|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 23, 2009 7:15:45 GMT -6
I would not consider a case to have been filed unless it has been file officially and publicly. The case was not thoroughly filed with the Cort pu Inalt, to my knowledge, due to the fact the Cort was not in a fit state to receive it until the point where the Magistracy was created, when, coincidentally, the problem was solved anyway. It is now the more appropriate route to take this to the Magistracy.
I will accept Justice Siervicul's correction on the matter, but certainly as his recusal from the Cort was due to being a party in the case, and Senior Justice Metairia recused himself shortly afterwards I am not quite sure who would have received the full brief (including Justice Siervicul). To my knowledge, Lord Q and Sir Sam (who was to for Sir Cresti) did not receive any such proper filing.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 21:04:16 GMT -6
I think it right to say publicly that the Magistracy did advise the government to file an actual case with it upon its creation - from that point onwards the onus was on the government, which, for whatever (perhaps justified) reason, did not do so.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 20:17:17 GMT -6
To more directly answer the implied thrust of the second part of the post:
No, they don't function as similar posts in the UK and elsewhere do. The Squirrel King of Arms is obviously modelled on posts like the Lord Lyon King of Arms, but there's no "honourary peerage" dignity conferred in the same sense.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 20:13:55 GMT -6
Tony, don't worry, together we'll overthrow the Talossan government!!!
YES WE CAN
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 20:11:54 GMT -6
That'd explain that...oddity a few of us noticed earlier.
I just wonder who could be behind this incredibly clever plot.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 15:53:21 GMT -6
The GRUMP is contesting the election, whilst the RDP is unlikely to receive votes here as it an affiliate party to the PP, based in Benito.
Hurrah for Benito!
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 13:57:47 GMT -6
Brilliant idea, Iusti.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 13:56:48 GMT -6
I'm sure all Talossans would second the sentiments in this statement. I only hope and pray there need not be too much more violence and chaos before the people's will prevails.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 22, 2009 13:54:20 GMT -6
None of that, presumably, disbars the good citizen from having a "non-armigerous motto".
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 20, 2009 15:47:37 GMT -6
From what I understand from a comment from a member of the College, this is about to be addressed!
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 20, 2009 15:46:27 GMT -6
No, Your Highness, I am not primarily concerned with term lengths. I am concerned with the fact that the performance of Senators is not capable of review beyond every three or four elections. I am sorry if I left that open to misinterpretation.
As for the matter of electoral accountability, you will find the Progressive Party is advocating a party list system for Cosa elections - we do not see this Amendment as a way of pushing the Cosa's power at the expense of the Senate, but rather as part of a programme of balancing powers and accountability. (Another option that will probably be proposed by PP members in such a debate will be that of some form of mixed system of PR and FPTP, so as to address the matter of HOW MANY seats are assigned.)
As for whether ANY Talossan Senator or Senate has been corrupt, exploitative or incompetent - well, I am quite sure they often were before Ben was chased out, during periods the Senate was a working institution. I don't think any present Senator is corrupt or exploitative. Incompetent is a vague word and one I won't seek to apply (define competence); but laziness is a great sin in a legislator. If laziness includes the complete refusal of a Senator to talk to their constituents, then I suppose you have covered the main problem some Talossans have with their province's Senator.
As for the underlying motives for those voting for this measure - doesn't matter. Doesn't matter one jot. What matters is whether it is a good Amendment, whether its motives are pure and its content effective. Sure, one very large motivating factor for the 1832 Great Reform Act was the behaviour of individual MPs, but those MPs behaved like they did because the system allowed them to. I'm not saying our provinces are rotten boroughs, but I am saying you can't link motives and grounds in the way you are, and you can't dismiss the system's culpability in the problems that are at the root of this Amendment just because the OrgLaw is fundamentally sound.
I'd also say it's untoward to question the motivations of legislators without knowing their actual personal convictions. (Remember, 50 of the 100 seats needed in the Cosa were from Manus and Tim, and another decent chunk was from me - quite apart from whether or not that needs reforming, we should be clear of what sort of legislators passed it. It wasn't ignorant, plotting revolutionaries.)
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 20, 2009 13:57:02 GMT -6
Thanks, S:reu Bisquinc (and others), for saying the Emperor has no clothes and defending me. If only the Emperor realised that he was naked too.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 20, 2009 11:05:06 GMT -6
Funnily enough, the PP has addressed the matter of citizenship rolls, and was the first party to actively do so. An honour roll, combined with the Present option, should on the whole protect our citizenship heritage.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 20, 2009 11:03:03 GMT -6
One person has left the PP, because he believed the Republic-friendly nature of our Manifesto would disunite the opposition in a fatal way. Presumably, my refusal to remove it also convinced him I was a poor leader.
I am baffled that certain folk are convinced there's been a mass exodus from the PP. It's almost like they've not been paying attention to reality lately.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 19, 2009 17:31:32 GMT -6
Given the FGP still exists, and I believe is discussing its future, it would seem strange that any FGP member would have concluded they were PP members. Certainly Flip, Eovart, and S:reus Carschaleir and Bisquinc have made it publicly clear they have never been PP members. S:reus Lorentzescu, van Die and Altavilla are still FGP members.
Indeed, I think a quote from the Rt Hon S:r Grischun's post is apposite: "I therefore break my ties to the FGP."
|
|