Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Heraldry gone mad
100 views
Skip to first unread message
D.M. Procida
Feb 16, 2013, 4:30:03 AM2/16/13
to
From BBC News:
Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
changed, costing thousands.
Deal mayor Marlene Burnham said it was "heraldry gone mad".
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21475707>
Apparently this follows a "challenge from a member of the public".
Who knew? And what's going to happen if the council do nothing about it?
Is the stout citizen of Deal with the challenges going to mount a
private prosecution?
Daniele
Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
changed, costing thousands.
Deal mayor Marlene Burnham said it was "heraldry gone mad".
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21475707>
Apparently this follows a "challenge from a member of the public".
Who knew? And what's going to happen if the council do nothing about it?
Is the stout citizen of Deal with the challenges going to mount a
private prosecution?
Daniele
tim.....
Feb 16, 2013, 5:30:04 AM2/16/13
to
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1kydnx7.1tlojzs1s80byN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
signs, but I can't see wtf this has to do with the Football Club.
A club can have whatever it likes as its emblem (as long as it isn't trying
to "pass off" as another club), it doesn't need any historical validity for
it to be "allowed".
tim
Mark Goodge
Feb 16, 2013, 6:05:02 AM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:30:04 +0000, tim..... put finger to keyboard and
typed:
It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be used
by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns out that
the organisation which originally granted permission to the football club
turns out not to be authorised itself, then the permission will also be
invalid and the club's use of the arms will be a breach of heraldic rules.
In legal terms it's similar to using a logo or emblem which is someone
else's trademark or subject to someone else's copyright or design right.
It's OK as long as you have permission from the rightsholder, but if the
person who gave you permission turns out not to be the rightsholder then
the true rightsholder can order you to stop using it.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns out that
the organisation which originally granted permission to the football club
turns out not to be authorised itself, then the permission will also be
invalid and the club's use of the arms will be a breach of heraldic rules.
In legal terms it's similar to using a logo or emblem which is someone
else's trademark or subject to someone else's copyright or design right.
It's OK as long as you have permission from the rightsholder, but if the
person who gave you permission turns out not to be the rightsholder then
the true rightsholder can order you to stop using it.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Chris R
Feb 16, 2013, 6:50:02 AM2/16/13
to
>
>
> "tim....." wrote in message news:ao954n...@mid.individual.net...
coats of arms not granted by the Crown (now through the College of Arms) was
banned by Henry V, with an exception for those who fought at Agincourt
(probably doesn't apply to Deal FC). The Court of Chivalry has
jurisdiction - it has sat once in the last 200 years, in 1954.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Chivalry
It seems fairly unlikely, however, that anyone would take action in this
case, especially if the lawful holder of the coat of arms no longer exists.
It is presumably open to the Council to apply for the grant of a new coat of
arms. Which might be strikingly similar to the old one.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Nightjar
Feb 16, 2013, 7:30:04 AM2/16/13
to
On 16/02/2013 11:50, Chris R wrote:
....
transferred.
Colin Bignell
....
> Misuse of coats of arms can still be the subject of legal action. Use of
> coats of arms not granted by the Crown (now through the College of Arms) was
> banned by Henry V, with an exception for those who fought at Agincourt
> (probably doesn't apply to Deal FC). The Court of Chivalry has
> jurisdiction - it has sat once in the last 200 years, in 1954.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Chivalry
>
> It seems fairly unlikely, however, that anyone would take action in this
> case, especially if the lawful holder of the coat of arms no longer exists.
>
> It is presumably open to the Council to apply for the grant of a new coat of
> arms. Which might be strikingly similar to the old one.
>
As I read it, if they invade Walmer, they can get the old coat of arms
> coats of arms not granted by the Crown (now through the College of Arms) was
> banned by Henry V, with an exception for those who fought at Agincourt
> (probably doesn't apply to Deal FC). The Court of Chivalry has
> jurisdiction - it has sat once in the last 200 years, in 1954.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Chivalry
>
> It seems fairly unlikely, however, that anyone would take action in this
> case, especially if the lawful holder of the coat of arms no longer exists.
>
> It is presumably open to the Council to apply for the grant of a new coat of
> arms. Which might be strikingly similar to the old one.
>
transferred.
Colin Bignell
Andy Leighton
Feb 16, 2013, 7:15:11 AM2/16/13
to
wrote to the club and told them that continued use of their current
club crest (based on the coat of arms for the borough of Wimbledon)
would be against the law.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 12:25:02 PM2/16/13
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:27puh8defo2ll2ejr...@news.markshouse.net...
> It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be
> used
> by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns out
> that
> the organisation which originally granted permission to the football club
> turns out not to be authorised itself, then the permission will also be
> invalid and the club's use of the arms will be a breach of heraldic rules.
emblem, then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of these
snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as their
equipment is replaced.
Roland Perry
Feb 16, 2013, 1:50:09 PM2/16/13
to
In message <kfof9l$2m1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:02 on Sat, 16 Feb
2013, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of these
>snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as
>their equipment is replaced.
That's probably what will happen. In the mean time, theoretically they
are committing an offence.
--
Roland Perry
2013, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>> It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only
>>be used by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it
>>turns out that the organisation which originally granted permission
>>to the football club turns out not to be authorised itself, then the
>>permission will also be invalid and the club's use of the arms will
>>be a breach of heraldic rules.
>
>Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>current emblem,
The "ownership" (or right to display it) has expired.
>>be used by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it
>>turns out that the organisation which originally granted permission
>>to the football club turns out not to be authorised itself, then the
>>permission will also be invalid and the club's use of the arms will
>>be a breach of heraldic rules.
>
>Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>current emblem,
>then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of these
>snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as
>their equipment is replaced.
are committing an offence.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Feb 16, 2013, 1:50:17 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:25:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
The College of Arms is asserting ownership. As is their right. Whether they
would go so far as to actually take action against either the town council
or the football club is a different matter, and I suspect they would be
unlikely to do so unless there was a serious breakdown in negotiations.
and typed:
>
would go so far as to actually take action against either the town council
or the football club is a different matter, and I suspect they would be
unlikely to do so unless there was a serious breakdown in negotiations.
Periander
Feb 16, 2013, 2:35:01 PM2/16/13
to
On 16-Feb-2013, real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida)
wrote:
> Who knew? And what's going to happen if the council do nothing about it?
down to a council meeting with his chums and explains to the honourable (or
in this case dishonourable) members the facts of life as taught via the
point and blade of a halberd ... although I think Dragon personally carries
a sword.
--
All the best,
Periander
Walt
Feb 16, 2013, 1:30:06 PM2/16/13
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in
news:kfof9l$2m1$1...@dont-email.me:
I'm sorry. but I really must protest at the phrase "self-serving
pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters".
The Heralds are carrying out a perfectly legitimate legal function,
authorised by various statutes. I very much doubt if they are snooty,
self-serving, pedants or train spotters.
Childish name-calling like this has no place in a normally erudite group
- in my honest opinion.
Walt
news:kfof9l$2m1$1...@dont-email.me:
pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters".
The Heralds are carrying out a perfectly legitimate legal function,
authorised by various statutes. I very much doubt if they are snooty,
self-serving, pedants or train spotters.
Childish name-calling like this has no place in a normally erudite group
- in my honest opinion.
Walt
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 3:00:03 PM2/16/13
to
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:25:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>>"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:27puh8defo2ll2ejr...@news.markshouse.net...
>>Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>>current
>>emblem, then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of
>>these
>>snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as their
>>equipment is replaced.
>
> The College of Arms is asserting ownership. As is their right.
Under which specific law does the College of Arms own the emblem of the
>>current
>>emblem, then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of
>>these
>>snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as their
>>equipment is replaced.
>
> The College of Arms is asserting ownership. As is their right.
Borough of Deal?
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 3:05:02 PM2/16/13
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8epWVLpW...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <kfof9l$2m1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:02 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013,
> Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>>> It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be
>>> used by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns
>>> out that the organisation which originally granted permission to the
>>> football club turns out not to be authorised itself, then the
>>> permission will also be invalid and the club's use of the arms will be
>>> a breach of heraldic rules.
>>
>>Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>>current emblem,
>
> The "ownership" (or right to display it) has expired.
