Queen Elizabeth 1
SteSmith9
young girl and was replaced by a boy!!!! who, reigned disguised has Elizabeth.
I know this story may seem rather silly. Can any one tell me if it is a recent
tale or wether it has any foundation in history or wether I was being taken for
a ride.
Stephen Smith
SteS...@aol.com
Mike O'Sullivan
"SteSmith9" <stes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113061610...@mb-bh.aol.com...
CJ Adams
SteSmith9 wrote in message <20020113061610...@mb-bh.aol.com>...
It is indeed quite true, amazing as it may seem. I have had it personally
confirmed by a direct descendant of Pope Joan.
Hand on my heart
Craig Adams
Andrew Ness
There's plenty of these kind of stories about, I've no idea if that one is
new or old (it reminds me of an episode of Blackadder where a german played
by Hugh Laurie kills and impersonates her)
There's another story that she had six children and that the first was the
father of the last and also wrote the works of Shakespeare.
None of these things seem to have any basis in history at all.
NSY
Pat James
(in message <1010942757.28255....@news.demon.co.uk>):
> Margaret Thatcher also. Now it can be told!!
Maggie _was_ QEI.
John-Henry Collinson and Kristine Reeves
<stes...@aol.com> writes
--
John-Henry Collinson and Kristine Reeves
(19th Century Photography, magic lanterns & more at
http://www.jhenry.demon.co.uk/galantee.htm )
Roger4336
>young girl and was replaced by a boy!!!! who, reigned disguised has
>Elizabeth.
It seems to me that this topic went 'round this Newsgroup a while back, perhaps
two years ago.
It did not get any credence then, either.
-- Roger
severine
Elisabeth was a great queen and she has governed on her own no prince or king at
her side.
Like Joan of Arc ( which has been described as a women with two sexs one female
and one male : quiet a freak!) they were women in advance for their time.
In the middle-age and renaissance the women had two ambitions be a good wife and
give plenty of children: male of course.The war and the politics was for the
men: the women supposed to be weak...
So that is why rumours has been spreaded during all these centuries .
Peter J Lusby
severine wrote:
> Elisabeth was a great queen and she has governed on her own no prince or king at
> her side.
> Like Joan of Arc ( which has been described as a women with two sexs one female
> and one male : quiet a freak!) they were women in advance for their time.
I'd hardly call Jeanne D'Arc "in advance of her time" - by bringing the weight of
the peasantry to bear on the side of the Dauphin, she delayed the cause of democracy
and freedom in France by 500 years. Without the Maid of Orléans, and the vast
popular following which she brought to strengthen his hand, Charles VII would have
been forced into a power sharing deal with his nobles, just as King John had had to
do in England, two centuries earlier. Instead, the French had to wait until a
bloody revolution at the end of the 18th century gave them relief from the vicious
oppression of an autocratic monarchy and the beginnings of some semblance of a
parliamentary democracy. The people of France are still paying for Jeanne D'Arc's
legacy today.
>
> In the middle-age and renaissance the women had two ambitions be a good wife and
> give plenty of children: male of course.The war and the politics was for the
> men: the women supposed to be weak...
Just like Cathérine de Médicis?
>
> So that is why rumours has been spreaded during all these centuries .
Warm regards
Peter
--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"
Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org
a.spencer3
Peter J Lusby <p...@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3C44A47B...@lusby.org...
>
The people of France are still paying for Jeanne D'Arc's
> legacy today.
>
But they still love her, don't they!
Sparks a thought that has been with me for some 40 years ... in the late
1950s I accidentally found myself in Beauvais, Normandy, at the time of a
big local festival for 'Jeanne d'Achette' (or something like that, i.e. Joan
the Hatchet!).
Does anyone know if this was a Joan of Arc throwback, or maybe yet another
early example of modern French womenhood!
Surreyman
Rabid Bee
> the peasantry to bear on the side of the Dauphin, she delayed the cause of democracy
> and freedom in France by 500 years. Without the Maid of Orléans, and the vast
> popular following which she brought to strengthen his hand, Charles VII would have
> been forced into a power sharing deal with his nobles, just as King John had had to
> do in England, two centuries earlier.
What does Magna Carta really have to do with democracy? Britain didn't
really get anything resembling democracy until at least 1832. Even in
the seventeenth century, the supposed peak of democratic gains,
"democracy" and "popular" were dirty slurs.
And French monarchs clearly were sharing power with their nobility long
before 1789; who do you think ran the kingdom? Besides which,
aristocracy is not democracy, and doesn't necessarily lead to it. The
fact that BRitain and France both arrived at the latter via the former
by very different routes is not proof that the development is
inevitable.
cheers, Alex
Vaughan Sanders
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C45EB09...@btinternet.com...
> > I'd hardly call Jeanne D'Arc "in advance of her time" - by bringing the
weight of
> > the peasantry to bear on the side of the Dauphin, she delayed the cause
of democracy
> > and freedom in France by 500 years. Without the Maid of Orléans, and
the vast
> > popular following which she brought to strengthen his hand, Charles VII
would have
> > been forced into a power sharing deal with his nobles, just as King John
had had to
> > do in England, two centuries earlier.
