Mar 20

I’m being watched #someofthesheep #blog

I’m being watched #someofthesheep #blog via Instagram

Permanent link to this article:

Mar 01

Apropos of nothing…

The arms of God is the Cross of Lorraine
Both the blood in the artery and the blood in the vein
Both the source of grace and the clear fountain

The arms of the Devil is the Cross of Lorraine
And the same artery and the same vein
And the same blood and the same troubled fountain.

Permanent link to this article:

Jul 08

A common misconception

Something that’s been bubbling up for a while that I haven’t had time to sit down and type up. Probably not if interest unless you’re in to weird laws.

Despite what many “weird laws” websites claim, it is not illegal to die in the House of Commons, at least in the sense that doing so is not prohibited by any statute law or regulation. There are places in the world that it is illegal to die, but none of them are in the UK, where – unusually for our overly-regulated society – you are perfectly free to drop dead wherever you wish.

it is true, however, that should you be unfortunate enough to expire whilst within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, your death will instead be recorded as having occurred at St. Thomas’ Hospital, which is on the South Bank of the river immediately opposite Parliament. There is no actual law that says this must be the case, it’s a matter of custom.

It is also true that the reason this legal fiction is maintained is to avoid complications that arise out of the fact that the Palace of Westminster is, as its name suggests, still technically a Royal Palace. It is not the case, as many of the websites that proclaim the illegality of parliamentary death claim, that dying in a Royal palace entitles you to a state funeral. Except for the death of the Monarch, state funerals require both Lizzie’s permission and a vote in the House of Commons to be held, there hasn’t been one since Winston Churchill in 1965 (no, not even the Queen Mum got one).

The true situation is simply that, for historical reasons, deaths within Royal Palaces fall with in the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the Queen’s Household (more poetically known as “The Coroner of the Verge”) rather than the general coroner of the surrounding county. This creates all sorts of practical problems, particularly if there needs to be a formal inquest. Section 46 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 would solve this by abolishing the office, but it has not yet been brought into effect – and until it is, of to St. Thomas’ you go.

Permanent link to this article:

Jul 07

The Braindump Rides Again

After three years, finally, a new post! And a new layout on the site! With an updated version of WordPress! And twitter integration! Such Blog!


Seriously, tho, I’m gonna try and post something here at least once a week, even if it’s just collections of links I find interesting or updates on my (ever-failing-to-get) fitness regime. Need to get in the habit of sharing stuff.


That’s all for now, see you soon. Hopefully.


Except of course, for what is generally acknowledged to be the best thirty-six seconds on the internet. Enjoy.


Permanent link to this article:

May 05


… is the theory that the public both knows what it wants and deserves to get it, good and hard.

— H. L. Mencken

Permanent link to this article:

Mar 10

At. Bloody. Last.

Dance With Dragons: July 12, 2011.

This isn’t Amazon pulling a date out of their arse, like they’ve done periodically for the last five years, this comes from GRRM himself.

Permanent link to this article:

Jan 14

Kind of a long shot, I know…

… but if anyone out there has any idea about under what circumstances I might have recently seen or heard the Old Testament story of Naboth’s Vineyard referenced, please could they let me know.

I’m SURE it wasn’t just from a random Wikipedia click, and it’s been bugging me all day.

Permanent link to this article:

Jan 06

Regarding the latest kerfuffle

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.

– Samuel Langhorne Clemens

Those who cannot remember the past are, famously, doomed to repeat it. And the easiest way to ensure that the past is forgotten is, as Orwell said, to change the language used to describe it.

The fact that the N word is – quite rightly – taboo in modern society does not alter the fact that, at the time and in the place Huckleberry Finn was set, it was rare to hear a white man use any other term to describe the African-American race. To pretend otherwise is not only to do a great disservice to a man who chose every word he wrote with the utmost care and precision, it is to censor history itself.

The right thing to do would be to use it as a lead in to an intelligent discussion of the history of racism and how it still affects people today. Instead, this new edition sweeps the whole issue under the carpet.

I am fuming about this.

Permanent link to this article:

Nov 23

Back, and to the left … not

Warning for the squeamish: the portion of this post below the break contains an enlargement of frame 313 of the Zapruder film – the one immediately after President Kennedy is hit in the head. Sadly there’s no way I can make my point without it, but don’t look at it if such things gross you out.
Read the rest of this entry »

Permanent link to this article:

Jul 02

The Reeds of Runnymede

It always bothers me when I discover that I, a chemist with no legal training whatsoever, know more about the law than the people whose job it theoretically is to make it.

Thursday night’s Adjournment Debate in the Commons concerned possible amendments to the regal succession rules, specifically ending the current bias towards male children and the ban on marrying Roman Catholics. I doubt that there are many people who think either of these a bad idea, but the Minister whose job it was to reply gave the standard response that they always use: It would involve amending half a dozen fairly entrenched laws, most significantly the Act of Settlement 1701, and that in order to avoid a split in the crowns, they would need to be passed simultaneously not just in the UK but also in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and ten or so other places.

Personally, I don’t see the problem with splitting the crowns: the Monarchy in Australia isn’t going to long outlast Lizzie anyway, and it wouldn’t surprise me if most of the others follow suit.. But that’s not what this rant is about. What it’s about is that, in the middle of the debate, MP Chris Bryant said (quoting from Hansard, and referring to the Coalition Government’s plans to introduce elections for the Second Chamber):

Chris Bryant: As I said, posh tosh. The Minister is going to cite arguments that the civil servants around the corner will have prepared for him about how awfully difficult this is and how many pieces of legislation are involved, but if he is going to reform the House of Lords he is going to have to start with Magna Carta, and that is going considerably further back than the Act of Settlement.

With all due respect to the Honourable Gentleman: No. Just … No. What I tell you three times is true: No. Reform of the House of Lords will not require any amendment to Magna Carta whatsoever, because virtually none of Magna Carta is actually still legally in effect.

Now, perhaps the first problem is that when a Lawyer says “Magna Carta” they’re not referring to the same document everyone else is. Most people, on hearing those words, think immediately of the document forced on King John by a gaggle of rebellious barons and ecclesiastics at Runnymede in June 1215. However, as important and iconic as that moment was in the development of English law, that version of the charter did not outlast the year. In fact, John was willfully disregarding it within three months, and any legal effect it had ceased entirely when he died in 1216, leaving his nine-year-old son Henry III as his heir.

Luckily, about half of the original Magna Carta dealt with specific grievances the barons had against John that were simply no longer relevant once he was no longer around. When Henry III emerged from the care of the regency council in 1225, he voluntarily issued a revised version of the charter, omitting the sections that were no longer relevant (it shrank from 61 clauses to 37) and rewording some of the others. When Edward Longshanks succeeded Henry in 1272, he confirmed the 1225 text, and in 1297 had Parliament permanently enact it in to law as part of a statute called Confirmatio Cartorum. It is this law, containing the shorter 1225 text rather than the original 1215 version, that the few remaining effective provisions of the Charter hail from.

However, like I said, there aren’t many. Important as the Charter is, most of it was actually rather vaguely worded and was superseded over the years by other laws that stated the same things in more concrete terms; and by the accession of Victoria it was effectively obsolete. Two-thirds of it was repealed during the 1860’s, and all but three of the remaining clauses followed suit in 1969. The three remaining clauses read (in translation):

  • I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
  • IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
  • XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

So, the only things that are still guaranteed by Magna Carta are: The freedom of the Church, the ancient Liberties of the City of London and the Cinque Ports, and due process of law. Nothing in there about the composition of Parliament whatsoever.

Honestly, what do we pay these people for?

Permanent link to this article:

Older posts «