I understand that is the argued position, but I am unsure what legal power
> Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>>> It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be
>>> used by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns
>>> out that the organisation which originally granted permission to the
>>> football club turns out not to be authorised itself, then the
>>> permission will also be invalid and the club's use of the arms will be
>>> a breach of heraldic rules.
>>
>>Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>>current emblem,
>
> The "ownership" (or right to display it) has expired.
exists to prevent Deal Council (or the chip shop at the end of my road) from
displaying an obsolete emblem. At a time when we are closing hospitals
and leaving elderly people without adequate care, I need convincing of the
urgent need to spend scarce public monies upon "a breach of heraldic rules".
>>then that authority should ignore the self-serving pedantry of these
>>snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new emblem gradually as their
>>equipment is replaced.
>
> That's probably what will happen. In the mean time, theoretically they are
> committing an offence.
Owain
Feb 16, 2013, 3:05:09 PM2/16/13
to
On Feb 16, 9:30 am, (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> From BBC News:
>
> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>
> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
> changed, costing thousands.
Changing the letterhead shouldn't cost much at all, unless the council
> From BBC News:
>
> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>
> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
> changed, costing thousands.
has stocked up with 10 years' supply.
Why do old roadsigns have to be changed - they were erected by the
former local authority so the heraldic emblem is historically
accurate. There are still some VR and GR post boxes about.
New roadsigns shouldn't have the crest on, which should save money -
not cost extra.
Owain
Mark Goodge
Feb 16, 2013, 3:45:02 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:00:03 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
There is no specific law. Heraldry is governed by the Court of Chivalry
which operates according to a body of law which is parallel to, but
independent of, common law. It's a rather bizarre and anomalous part of
English legal tradition, not least because it's based on the principles of
civil (or Roman) law rather than common law.
The Court of Chivalry doesn't sit very often. Its most recent hearing was
in 1954. One rather noteworthy aspect of that case was the use by the judge
of the word "pirating" in the same sense commonly used now to refer to
copyright infringement.
which operates according to a body of law which is parallel to, but
independent of, common law. It's a rather bizarre and anomalous part of
English legal tradition, not least because it's based on the principles of
civil (or Roman) law rather than common law.
The Court of Chivalry doesn't sit very often. Its most recent hearing was
in 1954. One rather noteworthy aspect of that case was the use by the judge
of the word "pirating" in the same sense commonly used now to refer to
copyright infringement.
Mark Goodge
Feb 16, 2013, 3:55:02 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:05:09 +0000, Owain put finger to keyboard and typed:
>On Feb 16, 9:30 am, (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> From BBC News:
>>
>> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
>> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
>> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>>
>> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
>> changed, costing thousands.
>
>Changing the letterhead shouldn't cost much at all, unless the council
>has stocked up with 10 years' supply.
The problem is that a local authority, unlike an individual or corporation,
can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
>On Feb 16, 9:30 am, (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>> From BBC News:
>>
>> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
>> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
>> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>>
>> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
>> changed, costing thousands.
>
>Changing the letterhead shouldn't cost much at all, unless the council
>has stocked up with 10 years' supply.
can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
Peter Crosland
Feb 16, 2013, 3:45:10 PM2/16/13
to
administration is carried out by the various Heralds at the College of
Arms who are part of the Royal Household. You can find more details here.
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About.htm
They are certainly not the snooty heraldic train-spotters you suggested.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 4:05:01 PM2/16/13
to
"Walt" <wa...@walt.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA169BBDBAC...@216.196.109.145...
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in
>> Seems to me that if no-one is asserting ownership of Deal Council's
>> current emblem, then that authority should ignore the self-serving
>> pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new
>> emblem gradually as their equipment is replaced.
>
> I'm sorry. but I really must protest at the phrase "self-serving
> pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters".
>
> The Heralds are carrying out a perfectly legitimate legal function,
> authorised by various statutes. I very much doubt if they are snooty,
> self-serving, pedants or train spotters.
Then we must agree to differ. What I observe of their practices
>> current emblem, then that authority should ignore the self-serving
>> pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters and move to a new
>> emblem gradually as their equipment is replaced.
>
> I'm sorry. but I really must protest at the phrase "self-serving
> pedantry of these snooty heraldic train-spotters".
>
> The Heralds are carrying out a perfectly legitimate legal function,
> authorised by various statutes. I very much doubt if they are snooty,
> self-serving, pedants or train spotters.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Arms)suggests they are steeped in
aristocratic privilege, and devoted to maintaining a Baroque pantomime of
rituals, titles and emblems which has little value in a modern world.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that of course - people of the same
mentality restore old steam engines or enact historical battles, and it
causes no harm (in fact such things enrich our society). But where I must
differ with the Garter Principal King of Arms, the Clarenceux King of Arms,
the Earl Marshal of the King's Reserve Dirtbox, the Pursuivant of Arms and
the Maltravers Herald of Arms Extraordinary is when they seek to impose
their hobby upon the real world.
Nobody's interests are being harmed by Deal Town Council displaying an
obsolete emblem previously used by the Borough of Deal. Until that is,
some pedantic ninny dressed like an extra in Black Adder comes along and
insists that tens of thousands of pounds must now be wasted upon changing
it. Oh, and there will also be a handsome fee which the self-same pedantic
ninny will charge for approving a new, slightly different emblem, of course.
A passing observer would think we were utterly mad - the economy is going
down the drain and millions are facing poverty, but we're seriously going to
waste tens of thousands of pounds on this folly?
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 4:30:12 PM2/16/13
to
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xKKdnWEz_v6bcoLM...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 16/02/2013 20:05, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8epWVLpW...@perry.co.uk...
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8epWVLpW...@perry.co.uk...
>>> That's probably what will happen. In the mean time, theoretically they
>>> are committing an offence.
>>
>> Under which specific section of which Act, please?
>
> Coats of arms are granted by the Sovereign by letters patent. The
> administration is carried out by the various Heralds at the College of
> Arms who are part of the Royal Household. You can find more details here.
>
> http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About.htm
Thanks Peter. I'll save that link for any future time when I'm troubled by
>>> are committing an offence.
>>
>> Under which specific section of which Act, please?
>
> Coats of arms are granted by the Sovereign by letters patent. The
> administration is carried out by the various Heralds at the College of
> Arms who are part of the Royal Household. You can find more details here.
>
> http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/About.htm
insomnia, or need to replenish my wanton class-hatred.
In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which Act
makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 4:10:01 PM2/16/13
to
"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
news:aoa53c...@mid.individual.net...
Pythonesque folly of this situation, but I should've just referred to the
noble heraldry of Ankh-Morpork.
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 4:55:01 PM2/16/13
to
news:ntqvh852ua9g4jpva...@news.markshouse.net...
is committing an offence" then it seems pretty thin to me. Phrased at it's
best, the most we could say would be that "the council might not be
compliant with a bizarre and anomalous body of ancient law which has not
been tested in modern times".
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:00:03 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
>>Under which specific law does the College of Arms own the emblem of the
>>Borough of Deal?
>
> There is no specific law. Heraldry is governed by the Court of Chivalry
> which operates according to a body of law which is parallel to, but
> independent of, common law. It's a rather bizarre and anomalous part of
> English legal tradition, not least because it's based on the principles of
> civil (or Roman) law rather than common law.
>
> The Court of Chivalry doesn't sit very often. Its most recent hearing was
> in 1954.
Interesting, thanks. If that's the basis for asserting that "the council
>>Borough of Deal?
>
> There is no specific law. Heraldry is governed by the Court of Chivalry
> which operates according to a body of law which is parallel to, but
> independent of, common law. It's a rather bizarre and anomalous part of
> English legal tradition, not least because it's based on the principles of
> civil (or Roman) law rather than common law.
>
> The Court of Chivalry doesn't sit very often. Its most recent hearing was
> in 1954.
is committing an offence" then it seems pretty thin to me. Phrased at it's
best, the most we could say would be that "the council might not be
compliant with a bizarre and anomalous body of ancient law which has not
been tested in modern times".