>
> What does Magna Carta really have to do with democracy? Britain didn't
> really get anything resembling democracy until at least 1832. Even in
> the seventeenth century, the supposed peak of democratic gains,
> "democracy" and "popular" were dirty slurs.
Any journey starts with the first step, Magna Carta was a break on the
centralising tendencies of the Angevin kings.
i.e. the Law was above the King, not the other way around as the Angevins
believed.
The charter was re-issued 38 times in the 100 years following Runnymede,
then forgotten about until the 17th century and the Stuart kings.
The right of parliament to legally try Charles stems from Magna Carta
doesn't it ?
Not so long ago one of the American states was claiming that they were above
the law (i.e. held the Kings power) in a negligence case. This case was
taken back to king Charles trial by parliament, and the state (Georgia I
think) lost the case.
Their defence had been, not that there hadn't been negligence on their part,
but as they had only got rid of the king and not his powers, they couldn't
be tried for negligence.
Jamie
Peter J Lusby
Vaughan Sanders wrote:
The difference is that after Magna Carta, the English king ruled by permission
of the barons, while thanks to Joan of Arc, the French barons ruled by
permission of the king. If you don't see how this difference has a major impact
on the monarchy and its role in governing the country, I'm afraid I can't help
you.
Rabid Bee
> doesn't it ?
Parliament had no legal leg to stand, particularly as they also tried to
suggest a) that the monarchy was originally elective and b) that there
was an original contract which the King had failed (a la Hobbes). They
also suggested that the King had committed treason against the people,
which is patently absurd (treason is an offence against the king's
person). The only grounds that they might have had him was that he was
in breach of his coronation oath (as they perceived it). Yet, there was
no legal recourse in such an eventuality; God tidied that one up on
Judgement Day.
And Magna Carta was so influential that it was instantly forgotten
about. It only came into its own due to the fortune (for the barons) of
a minority in Henry II. Had there been no minorities, maybe it might
never have been re-issued and actually come into force.
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> of the barons, while thanks to Joan of Arc, the French barons ruled by
> permission of the king. If you don't see how this difference has a major impact
> on the monarchy and its role in governing the country, I'm afraid I can't help
> you.
Can I suggest you read some French history, then. Who was really ruling
the country in the 1560s-1590s, for instance? Charles IX/Henri III or
the Guise?
And the Guise were minor nobles by comparison to their mediaeval
counterparts. Some French Dukes were so powerful that they become
sovereign princes in their own right (Burgundy is the most obvious), or
held appenages in fief for centuries. Mediaeval French kings were
pathetic!
Cheers, Alex
Peter J Lusby
Rabid Bee wrote:
> > The difference is that after Magna Carta, the English king ruled by permission
> > of the barons, while thanks to Joan of Arc, the French barons ruled by
> > permission of the king. If you don't see how this difference has a major impact
> > on the monarchy and its role in governing the country, I'm afraid I can't help
> > you.
>
> Can I suggest you read some French history, then.
I would have thought that it was reasonably apparent from my other posts that I have
in fact done so.
> Who was really ruling
> the country in the 1560s-1590s, for instance? Charles IX/Henri III or
> the Guise?
>
> And the Guise were minor nobles by comparison to their mediaeval
> counterparts. Some French Dukes were so powerful that they become
> sovereign princes in their own right (Burgundy is the most obvious), or
> held appenages in fief for centuries. Mediaeval French kings were
> pathetic!
>
The fun thing about history is that each of us gets to choose which facts to stress,
and which to play down, and thereby comes up with his own theory for how and why
things happened the way they did. Sometimes more details come to light which cause us
to rethink things, but in general, anyone's thesis is as good as anyone else's, as
long as it takes a sufficiently significant portion of the facts into account.
Sorry, but I'm not prepared to do the work required to defend my thesis on this
forum. You win, but only by default.
William Black
>They
> also suggested that the King had committed treason against the people,
> which is patently absurd (treason is an offence against the king's
> person).
I think you'll find that this is the point where the good people of England
decided that Charles Stewart 'The Man of Blood' was not the same a 'The
King' who was the embodiment of the state.
I think you'll also find that this dichotomy still holds good in law.
The present Queen is head of state and also head of the armed forces, right
up to when she tries to issue orders.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Vaughan Sanders
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C476E15...@btinternet.com...
So, if parliament had no legal leg to stand on then presumably Charles was
above the law, something that the US Supreme Court seemed to have missed.
As the first Norman Duke, *Rollo* was most probably elected by the longship
crews, the parliamentarians seem to have been correct in their assumptions.
Gesta Normannorum Ducum ( Deeds of the Norman Dukes)
876 Rouen
"By lot they chose one of their number, named Rollo, and appointed him to be
lord and leader of the army, promising fealty to him."
GND Paris 876
In answer to Hasting / Hæsten's (Viking mercenary / interpreter, herald of
the Frankish king) request to identify their leader,
Rollo answered
"We are Danes and we are of equal Lordship".
The Magna Carta, among other things attests to the Norman Barons rights
under the Laws of Edward the Confessor (none of which survive).
Edward the Confessor was elected King by the Witan.
English Law is based on precedent is it not ?
BTW, the US constitution did not include everybody at the time it was
written.
