Any chance Monckton will face jail time for misappropriation of the House of Lords emblem?
The British House of Lords has written to Monckton, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, nor should he use their emblem. Monckton tends to put a symbol very similar to the House of Lords emblem on almost every page of his papers and presentations.
A House of Lords spokeswoman said "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such."
Buckingham Palace confirmed it is "aware of this matter" and guided the Guardian towards a document on its website which says misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the Palace pursued the matter and successfully prosecuted him.
Is there any chance Buckingham Palace will pursue the matter and that Monckton will face jail time for his dishonest use of the House of Lords emblem?
- TrevorLv 710 years agoFavourite answer
Prosecutions in the UK are brought in the name of the reigning monarch, this is undertaken by the government via the Crown Prosecution Service, and is irrespective of the crime. Buckingham Palace itself wouldn’t bring any prosecution against Monckton.
If Monckton were to be brought to trial, it would be the CPS acting under the authority of Parliament, that would present the case against him. Any such prosecution would probably rely on the Trademarks Act but it’s quite possible that there will be some archaic Act from hundreds of years that would provide for prosecution for misrepresentation of the House of Lords or something similar.*
It would be a real shame to see Monckton go to jail, some of the stuff he comes out with regarding global warming is pure comedy genius, I’m sure he must have a whole team of scriptwriters working flat out to come up with some of the gems he’s produced.
Besides, in a few weeks I’ll be popping into a guest house that he owns in Scotland in the hope of meeting him there. Nothing is arranged but he regularly stays there, it will be fun to turn the tables on him and put him on the spot. It’s where he goes when he writes his works of fiction… woops, I mean scientific reports. If he’s in jail I won’t get to meet him.
Seriously though, it’s highly unlikely that any charges will be brought against him. The most likely outcome is that he’ll be asked not to misrepresent himself.
* The UK legal system is built on laws that stretch back 800 years and there are all manner of peculiarities.
• It is still a requirement of law that all males over the age of 14 conduct a minimum of two hours longbow practice per day • Within the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman if he is in possession of a bow and arrow • Members of Parliament are not allowed to die whilst working • Pregnant women are permitted to urinate anywhere they want • Men are permitted to urinate against a vehicle provided they are in physical contact with the vehicle • The head of a dead whale belongs to the King, the tail belongs to the Queen • Until recently treason was a capital offence, it was an act of treason to stick a postage stamp upside down on an envelope • It’s an offence to slide on snow or ice • You’re not allowed to eat mince pies on Christmas Day • It’s illegal to be drunk in a bar • In Scotland it’s an offence to be drunk in charge of a cow • London taxis’ must carry a bale of hay at all times and the driver is required to ascertain that passengers are not infected by the plague • Now repealed was the law that sentenced to death anyone who had successfully committed suicide •
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO ANTARCTICICE
These days the Queen is merely a figurehead and is confined by the same laws as everyone else . Even things that we consider to be quintessentially the role of the monarch, such as the Queen’s Christmas Speech and the Queen’s Birthday Honours List, are the work of Parliament. The reigning monarch would technically have the power to bestow a title upon a person (or remove it) but in reality this is always done by parliament.
 Back in the 17th century, the monarchy were becoming increasingly unpopular, there were numerous attempts to kill the king and rebellions kept arising. In 1689 William of Orange and his wife Mary were crowned King and Queen of England, to appease the rebellious masses they accepted a limit on the powers of the monarchy. This gave the public certain inalienable rights and protections. The Act became known as the Bill of Rights and is the forerunner to the US Act of the same name.
One of the provisions of the Act was “That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal”.
- antarcticiceLv 710 years ago
Despite his claims, he has no legal right to use the logo, and the logo is the property of the Queen, his use of it and his continuing false claim to be a "none sitting member of the house of lords" (They actually have previously stated there is no such position) leaves the Queen a quite simple course of action, she can simply remove his title, I think that would have more effect on him than jail time.
Because as I understand it (Trevor may know more) while most the Queens original (historical) powers are long gone or flow through Parliament the creation/granting and revoking of titles is still one of the few things she is able to do without Parliaments approval.
Pity, as Elizabeth 1 would simply have had his head taken off with perhaps a little drawing and quartering for good measure, ahhh the good ol' days.
Mockingtone's claim that the two logos are different is about as believable as his knowledge of climate science, his logo is quite clearly a copy of the original with a couple of tweaks.
Given the Queens long standing attitude of not making any sort of matter public unless she takes it quite seriously should be a warning to Mockingtone, that she has had, even this small amount information sent to the press at all suggests she intends to pursue the matter, and she has proven over her fairly long reign to not be someone who gives up.
Given the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the fact that Buckingham Palace has now become involved (which basically means the Queen), there would seem little doubt they intend to go after him if he doesn't stop using the logo.
It would be the Queen (well her barrister) vs Lord Mockingtone and the clear fact he is putting himself forward as a "none sitting member" (in print) I believe he used that phase to describe himself in his guest spots for Inhofe's committee. So it's actually in the congressional record, wouldn't that be sweet if he was convicted by his own ego from the very transcript of the congressional meetings he keeps reminding everyone he was invited to address.
Trevor: I've heard of some of those "It is still a requirement of law that all males over the age of 14 conduct a minimum of two hours longbow practice per day"
As I understand it much of the Australian law system is based on the British and some of these laws have also snuck into our system, there is one that's supposed to be on our books that an archery field captain has command of an archery field even over a policeman (although I would not want to put that to the test)
A Modest Proposal: The original compliant came from the House of Lords (some time ago) in a letter to Mockfish, because he keeps describing himself as a 'none sitting' member of the House of Lords and also using a cheap copy of their logo. Buckingham Palace getting involved is a new twist and as I said above If the Queen is bothering to get involved it means she takes this seriously.
The English aristocracy take the Queen very seriously (even the loony ones) so I think the most likely outcome is the logo will quietly disappear from Monkfish's presentations and he will pretend it never existed. (but that's only a guess)
- 10 years ago
Doubt it. This is the first I have heard of any friction between him and the House of Lords, and it does not seem to be a subject in the article that this is a repetitive offense against previous orders, which makes me doubt immediate imprisonment. Something tells me he will likely strike a deal or not be punished as harshly as a layman, or not be charged at all and just get a slap on the wrist. His political influence and reputation will probably help with that, though I don't know much on British law and order. Trevor seems to though, and he doesn't believe Monckton will see the light of prison, so there you go.
And I couldn't pass up this opportunity to thank jim z; I'm touched that you would consider using my phrase. Am I starting to rub off on you?
- Anonymous10 years ago
It's doubtful. if for no other reason than his pathological dishonesty is probably symptomatic of some mental illness. You would not think such things are contagious, but deniers seem to be suffering an epidemic of similar cognitive deficiency.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Robert ALv 510 years ago
It is hard to pin any sort of punishment on such an obvious lunatic. Ultimately he is worthy of sympathy not approbation.
- FangLv 610 years ago
If he was to suddenly become an honorable man he'd hold a press conference and tell the public of his corrupt puppet masters.
He'd then jump off of a cliff to make the world just a slightly better place.
- Eric cLv 410 years ago
Yes they should. It will be a good way of finding out who is lying.
- Jeff MLv 710 years ago
I'm sure if he did he would be seen as a martyr.
- Author UnknownLv 610 years ago
Well now, that would certainly make my day to see that lying sack of pus behind bars.
- pegminerLv 710 years ago
I doubt it. He's more likely to be arrested for pretending to understand climate science.