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Peter Crosland
Feb 16, 2013, 5:20:02 PM2/16/13
to
matter so I don't see how the question of prosecution arises. The
letters patent granted the exclusive use of the arms to a now defunct
body. Once the entity granted the arms became defunct then they
effectively lapsed. The new council could petition the monarch for a new
grant of arms that might incorporate some elements of the old arms but
they would not be identical.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Periander
Feb 16, 2013, 5:35:02 PM2/16/13
to
On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which Act
>
> makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
> previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
nuisence, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice ... etc etc etc
Despite my somewhat TIC previous reply, my understanding is that in respect
of England at least the College of Arms is the law(*) in respect of
Armorial Bearings. Of course what santions they still have the power to
impose is a different and far more problematic question.
For instance if you look on the legislation.gov.uk website you'll find a
shed load of SIs with very similar wordings along the lines of "The armorial
bearings which, immediately before 1st April 1974, were lawfully borne and
used by the Corporation of the City of x, may be borne and used by x City
Council, provided they have first been exemplified according to the laws of
arms and recorded in the College of Arms."
In other words Parliament grants permission to transfer armorial bearings
from a defunct authority to its replacement but only does so (and by looking
at all the references appears *can* only do so) subject to the approval of
the College of Arms. Which is interesting as it would suggest that
parliament is not at least in one area of law the supreme court of the land
as is often suggested.
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 6:30:04 PM2/16/13
to
"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
>
> On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which
>> Act
>>
>> makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
>> previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
>
> And at the same time quote act and section for Breach of the Peace, Public
> nuisence, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice ... etc etc etc
>
> Despite my somewhat TIC previous reply, my understanding is that in
> respect
> of England at least the College of Arms is the law(*) in respect of
> Armorial Bearings. Of course what santions they still have the power to
> impose is a different and far more problematic question.
Yes, that seems plausible. I have no problem with the view that a
> On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which
>> Act
>>
>> makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
>> previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
>
> And at the same time quote act and section for Breach of the Peace, Public
> nuisence, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice ... etc etc etc
>
> Despite my somewhat TIC previous reply, my understanding is that in
> respect
> of England at least the College of Arms is the law(*) in respect of
> Armorial Bearings. Of course what santions they still have the power to
> impose is a different and far more problematic question.
coat-of-arms must be sanctioned by the College of Arms if it is to have
heraldic legitimacy. They are the designated experts on such matters,
which is why they attract a brisk business from wealthy fools seeking
baubles (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378441). I understand that a
similar trade in mug-fleecing is profitably pursued by the Och Aye Tartan
Council of Bonnie Scotland, PLC.
The question for me is whether non-compliance simply means you no longer
have the blessing of the Lord High Pursuivant Under-Marshal chap, or whether
you are committing a criminal offence. And if the latter, who is the
prosecuting authority? I find it impossible to believe that any public
interest is met by threatening Deal Council over such a trifling lacunae.
You will be aware that BOP is arrestable, but cannot be charged or convicted
as an offence.ee
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 16, 2013, 7:00:06 PM2/16/13
to
news:dmrvh897cfi0cqplt...@news.markshouse.net...
Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful. That
assertion has been made, but it remains to be shown *how* it is unproven or
who might be able to sue or prosecute them for what supposed failure. They
would not therefore "vote to break the law", but instead vote to direct
their officers to make further enquiries. As an elected member yourself,
you will be familiar with the procedural weaving used for such matters.
Every public body in this sceptr'd isle is failing to comply with laws.
The unitary authority for my locale has hundreds of bus shelters which are
not DDA compliant, and the responsible officer regularly informs councillors
that this leaves the council exposed to legal action. But the
road-gritting has been cut back to save money, and that manager has a memo
from the legal dept supporting his concern. The office lighting in their
main building is nearly 20 years old and non-compliant with modern
requirements for health & safety, as the contracted engineers remind them
after each annual check. The trade union is supporting several staff with
migraine, epilepsy and sight ailments to raise claims over this.
In the schools estate, there are obsolete boilers and slippery floors,
swimming pools which do not have safety provision in line with modern
standards. Teaching staff are insufficient to provide the required
'non-teaching time', and unqualified classroom assistants are left in sole
charge of lessons when the regulations do not permit this. No member of
staff has been trained in first aid for nearly two years, because the
arrangements for procuring this cannot be resolved affordably. One
exceptionally troublesome local resident persists in demanding that the
metal footbridges near his home are resurfaced with an expensive slip-proof
material accredited under British Standard XYZ, in accordance with some or
other code of practice. The fact that he is a director of a company which
would very likely bid for that contract may be relevant... :o)
Balancing and prioritising these demands is a constant challenge for senior
managers and elected members, but however they choose to do it they will
inevitably leave numerous problems unresolved. In the narrow sense you
state above, they are voting to act unlawfully in practically every
committee meeting, full council or exec. Except of course it isn't phrased
that way.
My view remains that for a public body with numerous, pressing demands upon
it's budget and services, diverting £10,000 to pay for the emblem to be
slightly tweaked is a folly. I don't think the electors would want it to
be prioritised, or the government. Basically it's one heraldic
train-spotter who's taken offence at a trivial anomaly, and the costs /
benefits have to be weighed against all the other possible uses for that
money.
>
> The problem is that a local authority, unlike an individual or
> corporation,
> can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
> expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
> councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
> unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
> themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
> legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
> excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
That is true in a narrow sense, but with hefty caveats :
> The problem is that a local authority, unlike an individual or
> corporation,
> can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
> expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
> councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
> unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
> themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
> legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
> excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful. That
assertion has been made, but it remains to be shown *how* it is unproven or
who might be able to sue or prosecute them for what supposed failure. They
would not therefore "vote to break the law", but instead vote to direct
their officers to make further enquiries. As an elected member yourself,
you will be familiar with the procedural weaving used for such matters.
Every public body in this sceptr'd isle is failing to comply with laws.
The unitary authority for my locale has hundreds of bus shelters which are
not DDA compliant, and the responsible officer regularly informs councillors
that this leaves the council exposed to legal action. But the
road-gritting has been cut back to save money, and that manager has a memo
from the legal dept supporting his concern. The office lighting in their
main building is nearly 20 years old and non-compliant with modern
requirements for health & safety, as the contracted engineers remind them
after each annual check. The trade union is supporting several staff with
migraine, epilepsy and sight ailments to raise claims over this.
In the schools estate, there are obsolete boilers and slippery floors,
swimming pools which do not have safety provision in line with modern
standards. Teaching staff are insufficient to provide the required
'non-teaching time', and unqualified classroom assistants are left in sole
charge of lessons when the regulations do not permit this. No member of
staff has been trained in first aid for nearly two years, because the
arrangements for procuring this cannot be resolved affordably. One
exceptionally troublesome local resident persists in demanding that the
metal footbridges near his home are resurfaced with an expensive slip-proof
material accredited under British Standard XYZ, in accordance with some or
other code of practice. The fact that he is a director of a company which
would very likely bid for that contract may be relevant... :o)
Balancing and prioritising these demands is a constant challenge for senior
managers and elected members, but however they choose to do it they will
inevitably leave numerous problems unresolved. In the narrow sense you
state above, they are voting to act unlawfully in practically every
committee meeting, full council or exec. Except of course it isn't phrased
that way.
My view remains that for a public body with numerous, pressing demands upon
it's budget and services, diverting £10,000 to pay for the emblem to be
slightly tweaked is a folly. I don't think the electors would want it to
be prioritised, or the government. Basically it's one heraldic
train-spotter who's taken offence at a trivial anomaly, and the costs /
benefits have to be weighed against all the other possible uses for that
money.
Mark Goodge
Feb 17, 2013, 3:55:01 AM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:55:01 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
I haven't said that the council is committing an offence. It would be more
accurate to say that what they are doing is (probably) unlawful. That may
be a rather pedantic distinction, but it's one which applies regularly in
things discussed in this group so I would hope that most people understand
it.
and typed:
accurate to say that what they are doing is (probably) unlawful. That may
be a rather pedantic distinction, but it's one which applies regularly in
things discussed in this group so I would hope that most people understand
it.
Mark Goodge
Feb 17, 2013, 3:55:09 AM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:45:02 +0000, Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 16 Feb
>You mean like School governors, who approve (from a list of designs
>submitted by the students) a new school crest?
>
>That goes on all over the country, on a pretty regular basis.