Incidentally, as a final thought, what do you think will best protect the
current prisoners in Cuba, Habeas Corpus of the Magna Carta, or the
Napoleonic Code that T B seems to have set his mind on ?
(nobody get me wrong here, my first instinct is to blow them all up)
Habeas Corpus ; that they, should for example show just cause why a person's
body might be confined and not just declared to be detained at the
inscrutable pleasure of the Prince.
Jamie
Rabid Bee
>
> "Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:3C476E15...@btinternet.com...
> > > The right of parliament to legally try Charles stems from Magna Carta
> > > doesn't it ?
> >
> > Parliament had no legal leg to stand, particularly as they also tried to
> > suggest a) that the monarchy was originally elective and b) that there
> > was an original contract which the King had failed (a la Hobbes). They
> > also suggested that the King had committed treason against the people,
> > which is patently absurd (treason is an offence against the king's
> > person). The only grounds that they might have had him was that he was
> > in breach of his coronation oath (as they perceived it). Yet, there was
> > no legal recourse in such an eventuality; God tidied that one up on
> > Judgement Day.
> >
> > And Magna Carta was so influential that it was instantly forgotten
> > about. It only came into its own due to the fortune (for the barons) of
> > a minority in Henry II. Had there been no minorities, maybe it might
> > never have been re-issued and actually come into force.
> >
> > Cheers, Alex
>
> So, if parliament had no legal leg to stand on then presumably Charles was
> above the law, something that the US Supreme Court seemed to have missed.
>
> As the first Norman Duke, *Rollo* was most probably elected by the longship
> crews, the parliamentarians seem to have been correct in their assumptions.
No, because William won his kingdom by right of conquest, which wiped
the slate clean of anything that had gone on before. They also meant
elective more figuratively; nobody envisaged a pole, like might have
happened (excuse any unintentional pun) in Poland. It's more Hobbesian;
the people chose to collectively submit to a monarchy, in return for
security.
> Incidentally, as a final thought, what do you think will best protect the
> current prisoners in Cuba, Habeas Corpus of the Magna Carta, or the
> Napoleonic Code that T B seems to have set his mind on ?
> (nobody get me wrong here, my first instinct is to blow them all up)
>
> Habeas Corpus ; that they, should for example show just cause why a person's
> body might be confined and not just declared to be detained at the
> inscrutable pleasure of the Prince.
I hadn't realised Habeas Corpus was part of Magna Carta, but seeing as
they're in the cluthes of America, I doubt anything will protect them.
Still, so long as it's all in the name of justice...
cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> > > of the barons, while thanks to Joan of Arc, the French barons ruled by
> > > permission of the king. If you don't see how this difference has a major impact
> > > on the monarchy and its role in governing the country, I'm afraid I can't help
> > > you.
> >
> > Can I suggest you read some French history, then.
>
> I would have thought that it was reasonably apparent from my other posts that I have
> in fact done so.
Sorry, I was a little too brusque there. I do strongly disagree,
though, at least in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. French
monarchs were not the over-weening tyrants they have been painted as,
and could not be so. Who was really ruling the country?
> > Who was really ruling
> > the country in the 1560s-1590s, for instance? Charles IX/Henri III or
> > the Guise?
> >
> > And the Guise were minor nobles by comparison to their mediaeval
> > counterparts. Some French Dukes were so powerful that they become
> > sovereign princes in their own right (Burgundy is the most obvious), or
> > held appenages in fief for centuries. Mediaeval French kings were
> > pathetic!
> >
>
> The fun thing about history is that each of us gets to choose which facts to stress,
> and which to play down, and thereby comes up with his own theory for how and why
> things happened the way they did. Sometimes more details come to light which cause us
> to rethink things, but in general, anyone's thesis is as good as anyone else's, as
> long as it takes a sufficiently significant portion of the facts into account.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not prepared to do the work required to defend my thesis on this
> forum. You win, but only by default.
Oh come on Peter, play along. This is supposed to be a discussion
list. Finally a few threads come along tht I'm actually interested in
(and that doesn't happen very often since News took himself away), and
now you won't keep it going.
Cheers, Alex
Phillip Wallace
It's lucky she survived her sister's rule let alone end up being a
replacement boy and no one got to ride her either.
Vaughan Sanders
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C48C0AE...@btinternet.com...
> Vaughan Sanders wrote:
> >
> > "Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C476E15...@btinternet.com...
snip
> >
> > As the first Norman Duke, *Rollo* was most probably elected by the
longship
> > crews, the parliamentarians seem to have been correct in their
assumptions.
>
> No, because William won his kingdom by right of conquest, which wiped
> the slate clean of anything that had gone on before. They also meant
> elective more figuratively; nobody envisaged a pole, like might have
> happened (excuse any unintentional pun) in Poland. It's more Hobbesian;
> the people chose to collectively submit to a monarchy, in return for
> security.
snip
>
> cheers, Alex
If this was the case, why do you think William never referred to himself as
Rex until he was accepted by the Witan and crowned King.
Why do you think the Norman chronicles say he was elected King,
(GND)
"on Christmas day was elected king by all magnates, both Norman and the
English, anointed with holy chrism by the bishops of the realm".
