014 1:04:01 GMT -6
I rather imagine that if the private conversations of the former Republic, or of any non-RUMP party, were opened to view, some anti-others speech would be found Confirmed, of course. I think this is a time of trial for our country. Will everybody try to do this according to the book (which I think we have, so far) and not let too much personal animosity bubble up and poison the atmosphere? Let the investigations be conducted, let's have the interviews, and let's see where this leads us. I do agree that, whatever really happened and regardless of who was told what, the friendship ties between King and RUMP and the King's formal administration of the websites are increasingly looking like a bad setup.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 24, 2014 1:13:40 GMT -6
One particular instance where I stuck foot firmly in mouth was my famous quote referring to Sir Tamorán dàl Navâ as a "vicious, sycophantic, homophobic thug". The third word in that epithet was completely undeserved, based on a misunderstanding of a rumour. As for the other words... well, they're harsh and deliberately provocatory, and this was while Grubi was doing the work of the very King who later tried to destroy his life. But Grubi got over that nonsense, I apologised, and we've worked well together for the next ten years. There is no reason why - if, as Ián says, everyone plays this by the book - I won't have the same kind of relationship with cxhns. Preston or Davinescù in future as well. On the subject, it's probably part of the Admiral's designs that this would have blown up and taken over all the metaphorical front pages just when the headlines should have read "Government Collapses Because One MC Slept In".
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jul 24, 2014 2:56:43 GMT -6
Interesting that my IP address was investigated, but it's right that it was. I'm disappointed with the behaviour of some of the people I consider friends in Talossa though, and I dare say this whole thing is far from over. What we see here is a rather unpleasant state of affairs where somebody thought it would be okay for a justice not to recuse themselves so long as nobody finds out about it, and why? Because of Sir Tamoran's republican sympathies?
Further, one of the important lessons we should be learning from this is that the job of Witt Admin is not something which is wholly compatible with the King's constitutional crown. Moreover, we should be looking to have Witt Admins appointed as Permanent Secretaries to the Ministry of Home Affairs or STUFF by the Commissioner of the Civil Service (once we get around to appointing one).
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 24, 2014 3:56:12 GMT -6
I think this is a time of trial for our country. Will everybody try to do this according to the book (which I think we have, so far) and not let too much personal animosity bubble up and poison the atmosphere? Let the investigations be conducted, let's have the interviews, and let's see where this leads us. Well said. But Grubi got over that nonsense, I apologised, and we've worked well together for the next ten years. There is no reason why - if, as Ián says, everyone plays this by the book - I won't have the same kind of relationship with cxhns. Preston or Davinescù in future as well. Also well said. It's important that we don't forget the time dimension here. The fact that the conversations were leaked yesterday doesn't mean the things in them were said yesterday, or reflects anyone's opinions or feelings yesterday. The ESB affair broke several months after Reunision was completed, and we're a year and a half past the ESB affair now, with two elections and a term with the ZRT in government intervening. Learning to live together has been a process, and it's not 100% complete, but I believe we're a lot farther along than we were in January 2013. Unless everyone decides they want to start living in January 2013 again. (Remember that that was also the time when "RIP Talossa" put out its "Declaration of Revolt", and everyone was trying to figure out who was behind that as well.)
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jul 24, 2014 3:59:42 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure it was Antôniô Lixhità now. But I take your point that opinions may have moved on since, for example, January 2014, when Dame Litz gravely predicted that incoming ZRT ministers would run wild on the national websites, filling them with "all kinds of Republican nonsense". I ask you, since when have we shown so little class? Even our abusive rhetoric is classy!
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jul 24, 2014 5:16:26 GMT -6
- But, well, I'm a judge. What if the case lands in my court? Should I recuse myself?
- I wouldn't think you'd necessarily need to. Just because you knew a crime was being committed and told the police about it does not mean that if the evidence gathered by the police is shown to you, you are not a good person to decide who it was that committed this crime you reported. I would wait to see the case before deciding on recusal. That's my advice, at least.
But here is the problem in your example: in this case, Tim was BOTH the "police" investigator and a judge. He didn't just report the crime to an official authority, he acted as that authority. Now, for the record, had he reported that he was indeed the investigator and explained how he would plan to remain impartial in his judgement, I wouldn't have had any problems. But this was not the plan. The plan was to make the trial a travesty of justice by not even revealing he was the investigator. More so, it also drastically reduced the ability for the defense to cross examine the investigator because the person answering the questions would not even be the person who did the real investigation.
|
|