If the designs are submitted by the students, then it isn't an official
heraldic design and therefore not subject to heraldic rules. It's just a
logo.
typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 16 Feb
>submitted by the students) a new school crest?
>
>That goes on all over the country, on a pretty regular basis.
If the designs are submitted by the students, then it isn't an official
heraldic design and therefore not subject to heraldic rules. It's just a
logo.
Percy Picacity
Feb 17, 2013, 4:40:01 AM2/17/13
to
passing off a design as official arms?
--
Percy Picacity
tim.....
Feb 17, 2013, 5:35:02 AM2/17/13
to
news:2eednUCER5Jqmb3M...@brightview.co.uk...
But surely there's a difference between:
owing a coat of arms
and
displaying a random crest on official documentation in the space usually
used for that
I can't see that there is any reason why the crest that you display on your
documentation has to be an "official" crest owned by you.
ISTM that you can use anything that you like as long as you aren't using
something owned by someone else to the detriment of that person. (and as
already established the "owner" of the crest in question doesn't exist)
tim
owing a coat of arms
and
displaying a random crest on official documentation in the space usually
used for that
I can't see that there is any reason why the crest that you display on your
documentation has to be an "official" crest owned by you.
ISTM that you can use anything that you like as long as you aren't using
something owned by someone else to the detriment of that person. (and as
already established the "owner" of the crest in question doesn't exist)
tim
tim.....
Feb 17, 2013, 5:25:02 AM2/17/13
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:kforv3$b1v$1...@dont-email.me...
which Deal now forms a part.
So no design fee to pay to anybody
(It's still nonsense though)
tim
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 17, 2013, 6:20:02 AM2/17/13
to
"tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aobpdv...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
> news:kforv3$b1v$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
> news:kforv3$b1v$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Nobody's interests are being harmed by Deal Town Council displaying an
>> obsolete emblem previously used by the Borough of Deal. Until that is,
>> some pedantic ninny dressed like an extra in Black Adder comes along and
>> insists that tens of thousands of pounds must now be wasted upon changing
>> it. Oh, and there will also be a handsome fee which the self-same
>> pedantic ninny will charge for approving a new, slightly different
>> emblem, of course.
>
> It'll be replaced by the crest already used by Dover District council of
> which Deal now forms a part.
>
> So no design fee to pay to anybody
>
> (It's still nonsense though)
I'll bet you a cyber-pint that the fine burghers of Deal Town Council will
>> obsolete emblem previously used by the Borough of Deal. Until that is,
>> some pedantic ninny dressed like an extra in Black Adder comes along and
>> insists that tens of thousands of pounds must now be wasted upon changing
>> it. Oh, and there will also be a handsome fee which the self-same
>> pedantic ninny will charge for approving a new, slightly different
>> emblem, of course.
>
> It'll be replaced by the crest already used by Dover District council of
> which Deal now forms a part.
>
> So no design fee to pay to anybody
>
> (It's still nonsense though)
not want to be subsumed into the corporate mantle of Dover District
Council - the feuding between various tiers of local authority over such
nonsense is legendary.
But even if they were agreeable, I'll stake another cyber-pint (or a bag of
crisps if you prefer) that the College of Arms would not approve of this
pragmatic solution.
This would be such a good episode of "Yes, Minister"... :o)
Windmill
Feb 17, 2013, 6:30:13 AM2/17/13
to
"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> writes:
>"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
>news:aoafk0...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which
>>> Act
>>>
>>> makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
>>> previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
>>
>> And at the same time quote act and section for Breach of the Peace, Public
>> nuisence, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice ... etc etc etc
>>
>> Despite my somewhat TIC previous reply, my understanding is that in
>> respect
>> of England at least the College of Arms is the law(*) in respect of
>> Armorial Bearings. Of course what santions they still have the power to
>> impose is a different and far more problematic question.
>Yes, that seems plausible. I have no problem with the view that a
>coat-of-arms must be sanctioned by the College of Arms if it is to have
>heraldic legitimacy. They are the designated experts on such matters,
>which is why they attract a brisk business from wealthy fools seeking
>baubles (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378441). I understand that a
>similar trade in mug-fleecing is profitably pursued by the Och Aye Tartan
>Council of Bonnie Scotland, PLC.
ISTR that there is someone called the 'Lord Lyon King of Arms' with
>"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
>news:aoafk0...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the meantime, does anyone else know which specific section of which
>>> Act
>>>
>>> makes it a criminal offence for Deal Town Council to use the emblem
>>> previously associated with The Borough of Deal?
>>
>> And at the same time quote act and section for Breach of the Peace, Public
>> nuisence, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice ... etc etc etc
>>
>> Despite my somewhat TIC previous reply, my understanding is that in
>> respect
>> of England at least the College of Arms is the law(*) in respect of
>> Armorial Bearings. Of course what santions they still have the power to
>> impose is a different and far more problematic question.
>Yes, that seems plausible. I have no problem with the view that a
>coat-of-arms must be sanctioned by the College of Arms if it is to have
>heraldic legitimacy. They are the designated experts on such matters,
>which is why they attract a brisk business from wealthy fools seeking
>baubles (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378441). I understand that a
>similar trade in mug-fleecing is profitably pursued by the Och Aye Tartan
>Council of Bonnie Scotland, PLC.
similar functions, the title presumably having arisen in an antiquity of
similar degree, though whether he also deals in tartans I wouldn't
know.
>The question for me is whether non-compliance simply means you no longer
>have the blessing of the Lord High Pursuivant Under-Marshal chap, or whether
>you are committing a criminal offence. And if the latter, who is the
>prosecuting authority? I find it impossible to believe that any public
>interest is met by threatening Deal Council over such a trifling lacunae.
'traduced the monarch' ?
--
Windmill, Til...@Nonetel.com Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost
Sleepalot
Feb 17, 2013, 6:35:02 AM2/17/13
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:30:04 +0000, tim..... put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
>>message
>>news:1kydnx7.1tlojzs1s80byN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>>
>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21475707>
>>>
>>> Apparently this follows a "challenge from a member of the public".
>>> private prosecution?
>>
>>I can see that a citizen might be able to force the LA to change their
>>signs, but I can't see wtf this has to do with the Football Club.
>>
>>A club can have whatever it likes as its emblem (as long as it isn't trying
>>to "pass off" as another club), it doesn't need any historical validity for
>>it to be "allowed".
>else's trademark or subject to someone else's copyright or design right.
>It's OK as long as you have permission from the rightsholder, but if the
>person who gave you permission turns out not to be the rightsholder then
>the true rightsholder can order you to stop using it.
... or grant you permission to use it.
>
>Mark
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:30:04 +0000, tim..... put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>
>>"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
>>message
>>news:1kydnx7.1tlojzs1s80byN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>> From BBC News:
>>>
>>> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
>>> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
>>> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>>>
>>> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
>>> changed, costing thousands.
>>>
>>> Deal mayor Marlene Burnham said it was "heraldry gone mad".
>>>
>>> Deal Town Council and Deal Town FC, in Kent, have learned their
>>> emblem is invalid because it is the old coat of arms of the
>>> Borough of Deal, which no longer exists.
>>>
>>> The council said all letterheads and road signs will have to be
>>> changed, costing thousands.
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-21475707>
>>>
>>> Apparently this follows a "challenge from a member of the public".
>>>
>>> Who knew? And what's going to happen if the council do nothing about it?
>>> Is the stout citizen of Deal with the challenges going to mount a
>>> Who knew? And what's going to happen if the council do nothing about it?
>>> private prosecution?
>>
>>I can see that a citizen might be able to force the LA to change their
>>signs, but I can't see wtf this has to do with the Football Club.
>>
>>A club can have whatever it likes as its emblem (as long as it isn't trying
>>to "pass off" as another club), it doesn't need any historical validity for
>>it to be "allowed".
>
>It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be used
>by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns out that
>the organisation which originally granted permission to the football club
>turns out not to be authorised itself, then the permission will also be
>invalid and the club's use of the arms will be a breach of heraldic rules.
>
>In legal terms it's similar to using a logo or emblem which is someone
>It does if it's an official heraldic coat of arms, as they can only be used
>by the permission of those authorised to bear them. So if it turns out that
>the organisation which originally granted permission to the football club
>turns out not to be authorised itself, then the permission will also be
>invalid and the club's use of the arms will be a breach of heraldic rules.