Why did he think he needed the legitimacy of being crowned by Eadred,
Archbishop of York and the excommunicated Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury.
If the slate had been wiped clean, Lanfranc would have been installed as
Archbishop of Canterbury immediately, in fact Stigand remained Archbishop of
Canterbury for a number of years.
IMO, William took on a very risky enterprise, because the crown was his by
right, at least in his eyes. He had no intention of wiping the slate clean.
Jamie
CG Luxford
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Vaughan Sanders wrote:
>
> Incidentally, as a final thought, what do you think will best protect the
> current prisoners in Cuba, Habeas Corpus of the Magna Carta, or the
> Napoleonic Code that T B seems to have set his mind on ?
Well, as they are prisoners of war their treatment is covered by the Geneva
Conventions, of which the USA is a signatory.
The fact that the US seems once again to be ignoring international law
means that it's unlikely that anybody will be in a position to protect
their human rights.
Chris,
severine
It was Jeanne HACHETTE and in France we have many women involved , like her,
during wartime. Yes we can say thanks to Jeanne d'Arc and do you think that the
Plantagenet king would have rule in a another way???
Don't compare two differents periods in history :you need to count with the
mentality also
Like for instance Jeanne d'Arc she is the symbol of the united kingdom against
the invaders and that is new because in the 15 centuries we don't think" la
France" . she also represent the pure virgin ,send by god, who is going to crown
Charles( who supposed to be a bastard)and that was clever thank to Yolande
d'Aragon the godmother of Charles
The duc de guise is the 16 centuries and la France is more or less what she is
today the wars are in Italy and the civil war for the religion was all around
the Europe,non?
a.spencer3
severine <sever...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2002119-18...@foorum.com...
>
> It was Jeanne HACHETTE
Merci bien - fairly close for 40-year-old memories! Do you have any details?
Is it specifically a Beauvais thing, or is it the good people of Beauvais
celebrating a national figure?
Surreyman
Vaughan Sanders
"CG Luxford" <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.102011...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
This was my point /question Chris, would Dubya have needed to have put them
in Cuba out of reach of Habeas Corpus if the French had won the 7 years
war.?.
BTW are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva convention.? is an undeclared
attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't think
so.
Hitler declared the Commandos outside the Geneva convention didn't he, was
he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
Personally I think Dubya has to fight fire with fire, but IMO if he puts a
foot wrong he will find out that the law is above the king and not the other
way around.
Just as a final thought, did the people in the W T centre have no Human
Rights, has Dubya no *right* to try to protect the Human Rights of the
people in the next W T centre ?
Jamie
Rabid Bee
Sorry, I maybe wasn't clear. I was referring to theory as it stood in
1649. Whether William I really was elected is another matter; it was
common belief that the monarchs of england held the throne by William's
right of conquest, regardless of any other claim he might also have had.
cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
Oui, d'accord. Mais Peter a dit que, grace a Jeanne d'Arc, le Roi a
permi les barons d'etre, jusqu'a 1789; en angleterre, parce qu'on a
Magna Carta (selon Peter) c'etaient les barons qui ont permi la roi
d'etre.
J'ai dit que le roi francais n'etais jamais un tyran, et ils ont
toujours du gouverner avec le soutien des grandees. Les nobles francais
des moyan-ages a ete tres puissant, especiallement ceux des grands
apenages, comme Burgundy ou Orleans. Meme en le XVIe siecle, le roi a
du le soutien des grands aristocrats; Francois I et Henri II a ete
puissant et admire car ils ont fait les guerres, le metier
aristocratique.
Il n'y avait pas des guerres civals de la religion a l'Espagne, ou
l'Italie. Ici, il y avait seulement des petits revoltes. Les Pays-bas
ont eu un guerre tres, tres dure contre les espagnols, mais les guerres
de la France etaient, a mon avis, les plus brutale du XVIe siecle.
Amities, Alex
William Black
Vaughan Sanders <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> BTW are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva convention.? is an
undeclared
> attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
> just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
think
> so.
It doesn't matter if the Taliban signed or not. The onous is on the
signatory power to comply.
>
> Hitler declared the Commandos outside the Geneva convention didn't he, was
> he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
Commandos and other irregular forces openly under arms were in a peculiar
position under the rules pertaining to WWII. They changed the rules in
1947/8 to say that anyone openly carrying arms involved in international
conflict was a combatant. This status can only be removed by a competent
court, meaning a proper court with real lawyers, not a military court with
officers acting as representatives, even if they are lawyers.
In other words there is absolutely no doubt at all about the status of the
men detained in Cuba.
> Just as a final thought, did the people in the W T centre have no Human
> Rights, has Dubya no *right* to try to protect the Human Rights of the
> people in the next W T centre ?
The act against the WTC was a criminal act and the people involved should be
arrested and brought before a court and tried. There is no 'civil rights'
issue here at all.
CG Luxford
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Vaughan Sanders wrote:
>
>
> "CG Luxford" <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.05.102011...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Vaughan Sanders wrote:
> > >
> > > Incidentally, as a final thought, what do you think will best protect
> the
> > > current prisoners in Cuba, Habeas Corpus of the Magna Carta, or the
> > > Napoleonic Code that T B seems to have set his mind on ?