>
>else's trademark or subject to someone else's copyright or design right.
>It's OK as long as you have permission from the rightsholder, but if the
>person who gave you permission turns out not to be the rightsholder then
>the true rightsholder can order you to stop using it.
... or grant you permission to use it.
>
>Mark
Peter Crosland
Feb 17, 2013, 6:35:02 AM2/17/13
to
though it might well incorporate many elements of the old one. The fee
for a grant of arms to a non commercial entity is currently £10,425
inclusive of the design work and preparation of the letters patent. For
private individuals it is currently £4,950 and for commercial companies
it is £15,475.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
polygonum
Feb 17, 2013, 6:40:02 AM2/17/13
to
On 17/02/2013 11:20, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
<>
>
> I'll bet you a cyber-pint that the fine burghers of Deal Town Council
> will not want to be subsumed into the corporate mantle of Dover District
> Council - the feuding between various tiers of local authority over such
> nonsense is legendary.
>
> But even if they were agreeable, I'll stake another cyber-pint (or a bag
> of crisps if you prefer) that the College of Arms would not approve of
> this pragmatic solution.
>
> This would be such a good episode of "Yes, Minister"... :o)
Perhaps it is time to merge the food labelling thread in here?
<>
>
> I'll bet you a cyber-pint that the fine burghers of Deal Town Council
> will not want to be subsumed into the corporate mantle of Dover District
> Council - the feuding between various tiers of local authority over such
> nonsense is legendary.
>
> But even if they were agreeable, I'll stake another cyber-pint (or a bag
> of crisps if you prefer) that the College of Arms would not approve of
> this pragmatic solution.
>
> This would be such a good episode of "Yes, Minister"... :o)
The college of arms' website states:
"A right to arms can only be established by the registration in the
official records of the College of Arms of a pedigree showing direct
male line descent from an ancestor already appearing therein as entitled
to arms, or by making application through the College of Arms for a
grant of arms."
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/
So let us have DNA testing of all who wish to inherit arms.
That suggestion, logical and sensible though I believe it to be, would
undoubtedly be cast aside in true Yes, Minister style.
--
Rod
Message has been deleted
Percy Picacity
Feb 17, 2013, 8:10:01 AM2/17/13
to
believe it can show exclusively male descent. And it clearly cannot
show that at each generation the ancestor was the proper heir to the
title.
--
Percy Picacity
tim.....
Feb 17, 2013, 8:45:02 AM2/17/13
to
news:m_GdnWqkXqV6I73M...@brightview.co.uk...
Sorry
where's the law that says that this council has to have it's own coat of
arms?
tim
where's the law that says that this council has to have it's own coat of
arms?
tim
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2013, 9:55:02 AM2/17/13
to
In message <aoc4um...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:45:02 on Sun, 17
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>where's the law that says that this council has to have it's own coat
>of arms?
It doesn't *have* to have one (AFAIK), but if they purport to have one
(as is the case in this example) then they must be entitled to it. Which
apparently they aren't because it's the wrong one (for a different and
obsolete council).
They can fix that by either not using a coat of arms, or paying approx
£10k to get one they are entitled to use.
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>where's the law that says that this council has to have it's own coat
>of arms?
(as is the case in this example) then they must be entitled to it. Which
apparently they aren't because it's the wrong one (for a different and
obsolete council).
They can fix that by either not using a coat of arms, or paying approx
£10k to get one they are entitled to use.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Feb 17, 2013, 11:40:11 AM2/17/13
to
grantee. Once the grantee became defunct then the right to us that
particular coat of arms ceased. In the case of individual coats of arms
the right to use them descends to the eldest son on the death of the
current holder providing they register the succession.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Peter Crosland
Feb 17, 2013, 11:45:20 AM2/17/13
to
On 17/02/2013 00:00, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
> "Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dmrvh897cfi0cqplt...@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>> The problem is that a local authority, unlike an individual or
>> corporation,
>> can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
>> expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
>> councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
>> unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
>> themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
>> legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
>> excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
>
> That is true in a narrow sense, but with hefty caveats :
>
> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>
> "Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dmrvh897cfi0cqplt...@news.markshouse.net...
>>
>> The problem is that a local authority, unlike an individual or
>> corporation,
>> can't simply ignore a legal obligation in the hope (or even reasonable
>> expectation) that nobody will actually bother to sue them. If the
>> councillors were to vote in favour of an action which they know to be
>> unlawful - however trivially unlawful it may be - then they open up both
>> themselves as individuals and the council as a body to the prospect of
>> legal action against them. Ultimately that could result in them being
>> excluded from office and/or surcharged for the costs of their actions.
>
> That is true in a narrow sense, but with hefty caveats :
>
> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Chris R
Feb 17, 2013, 12:40:03 PM2/17/13
to
>
>
> "Sleepalot" wrote in message
> news:ipf1i856244ho3tjr...@4ax.com...
Only the lawful bearer can lawfully use them; though being an ancient right,
there is no definition of what use means. You would expect your tenants to
incorporate your arms in their buildings etc, probably as a form of
flattery, but they would not use your arms on their own shields. The arms
always refer to the bearer; so if used, say, by a football club, they would
refer to the bearer, just as putting Aon on a football shirt refers to the
sponsor and not to the club.
No-one enforces these rules, and for many years there has been an industry
selling plaques, documents and trinkets with "your family's coat of arms";
coats of arms belong to individuals, or corporations, not to families or
names. The heralds long ago ceased their "visitations" to root out
unauthorised bearing of arms, which sounds a bit like the Monty Python
Spanish Inquisition. Arms are inherited by the eldest son, and cannot
otherwise be transferred except by Act of Parliament or Royal warrant.
Whilst in nerd mode, the "crest" is the bit above the shield in the armorial
bearings, displayed on a helm above the shield, and does not describe the
coat of arms. And one way to spot bogus coats of arms is to look for the
schoolboy colouring error of a "metal" (white or yellow) on another metal,
or a "colour" (any other colour) on another colour. In real coats of arms
the devices always contrast - colour on metal or vice-versa (though this
breaks down when devices overlap both colour and metal backgrounds).
--
Chris R
Francis Davey
Feb 17, 2013, 12:30:02 PM2/17/13
to
To answer a question raised passim, namely what legal powers are there to stop someone using arms to which they are not entitled, the answer appears to be: an injunction from the court of chivalry *only*. What is more the court is very unlikely to restrain most uses (eg on letterheads, on signs). In Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties, Lord Goddard said:
"It is common knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used as a decoration or embellishment without complaint. To take one instance, hundreds if not thousands of inns and licensed premises throughout the land are known as the so-and-so Arms, and the achievements of a nobleman or landowner are displayed as their sign. It may be and frequently is the case that the family whose arms are thus displayed have parted with their lands in the neighbourhood and perhaps have never owned the inn or at least do so no longer. The arms of universities, colleges or dioceses displayed on tobacco jars, ash trays, teapots and other articles of domestic use are to be found in shops all over the country and are dear to the hearts of souvenir hunters, tourists, American and others, as well as seaside visitors. In strictness, I suppose none of these people has any right to use or display articles thus emblazoned. Then again, at the present day, many a gracious ancient house bears over its porch the arms of the family who built but no longer lives in it. It may be that the line is extinct; it may be that necessity has compelled a sale to another who has recently made a fortune as ample as the original builder amassed; perhaps in Cotswold wool, the slave trade, or just as an acquisitive landowner. Could this court be asked to deface the fabric by ordering the removal of the original achievement which
has adorned the house it may be for hundreds of years? The vendor could not complain if he sold the house without first removing the device, nor can I conceive of the Attorney-General, in whom is vested such of the powers and duties of the former King's Advocate as may still remain, emulating the activities of Dr. Duck or Dr. Oldys in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and seeking to have the new owner declared to be "no gentleman and disentitled to bear arms," or at least the arms thus displayed. Let me quote from Bacon's Essay on Judicature: "Let penal laws, if they have been sleepers of long, or if they be grown unfit for the present time, be by wise judges confined in the execution."