> >
> > Well, as they are prisoners of war their treatment is covered by the
> Geneva
> > Conventions, of which the USA is a signatory.
> >
> > The fact that the US seems once again to be ignoring international law
> > means that it's unlikely that anybody will be in a position to protect
> > their human rights.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
>
> This was my point /question Chris, would Dubya have needed to have put them
> in Cuba out of reach of Habeas Corpus if the French had won the 7 years
> war.?.
Given that they are covered by International law, I don't see that it
would have made any difference. Besides,they are on a US base, which
means that they are brtoadly within the jurtisdiction of the AMerican
legal system.
Hos did it come about that the US Navy has a base on Cuba anyway?
> BTW are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva convention.? is an undeclared
> attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
Irrelevant.
[snip]
Chris,
CG Luxford
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Rabid Bee wrote:
> Sorry, I maybe wasn't clear. I was referring to theory as it stood in
> 1649. Whether William I really was elected is another matter; it was
> common belief that the monarchs of england held the throne by William's
> right of conquest, regardless of any other claim he might also have had.
The Norman Yoke and all that.
Chris,
a.spencer3
Vaughan Sanders <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
undeclared
> attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
> just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
think
> so.
>
them away somewhere for life - in a terribly gentlemanly manner!
Surreyman
a.spencer3
>
> Hos did it come about that the US Navy has a base on Cuba anyway?
>
Brits a bit before that)!
Surreyman
Rabid Bee
> undeclared
> > attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
> > just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
> think
> > so.
> >
> I don't care. We cannot also become animals. There's plenty of room to put
> them away somewhere for life - in a terribly gentlemanly manner!
Seconded emphatically. Lets have a nice open and thoroughly fair trial;
if they are guilty, lock 'em up.
But observe the law.
cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> >
> 'Cos they owned the bloody place not so long ago (as, of course, did we
> Brits a bit before that)!
As I understand it, they have leased Guantanamo Bay for a long time,
back until when there was a pro-American government in Cuba. They held
onto the base despite the communist takeover (presumably Castro wouldn't
actually attack them). They still pay the rent regualarly on
Guantanamo. I assume having a post so close to Castro is just too good
to let go of. I'm sure I read that the Americans deliver the money on
time, and the Cubans studiously ignore it or refuse to accept it,
although that might not be true.
Cheers, Alex
Andrew Ness
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Just as a final thought, did the people in the W T centre have no Human
> Rights, has Dubya no *right* to try to protect the Human Rights of the
> people in the next W T centre ?
This is a train of thought I have heard repeated endlessly by people
justifying the campaign in Afghanistan. It is also completely baffling. I
just don't get it at all.
You aren't talking about protection, you are talking about aggression. You
are talking about treatment of detainees. Whether the US considers the
people they have captured to be 'soldiers' or not (and if they aren't
soldiers what right do the US have to ship them out of their own country in
the first place?) how they treat them once in custody is a very important
issue. Reports at the moment are saying they have been held in tiny chain
cells bound and gagged and blindfolded. They have had their beards shaved,
which is a great affront to people of their religious feeling.
If they aren't soldiers, they must be criminals, in which case, what are the
charges and when will their hearing be?
The reason we have human rights accords of varying types is to stop this
kind of 'they did it to us so we'll do it to them and their children' idiocy
that has dogged global politics for centuries.
You can't just say 'well Americans died on September 11th, that gives us the
right to do whatever we want' and then decry everyone who points out the
obvious fallacy of this argument as pro-terrorist. The rest of the world has
shown great sympathy and support, but they will only put up with this sort
of thing for so long.
NSY
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2efkk$b9u$2...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> Vaughan Sanders <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > BTW are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva convention.? is an
> undeclared
> > attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
> > just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
> think
> > so.
>
> It doesn't matter if the Taliban signed or not. The onous is on the
> signatory power to comply.
> >
> > Hitler declared the Commandos outside the Geneva convention didn't he,
was
> > he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
>
> Commandos and other irregular forces openly under arms were in a peculiar
> position under the rules pertaining to WWII. They changed the rules in
> 1947/8 to say that anyone openly carrying arms involved in international
> conflict was a combatant. This status can only be removed by a competent
> court, meaning a proper court with real lawyers, not a military court
with
> officers acting as representatives, even if they are lawyers.
>
> In other words there is absolutely no doubt at all about the status of the
> men detained in Cuba.
I see, Prisoners of War then.
>
> > Just as a final thought, did the people in the W T centre have no Human
> > Rights, has Dubya no *right* to try to protect the Human Rights of the
> > people in the next W T centre ?
>
> The act against the WTC was a criminal act and the people involved should
be
> arrested and brought before a court and tried. There is no 'civil rights'
> issue here at all.
>
I see, Criminals then if they can be proved to have had any association with
the perpetrators.
As guilty of murder as the people who took over the planes, at least under
English law this side of the Atlantic.
There's about 9 being held under the new anti-terrorism act here isn't
there, perhaps they should be regarded as prisoners of war.