Where, then, is one to draw the line? It can, I think, only be done by the exercise of common sense and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not be a ground for intervention by this court. In view, however, of the use by the defendants of the arms of the city as their common seal, and the contentions which they have set up in this case, I think that the court may properly inhibit and enjoin them from any display of the corporation's arms, and accordingly I pronounce the sentence porrected by the plaintiffs, except that, subject to further argument, I should propose to delete the words "without the leave and licence of the plaintiffs." These words appear to assume that a grantee of arms can himself authorize and permit another to bear them. I am not at present satisfied that this is permissible by the law of arms, as it seems to me that it would infringe the rights of the Officers of Arms, who alone can make grants, and might deprive them of revenue."
... which I think makes the point fairly clearly.
Francis
"It is common knowledge that armorial bearings are widely used as a decoration or embellishment without complaint. To take one instance, hundreds if not thousands of inns and licensed premises throughout the land are known as the so-and-so Arms, and the achievements of a nobleman or landowner are displayed as their sign. It may be and frequently is the case that the family whose arms are thus displayed have parted with their lands in the neighbourhood and perhaps have never owned the inn or at least do so no longer. The arms of universities, colleges or dioceses displayed on tobacco jars, ash trays, teapots and other articles of domestic use are to be found in shops all over the country and are dear to the hearts of souvenir hunters, tourists, American and others, as well as seaside visitors. In strictness, I suppose none of these people has any right to use or display articles thus emblazoned. Then again, at the present day, many a gracious ancient house bears over its porch the arms of the family who built but no longer lives in it. It may be that the line is extinct; it may be that necessity has compelled a sale to another who has recently made a fortune as ample as the original builder amassed; perhaps in Cotswold wool, the slave trade, or just as an acquisitive landowner. Could this court be asked to deface the fabric by ordering the removal of the original achievement which
has adorned the house it may be for hundreds of years? The vendor could not complain if he sold the house without first removing the device, nor can I conceive of the Attorney-General, in whom is vested such of the powers and duties of the former King's Advocate as may still remain, emulating the activities of Dr. Duck or Dr. Oldys in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and seeking to have the new owner declared to be "no gentleman and disentitled to bear arms," or at least the arms thus displayed. Let me quote from Bacon's Essay on Judicature: "Let penal laws, if they have been sleepers of long, or if they be grown unfit for the present time, be by wise judges confined in the execution."
Where, then, is one to draw the line? It can, I think, only be done by the exercise of common sense and by saying that use or display in such circumstances would not be a ground for intervention by this court. In view, however, of the use by the defendants of the arms of the city as their common seal, and the contentions which they have set up in this case, I think that the court may properly inhibit and enjoin them from any display of the corporation's arms, and accordingly I pronounce the sentence porrected by the plaintiffs, except that, subject to further argument, I should propose to delete the words "without the leave and licence of the plaintiffs." These words appear to assume that a grantee of arms can himself authorize and permit another to bear them. I am not at present satisfied that this is permissible by the law of arms, as it seems to me that it would infringe the rights of the Officers of Arms, who alone can make grants, and might deprive them of revenue."
... which I think makes the point fairly clearly.
Francis
Mark Goodge
Feb 17, 2013, 1:15:09 PM2/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:40:01 +0000, Percy Picacity put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Not directly, no. But if you accidentally imitated a real one then you'd be
in the same position as Deal Town Council. And if you attempted to pretend
that it was an official heraldic design when it wasn't then that may have
implications in other respects.
and typed:
in the same position as Deal Town Council. And if you attempted to pretend
that it was an official heraldic design when it wasn't then that may have
implications in other respects.
Owain
Feb 17, 2013, 2:50:02 PM2/17/13
to
On Feb 16, 9:05 pm, "Zapp Brannigan" wrote:
> A passing observer would think we were utterly mad - the economy is going
> down the drain and millions are facing poverty, but we're seriously going to
> waste tens of thousands of pounds on this folly?
It won't be *wasted*, it will be spent on printers and sign-makers,
thus benefiting the economy.
Owain
> A passing observer would think we were utterly mad - the economy is going
> down the drain and millions are facing poverty, but we're seriously going to
> waste tens of thousands of pounds on this folly?
It won't be *wasted*, it will be spent on printers and sign-makers,
thus benefiting the economy.
Owain
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 17, 2013, 4:00:05 PM2/17/13
to
"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:fc3efc92-5eb3-4ff3...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
the money spent on something which provides tangible benefit. A few more
teachers or home care workers for the elderly, perhaps. Repairing the
tatty roads, opening the libraries for longer hours, etc.
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 17, 2013, 4:50:01 PM2/17/13
to
news:9u-dnXBiF6WIlbzM...@brightview.co.uk...
of statutory duties, and elected members must make hard decisions about
priorities. Their obligations towards citizens in need will rightly be
placed some way above compliance to medieval nonsense, especially as nobody
seems to be able to state which Ye Olde Law they are supposedly breaking.
It's ultimately a matter for the fine Burghers of Deal, but if I was a local
ratepayer I would not wish to see one bent penny diverted from roads,
libraries, elderly care, etc.
> On 17/02/2013 00:00, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>
> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
As I wrote above, a typical English LA is likely to be deficient in scores
>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>
> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
of statutory duties, and elected members must make hard decisions about
priorities. Their obligations towards citizens in need will rightly be
placed some way above compliance to medieval nonsense, especially as nobody
seems to be able to state which Ye Olde Law they are supposedly breaking.
It's ultimately a matter for the fine Burghers of Deal, but if I was a local
ratepayer I would not wish to see one bent penny diverted from roads,
libraries, elderly care, etc.
Percy Picacity
Feb 18, 2013, 3:40:02 AM2/18/13
to
do without arms altogether. Doing without arms is perfectly
respectable, and modern. Displaying defective, or frankly ersatz, arms
is just tacky.
--
Percy Picacity
tim.....
Feb 18, 2013, 5:15:02 AM2/18/13
to
news:9u-dnXFiF6X2mrzM...@brightview.co.uk...
I'm not disputing that
I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
new crest.
Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new one,
it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
tim
>
>
> --
> Regards Peter Crosland
I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
new crest.
Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new one,
it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
tim
>
>
> --
> Regards Peter Crosland
tim.....
Feb 18, 2013, 5:15:09 AM2/18/13
to
news:9u-dnXBiF6WIlbzM...@brightview.co.uk...
This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
tim
tim
Chris R
Feb 18, 2013, 5:35:02 AM2/18/13
to
>
>
> "tim....." wrote in message news:aoed2c...@mid.individual.net...
> I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
> new crest.
>
reduce the cost.
--
Chris R
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2013, 5:45:02 AM2/18/13
to
In message <aoed2c...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:15:02 on Mon, 18
is the bit of a coat of arms on the top, other parts are the shield,
motto etc).
They could invent a new "logo" that looked a lot like an unregistered
coat of arms, but that runs the risk of someone challenging it. They
could alternatively adopt a mascot.
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> The letters patent granted exclusive use of them to the original
>>grantee. Once the grantee became defunct then the right to us that
>>particular coat of arms ceased. In the case of individual coats of
>>arms the right to use them descends to the eldest son on the death of
>>the current holder providing they register the succession.
>
>I'm not disputing that
>
>I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to
>commission a new crest.
>
>Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
They have to pay if they want a new official Coat of Arms (nb a "crest"
>>grantee. Once the grantee became defunct then the right to us that
>>particular coat of arms ceased. In the case of individual coats of
>>arms the right to use them descends to the eldest son on the death of
>>the current holder providing they register the succession.
>
>I'm not disputing that
>
>I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to
>commission a new crest.
>
>Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
is the bit of a coat of arms on the top, other parts are the shield,
motto etc).
They could invent a new "logo" that looked a lot like an unregistered
coat of arms, but that runs the risk of someone challenging it. They
could alternatively adopt a mascot.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2013, 5:45:09 AM2/18/13
to
In message <aoed3r...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:15:09 on Mon, 18
doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>>
>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>
>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
Is "ignorance of a fact" an excuse. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I was
>>
>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>
>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
--
Roland Perry
polygonum
Feb 18, 2013, 5:10:02 AM2/18/13
to
usual provisos over twins, etc.) And that is all that is required - I
was not meaning to go back untold generations. Merely that new
inheritors should show they are entitled from their paternal line -
i.e.their father.
--
Rod
tim.....
Feb 18, 2013, 7:55:02 AM2/18/13
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x$8FNuZ9U...@perry.co.uk...
(which speeding is. But I have no idea about this heraldic infringement, as
I suspect don't most here, which is why I thought the difference important)
tim
tim.....
Feb 18, 2013, 7:55:09 AM2/18/13
to
news:$vbG5LZg...@perry.co.uk...
there *are* people here arguing that will have to pay because they have to
have an new official crest.
It is that second part I am disputing. Why do they have to have a crest
(new or otherwise) at all?
tim#
> In message <aoed2c...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:15:02 on Mon, 18 Feb
> 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> The letters patent granted exclusive use of them to the original
>>> grantee. Once the grantee became defunct then the right to us that
>>> particular coat of arms ceased. In the case of individual coats of arms
>>> the right to use them descends to the eldest son on the death of the
>>> current holder providing they register the succession.
>>
>>I'm not disputing that
>>
>>I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
>>new crest.
>>
>>Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>>one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>
> They have to pay if they want a new official Coat of Arms
I know, but that's my point
> 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> The letters patent granted exclusive use of them to the original
>>> grantee. Once the grantee became defunct then the right to us that
>>> particular coat of arms ceased. In the case of individual coats of arms
>>> the right to use them descends to the eldest son on the death of the
>>> current holder providing they register the succession.
>>
>>I'm not disputing that
>>
>>I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
>>new crest.
>>
>>Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>>one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>
> They have to pay if they want a new official Coat of Arms
there *are* people here arguing that will have to pay because they have to
have an new official crest.
It is that second part I am disputing. Why do they have to have a crest
(new or otherwise) at all?
tim#
Percy Picacity
Feb 18, 2013, 7:55:02 AM2/18/13
to
believe legitimacy, male sex and seniority are.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2013, 8:30:18 AM2/18/13
to
In message <aoemii...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:55:09 on Mon, 18
--
Roland Perry
>there *are* people here arguing that will have to pay because they have
>to have an new official crest.
>
>It is that second part I am disputing. Why do they have to have a
>crest (new or otherwise) at all?
I'm not sure they do, other than for "civic pride".
>to have an new official crest.
>
>It is that second part I am disputing. Why do they have to have a
>crest (new or otherwise) at all?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2013, 8:35:01 AM2/18/13
to
In message <aoemeo...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:55:02 on Mon, 18
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>>>
>>>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
>>
>> Is "ignorance of a fact" an excuse. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I was
>>doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
>
>that depends whether the offense is "absolute" or not
>
>(which speeding is. But I have no idea about this heraldic
>infringement, as I suspect don't most here, which is why I thought the
>difference important)
It works for other (non-absolute) offences too.
>>>>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>>>
>>>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
>>
>> Is "ignorance of a fact" an excuse. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I was
>>doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
>
>that depends whether the offense is "absolute" or not
>
>(which speeding is. But I have no idea about this heraldic
>infringement, as I suspect don't most here, which is why I thought the
>difference important)
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Feb 18, 2013, 9:55:01 AM2/18/13
to
The crest is only part of the coat of arms. If they want a new crest
then then the only way they can legally get one is to apply for a new
coat of arms including a crest and that has to be paid for. It is
unlikely that anyone but the Council will pay
--
Regards Peter Crosland
Sara
Feb 18, 2013, 11:10:02 AM2/18/13
to
In article <ApudnaIcBZr23b_M...@brightview.co.uk>,
arms (with or without a crest) and that won't cost them anything.
> The crest is only part of the coat of arms. If they want a new crest
> then then the only way they can legally get one is to apply for a new
> coat of arms including a crest and that has to be paid for. It is
> unlikely that anyone but the Council will pay
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission
> > a new crest.
> >
> > Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
> > one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>
> Care to clarify that statement because it does not seem logical?
>
It seems pretty clear to me - they can decide to do without a coat of
> >
> > I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission
> > a new crest.
> >
> > Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
> > one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>
> Care to clarify that statement because it does not seem logical?
>
arms (with or without a crest) and that won't cost them anything.
> The crest is only part of the coat of arms. If they want a new crest
> then then the only way they can legally get one is to apply for a new
> coat of arms including a crest and that has to be paid for. It is
> unlikely that anyone but the Council will pay
--
cats cats cats cats cats
Francis Davey
Feb 18, 2013, 12:30:06 PM2/18/13
to
On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:15:02 AM UTC, tim..... wrote:
>
>
> I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
>
> new crest.
>
>
I hope my quotation from _Manchester Picture Houses_ clarified this. Essentially (i) there is nothing wrong with using an existing coat of arms in most contexts even if it is not your; (ii) in rare circumstances (like use on an official seal) it may be unlawful and then the Court of Chivalry _may_ order the person using them not to use any more. There's early (House of Lords) authority which chimes with this.
>
>
> I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to commission a
>
> new crest.
>
>
So, a council could use a coat of arms in many contexts without having to worry about acting unlawfully or any possibility of legal action. If it used it on its seal or other authenticating context then the rightful owner of that coat of arms could bring a claim before the Court of Chivalry to have them stopped.
I, too, would be unhappy if any money at all were spent on this matter.
Francis
Message has been deleted
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 18, 2013, 1:05:09 PM2/18/13
to
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>> So, a council could use a coat of arms in many contexts without
>> having to worry about acting unlawfully or any possibility of
>> legal action. If it used it on its seal or other authenticating
>> context then the rightful owner of that coat of arms could
>> bring a claim before the Court of Chivalry to have them
>> stopped.
>
> True of England - but in Scotland the Lord Lyon King of Arms
>> So, a council could use a coat of arms in many contexts without
>> having to worry about acting unlawfully or any possibility of
>> legal action. If it used it on its seal or other authenticating
>> context then the rightful owner of that coat of arms could
>> bring a claim before the Court of Chivalry to have them
>> stopped.
>
> takes a rather more robust approach, and his procurator fiscal
> will initiate criminal prosecution in cases of more modest
> misuse, and the Lord Lyon even has the right to "ding doon" any
> offending bearings.
Just how does someone apply to get that job? ;-)
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 18, 2013, 1:20:09 PM2/18/13
to
news:bTTP2dhD...@perry.co.uk...
Not necessarily. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I had picked up the wrong
coat from the cloakroom" would be a valid defence against theft.
coat from the cloakroom" would be a valid defence against theft.
Janet
Feb 18, 2013, 1:20:09 PM2/18/13
to
In article <XnsA16B664EA1F25s...@130.133.4.11>,
spam...@lexregia.com says...
Here's the current holder
"David Sellar, aged 67, is a graduate of the Universities of Oxford
(History) and Edinburgh (Law). He qualified as a solicitor in 1966.
After two years as a legal assessor with the Scottish Land Court, he
taught in the Faculty of Law at the University of Edinburgh. He is now
an honorary fellow of the Faculty. He is joint author of the Saltire
Society's Scottish Legal Tradition (1991), and has written on the
history of various branches of Scots law, including marriage, divorce,
incest, homicide and unjust enrichment. He has published on the Lordship
of the Isles and on the origins of many Highland families, including the
Campbells, MacDonalds, MacDougalls, MacLeods, Lamonts, MacNeills and
Nicolsons.
He was O'Donnell Lecturer (in Celtic Studies) at Edinburgh in 1985,
Stair Society Lecturer in 1997 and a Rhind Lecturer in 2000. He has been
a Member of the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, Vice-President of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Literary Director of the Stair
Society, Chairman of Council of the Scottish History Society and
Chairman of the Conference of Scottish Medievalists. He has also served
on the Council of the Scottish Genealogy Society and of the Heraldry
Society of Scotland. He was appointed Bute Pursuivant of Arms in 2001.
The appointment followed public advertisement of the post and a
selection board met to interview a short-list of candidates and provide
a recommendation to the First Minister"
Janet.
spam...@lexregia.com says...
"David Sellar, aged 67, is a graduate of the Universities of Oxford
(History) and Edinburgh (Law). He qualified as a solicitor in 1966.