Jamie
severine
Jeanne Hachette showed her skill as leadership when she asked the people of
Beauvais to fight against Charles le Temeraire during the year 1472: she was
born and raised in Beauvais and she died in Beauvais but later on!
a.spencer3
Merci encore! Et qui est Charles le Temeraire? C'est plus interessant for
moi.
Surreyman
Phil C.
> she was
> born and raised in Beauvais and she died in Beauvais but later on!
Well... yes... things normally happen in that order.
--
Phil C.
_______________________________
philandwoody"at"meem"dot"freeserve"dot"co"dot"uk
Mekon
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
(snip)
>
> BTW are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva convention.?
I doubt it, but the USA is.
>is an undeclared
> attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
You seem to be inferring that the WTC attack was done by the Taliban. My
understanding was that they protected the perpetrators.
> just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
think
> so.
>
It never was. Nuremburg settled that defence.
> Hitler declared the Commandos outside the Geneva convention didn't he, was
> he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
I don't know how that is relevant.
>
> Personally I think Dubya has to fight fire with fire, but IMO if he puts
a
> foot wrong he will find out that the law is above the king and not the
other
> way around.
Precisely.
>
> Just as a final thought, did the people in the W T centre have no Human
> Rights,
Everyone has "human rights" (whatever they are.)
>has Dubya no *right* to try to protect the Human Rights of the
> people in the next W T centre ?
>
He has a duty to protect the lives of Americans, but he also has a duty to
uphold and obey the law - which includes International conventions.
Mekon
Rabid Bee
> uphold and obey the law - which includes International conventions.
He also has a duty to uphold justice, which is coldly impartial.
Besides which, his own rhetoric was that he wanted justice. As I
understand it, that generally involves a fair trial, where the defendant
is only found guilty when the weight of evidence points to that
conclussion.
Cheers, Alex
Vaughan Sanders
"Mekon" <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l%n48.11751$Ni2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> >
snip
> >is an undeclared
> > attack on the civilian W T centre allowed under the Geneva convention ?,
>
> You seem to be inferring that the WTC attack was done by the Taliban. My
> understanding was that they protected the perpetrators.
I was thinking here of the Hanratty ? case, under English criminal law, the
16 year old perpetrator of the crime is still alive, the 18 year old
Hanratty who had given himself up before the crime was committed was hanged.
> > just following orders is a legitimate defence for this crime, I don't
> think
> > so.
> >
> It never was. Nuremburg settled that defence.
>
>
> > Hitler declared the Commandos outside the Geneva convention didn't he,
was
> > he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
>
> I don't know how that is relevant.
I was questioning whether an irregular army using terror tactics such as the
WTC would be covered by the Geneva Convention.
I noticed that William thinks it does, but Donald Rumsfeld (S) thinks it
doesn't.
>
Jamie
snip
> Mekon
>
>
>
a.spencer3
>
> I was thinking here of the Hanratty ? case, under English criminal law,
the
> 16 year old perpetrator of the crime is still alive, the 18 year old
> Hanratty who had given himself up before the crime was committed was
hanged.
>
Surreyman
Vaughan Sanders
--
Jamie
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ygv48.26486$Ph2.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Thanks,
*let him have it Cris*
No grey areas in law then.
William Black
Nope, especially as he didn't say it.
William Black
Mekon <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l%n48.11751$Ni2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
message
> news:a2cqja$u67$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
was
> > he wrong?, if he was Bomber Harris seems to have had a bad press
>
> I don't know how that is relevant.
Hitler did do that, and also killed anyone found 'under arms but not in
uniform' therefore, to stop such quasi legal murder the various laws
governing war were changed in the period 1947/48 so that everyone openly
carrying arms was protected unless that protection was removed by a court of
law. It also specifies the type of court of law to specifically exclude the
sort of tribunals the US is proposing setting up.
In other words everyone carrying arms in an 'international conflict' (which
is also defined, and the current nastiness in Afghanistan is one) makes you
a protected person when captured until a proper court says you are not.
There is absolutely no doubt that these dreadful people are protected.
CG Luxford
> >
> 'Cos they owned the bloody place not so long ago (as, of course, did we
> Brits a bit before that)!
Yes, but there's been a Communist REvolution since then.
I'm also slightly surprised that if the US owns a Naval base there, how
come they haven't attempted to invade since the Bay of Pigs? I know that
to do so would be a breach of international law - but that's never
stopped them before.
Chris,
a.spencer3
>
> Nope, especially as he didn't say it.
>
>
have the gun'.
Surreyman
William Black
That was the defence in court. But it transpires that the defence said it
was the best idea they could come up with as the police were sticking to
their story.
It was only later that the police expression 'to verbal someone' came out.
It means to actively enter into a conspiracy with other officers about the
words said by an accused at the time of arrest.
There is virtually no doubt today that Bentley was 'verbaled'.
A policeman had been shot and someone was going to have to hang, innocent
or guilty.
John Cartmell
William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > *let him have it Cris*
> > No grey areas in law then.
> Nope, especially as he didn't say it.
and the phrase was well known to the police involved from another, recent,
incident...
and if he did the saying has (at least) 2 meanings...
and no ballistics were done to see which gun caused the fatality (the
police were armed)...
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A policeman had been shot and someone was going to have to hang,
> innocent or guilty.
produce a guilty verdict...