After two years as a legal assessor with the Scottish Land Court, he
taught in the Faculty of Law at the University of Edinburgh. He is now
an honorary fellow of the Faculty. He is joint author of the Saltire
Society's Scottish Legal Tradition (1991), and has written on the
history of various branches of Scots law, including marriage, divorce,
incest, homicide and unjust enrichment. He has published on the Lordship
of the Isles and on the origins of many Highland families, including the
Campbells, MacDonalds, MacDougalls, MacLeods, Lamonts, MacNeills and
Nicolsons.
He was O'Donnell Lecturer (in Celtic Studies) at Edinburgh in 1985,
Stair Society Lecturer in 1997 and a Rhind Lecturer in 2000. He has been
a Member of the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, Vice-President of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Literary Director of the Stair
Society, Chairman of Council of the Scottish History Society and
Chairman of the Conference of Scottish Medievalists. He has also served
on the Council of the Scottish Genealogy Society and of the Heraldry
Society of Scotland. He was appointed Bute Pursuivant of Arms in 2001.
The appointment followed public advertisement of the post and a
selection board met to interview a short-list of candidates and provide
a recommendation to the First Minister"
Janet.
Nick Leverton
Feb 18, 2013, 1:55:01 PM2/18/13
to
In article <878v6lj...@news2.kororaa.com>,
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
I infer it's not like the Court of Chivalry that first had to decide
whether it still existed before it could decide on the Manchester case :-)
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>The entity calling itself Francis Davey wrote:
>
>> So, a council could use a coat of arms in many contexts without having
>> to worry about acting unlawfully or any possibility of legal
>> action. If it used it on its seal or other authenticating context then
>> the rightful owner of that coat of arms could bring a claim before the
>> Court of Chivalry to have them stopped.
>
>
>> So, a council could use a coat of arms in many contexts without having
>> to worry about acting unlawfully or any possibility of legal
>> action. If it used it on its seal or other authenticating context then
>> the rightful owner of that coat of arms could bring a claim before the
>> Court of Chivalry to have them stopped.
>
>True of England - but in Scotland the Lord Lyon King of Arms takes a
>rather more robust approach, and his procurator fiscal will initiate
>criminal prosecution in cases of more modest misuse, and the Lord Lyon
>even has the right to "ding doon" any offending bearings.
You say "takes" ... just from interest, are these powers exercised often ?
>rather more robust approach, and his procurator fiscal will initiate
>criminal prosecution in cases of more modest misuse, and the Lord Lyon
>even has the right to "ding doon" any offending bearings.
I infer it's not like the Court of Chivalry that first had to decide
whether it still existed before it could decide on the Manchester case :-)
Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2013, 5:00:05 PM2/18/13
to
In message <kftr3b$1ad$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:20:09 on Mon, 18 Feb
2013, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
were property that belonged to people, I thought they were there for
anyone to use".
--
Roland Perry
2013, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Firstly, they do not *know* their use of the emblem to be unlawful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
>>>>
>>>> Is "ignorance of a fact" an excuse. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I
>>>>was doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
>>>
>>>that depends whether the offense is "absolute" or not
>>>
>>>(which speeding is. But I have no idea about this heraldic
>>>infringement, as I suspect don't most here, which is why I thought
>>>the difference important)
>>
>> It works for other (non-absolute) offences too.
>
>Not necessarily. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I had picked up the
>wrong coat from the cloakroom" would be a valid defence against theft.
Obviously it works for some, but not for example "I didn't know coats
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking it.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not "Ignorance of the law", it is "Ignorance of a fact"
>>>>
>>>> Is "ignorance of a fact" an excuse. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I
>>>>was doing 50mph in a 30mph zone".
>>>
>>>that depends whether the offense is "absolute" or not
>>>
>>>(which speeding is. But I have no idea about this heraldic
>>>infringement, as I suspect don't most here, which is why I thought
>>>the difference important)
>>
>> It works for other (non-absolute) offences too.
>
>Not necessarily. "Sorry m'lud, I had no idea I had picked up the
>wrong coat from the cloakroom" would be a valid defence against theft.
were property that belonged to people, I thought they were there for
anyone to use".
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
Feb 19, 2013, 7:00:07 AM2/19/13
to
"Sara" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:saramerriman-40C8...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <ApudnaIcBZr23b_M...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to
>> > commission
>> > a new crest.
>> >
>> > Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>> > one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>>
>> Care to clarify that statement because it does not seem logical?
>>
> It seems pretty clear to me - they can decide to do without a coat of
> arms (with or without a crest) and that won't cost them anything.
Which is precisely the point that I am questioning
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I'm disputing the claim that they will *have* to pay a fee to
>> > commission
>> > a new crest.
>> >
>> > Note that this isn't about whether they have to pay if they want a new
>> > one, it is that the claim was they have to pay unconditionally!
>>
>> Care to clarify that statement because it does not seem logical?
>>
> It seems pretty clear to me - they can decide to do without a coat of
> arms (with or without a crest) and that won't cost them anything.
and this isn't idle semantics
Somebody earlier, categorically said that they "had to pay because they had
to have a new crest", not if they wanted one, they were mandated to have it!
But when I queried this, several people have come and backed him up and said
that he is right.
Yet despite several posts (from me) asking for the basis of this supposed
rule, no-one has come along and explained why the council have to have this
crest or said "sorry we were wrong"
and I still don't know which it is!
tim
Roland Perry
Feb 19, 2013, 8:05:02 AM2/19/13
to
In message <aoh7i6...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:00:07 on Tue, 19
borrowing someone else's] coat of arms [*if* they want a coat of arms at
all]"?
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2013, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>Somebody earlier, categorically said that they "had to pay because they
>had to have a new crest", not if they wanted one, they were mandated to
>have it!
Are you sure they didn't mean "There would have to be a new [rather than
>had to have a new crest", not if they wanted one, they were mandated to
>have it!
borrowing someone else's] coat of arms [*if* they want a coat of arms at
all]"?
--
Roland Perry
Francis Davey
Feb 19, 2013, 9:15:03 AM2/19/13
to
On Monday, February 18, 2013 10:00:05 PM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>
> Obviously it works for some, but not for example "I didn't know coats
>
> were property that belonged to people, I thought they were there for
>
> anyone to use".
Actually, that would be what is technically known as a "claim of right" - a defence under s.2(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. You aren't guilty of theft if you believe you have a right to deprive the owner of their property.
>
>
> Obviously it works for some, but not for example "I didn't know coats
>
> were property that belonged to people, I thought they were there for
>
> anyone to use".
Of course convincing a judge or jury of that might be difficult, but that's an entirely different question.
Francis
Periander
Feb 21, 2013, 12:15:01 PM2/21/13
to
On 16-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> You will be aware that BOP is arrestable, but cannot be charged or
> convicted as an offence.ee
Sorry just seen this, yes you're quite correct but as the penalities are
unlimited I'd say that the absence of a formal charge is somewhat academic.
--
All the best,
Periander
Zapp Brannigan
Feb 23, 2013, 5:40:01 PM2/23/13
to
"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
news:aon2r2...@mid.individual.net...
which I hadn't intended to post.
I'm intrigued by your comment about unlimited penalties though - I thought a
Bind-Over was the only option available to a modern court in E&W?
Periander
Feb 23, 2013, 6:25:02 PM2/23/13
to
On 23-Feb-2013, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> No, the apologies are mine. That mangled sentence was a drafting remnant
> which I hadn't intended to post.
>
> I'm intrigued by your comment about unlimited penalties though - I thought
> a Bind-Over was the only option available to a modern court in E&W?
forgive me if I cut this short so just two examples ... refuse to be bound
over and you may be imprisoned until you agree to be bound over ... baring
in mind just how some people are more than happy to cut of thier nose to
spite thier face hours could become days, then weeks, then months ... you
get the idea. And also, yes "You will be bound over for the sum of �xxx" ...
usually something between a 100 and 500 but again there's no legal limit, if
a person later breaches the bind over that's what they stand to lose ...
bottom line, the punishment isn't the bind over as I suggested but the
breach.
Percy Picacity
Feb 24, 2013, 4:25:01 AM2/24/13
to
--
Percy Picacity
Periander
Feb 24, 2013, 5:00:02 AM2/24/13
to
On 24-Feb-2013, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Presumably the one of the bind over rather than the one of the peace?
0 new messages