.. IIRC there are about another dozen items that would make the trial and
appeal incorrect, immoral or the participants guilty of a whole range of
crimes up to, and including, murder.
--
John Cartmell
Roger4336
>> >
>> 'Cos they owned the bloody place not so long ago (as, of course, did we
>> Brits a bit before that)!
>
>Yes, but there's been a Communist REvolution since then.
>
>I'm also slightly surprised that if the US owns a Naval base there, how
>come they haven't attempted to invade since the Bay of Pigs? I know that
>to do so would be a breach of international law - but that's never
>stopped them before.
The United States established a naval base at Guantanamo Bay in 1898, during
the Spanish-American War. They stayed after the war, and regularized their
position with a lease, apparently in perpetuity, in 1903. The original stated
purpose was to protect the independence of Cuba. (The U.S. also leased another
base at Bahia Honda, but gave that up 9 years later.)
This arrangement was confirmed by a treaty between the United States and Cuba
in 1934. The U.S. can keep Guantanamo Bay as long as it wants, but must return
it to Cuba if it gives it up -- i.e., cannot transfer it to a third party.
The change of regime in Cuba did not extinguish U.S. rights in Guantanamo Bay.
Of course, Cuba can try to take it back by force, but that might be difficult.
-- Roger
Phil C.
> It was only later that the police expression 'to verbal someone' came
out.
> It means to actively enter into a conspiracy with other officers about
the
> words said by an accused at the time of arrest.
>
> There is virtually no doubt today that Bentley was 'verbaled'.
>
> A policeman had been shot and someone was going to have to hang,
innocent
> or guilty.
Virtually no doubt among whom? The problem is that the case has become a
Politically Correct cause celebre and it is hard to know what to
believe. If the police were going to verbal him, wouldn't they have had
the gumption to come up with an unambiguous phrase such as "Shoot him!"?
I'm no legal expert but my understanding is that English law made
partners in crime equally guilty for any deaths - to stop criminals from
blaming each other. (Thus gangs of burglars used to search
each other for weapons before going out on a job.) If so, that Bentley
went out to do a robbery with someone armed with a gun arguably made him
guilty whatever he did or didn't say. This case would have tested the
principle to its absolute limits, given that Bentley was under arrest
and of low intelligence. IIRC, while the jury found Bentley guilty they
made a plea for mercy. If they had accepted that he egged Craig on, why
would they have made such a plea? Perhaps it was the lack of mercy that
was wrong, in the unusual circumstances, rather than strictly speaking
the verdict. If the Home Secretary had shown mercy wouldn't the case be
long forgotten? Any legal experts care to comment?
From a historical perspective it is difficult now to look back at the
state of mind of the time. Any murder was headline news. The murder of a
policeman was something highly exceptional and truly shocking. To carry
a gun on a burglary was also highly exceptional. This was _not_ just
another burglary that went wrong.
John Cartmell
<nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a2ursg$lc2$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> Virtually no doubt among whom? The problem is that the case has become a
> Politically Correct cause celebre and it is hard to know what to
> believe. If the police were going to verbal him, wouldn't they have had
> the gumption to come up with an unambiguous phrase such as "Shoot him!"?
They used the phrase that was current from another case.
> I'm no legal expert but my understanding is that English law made
> partners in crime equally guilty for any deaths - to stop criminals from
> blaming each other.
True
> If so, that Bentley went out to do a robbery with someone armed with a
> gun arguably made him guilty whatever he did or didn't say.
Of burglary.
> This case would have tested the principle to its absolute limits, given
> that Bentley was under arrest and of low intelligence.
Of an 8-year old (IIRC)
> IIRC, while the jury found Bentley guilty they made a plea for mercy.
Which the judge had no intention of ever considering.
> If they had accepted that he egged Craig on, why would they have made
> such a plea?
Exactly.
> Perhaps it was the lack of mercy that was wrong, in the unusual
> circumstances, rather than strictly speaking the verdict.
The verdict was clearly conditional on mercy in the minds of the jury.
> If the Home Secretary had shown mercy wouldn't the case be long
> forgotten? Any legal experts care to comment?
It's more appropriate to psychiatrists than lawyers (and I'm referring to
the conditions of the trial judge and home secretary rather than Bentley).
[Snip]
> The murder of a policeman was something highly exceptional and truly
> shocking.
Except that murder was never proved. No-one knows who fired the shot or
from which gun.
> To carry a gun on a burglary was also highly exceptional.
It was soon after the war with lots of souvenir guns around; are you sure
about the 'highly exceptional'.
--
John Cartmell
William Black
Nothing written by me appears below.
Please be more careful in your attributions
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4aff6eb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2uoqi$jc2$3...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> Mekon <blankotank...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l%n48.11751$Ni2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
snip
> In other words everyone carrying arms in an 'international conflict'
(which
> is also defined, and the current nastiness in Afghanistan is one) makes
you
> a protected person when captured until a proper court says you are not.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt that these dreadful people are protected.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
>
>
>
I've just been listening to a professor of International Relations on the
TV, who specialises in the Geneva Convention and he doesn't agree with you.
He said there is room for something between POW and Criminal, where an
opposing side does not conform to recognised customs of war.
This doesn't mean they are not protected under International law, but an
organisation like Al Qeida (S) in particular would not have automatic right
to POW status under the Geneva Convention..
As the three British held in Cuba seemed to have joined up after the WTC,
they would be open to a charge of *Treason*
wouldn't they.
Jamie
John Cartmell
> Nothing written by me appears below.
> Please be more careful in your attributions
Apologies. I forgot to delete your attribution having snipped your
contribution. It should have been clear from the indenting but I appreciate
that's no excuse.
Sorry.
--
John Cartmell
William Black
Vaughan Sanders <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a3164n$s08$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As the three British held in Cuba seemed to have joined up after the WTC,
> they would be open to a charge of *Treason*
> wouldn't they.
Yeah, right.
And they'll be there alongside Jerry Adams and the rest of the IRA.
Nobody's going to be daft enough to charge anyone with treason.
Phil C.
"John Cartmell" <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4aff6eb...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> > Virtually no doubt among whom? The problem is that the case has
become a
> > Politically Correct cause celebre and it is hard to know what to
> > believe. If the police were going to verbal him, wouldn't they have
had
> > the gumption to come up with an unambiguous phrase such as "Shoot
him!"?
> They used the phrase that was current from another case.
Even though a less ambiguous and more original phrase would have been
far more effective and less likely for the jury to want mercy?
> > I'm no legal expert but my understanding is that English law made
> > partners in crime equally guilty for any deaths - to stop criminals
from
> > blaming each other.
> True
As an aside, this issue has recently come up in respect of children
murdered by their parents. It is claimed that many parents are getting
away with murder because in cases where they were both abusing it can't
be proved who committed the fatal act. I think a law that makes all
partners-in-crime responsible is basically sound though the Bentley case
was an extreme challenge.
> > If so, that Bentley went out to do a robbery with someone armed with
a
> > gun arguably made him guilty whatever he did or didn't say.
> Of burglary.
No - of murder. By going to commit a crime with someone armed with a gun
he made himself liable for whatever the gun was used for. That made him
guilty both legally and (in my view) morally. All that can justly be
claimed is considerable mitigation because of the unusual circumstances.
> > This case would have tested the principle to its absolute limits,
given
> > that Bentley was under arrest and of low intelligence.
> Of an 8-year old (IIRC)
11, actually. The same as the Derbyshire man who was recently released
following a miscarriage of justice. He has been interviewed on TV and
comes across as coping and articulate. "Mental age" is much
misunderstood. It merely measures how one performs in IQ tests (for
whatever they are worth) not that one is functioning at the level of an
11 year old. At most it means that Bentley wasn't particularly bright
and that, I agree, should have been taken into account by the Home
Secretary. I believe the red-top tabloids aim at a reading age of 7 or
8. Bentley was presented in an "acclaimed" TV dramatisation as being a
sort of amiable Forrest Gump. His "mental age" gives no grounds for this
interpretation. By definition half of any population is below average on
any score. If low-ish intelligence were a blanket defence the prisons
would be virtually empty.
> > Perhaps it was the lack of mercy that was wrong, in the unusual
> > circumstances, rather than strictly speaking the verdict.
> The verdict was clearly conditional on mercy in the minds of the jury.
Juries have no right to any such condition and they would certainly have
known this. Their job is to decide guilt under the law. "Guilty as long
as the punishment isn't too severe" would be absurd. Sentencing is for
others. It's important because ISTM that there are grounds for
acknowledgement of a harsh sentence but _not_ for a pardon. If he had
simply been imprisoned, nobody would dream of asking for a pardon. (Let
me make it clear BTW that I'm a firm opponent of the death penalty.)
> > The murder of a policeman was something highly exceptional and truly
> > shocking.
> Except that murder was never proved. No-one knows who fired the shot
or
> from which gun.
To be honest, I see this claim as evidence of revisionists scraping the
barrel. Part of the problem with causes celebres is that there is only a
market for claims of conspiracy or injustice. "Actually, Bentley was
guilty" or "Actually, Lee Harvey Oswald did it" doesn't sell any books.
No doubt there are a few budding authors disappointed by the new genetic
evidence in the Hanratty case.
> > To carry a gun on a burglary was also highly exceptional.
> It was soon after the war with lots of souvenir guns around; are you
sure
> about the 'highly exceptional'.
Yes. The consequences were dire. The fear of all those souvenir guns no
doubt influenced the attitude of the law. Having unarmed police was a
sacred part of the culture and armed criminals were anathema. These days
carrying a gun evidently earns you an average of an extra 12 months on
your sentence. If I were a criminal I would think that was a very good
deal.
The Bentley case has attracted so much attention because it was
high-profile. Murder trials were actually quite rare then. (The increase
in the real murder rate has been disguised by so many more homicides
being shuffled off into manslaughter or diminished responsibility. The
average wife-killer serves about 3 years now.) Even some American cases
were big news in the British papers. (It can be hard to fathom why some
criminal cases capture the public imagination and others just don't. The
only certain rule is that it's a very good idea to be young, attractive
and female if you're arrested abroad.) There's plenty of attention to be
gained from writing a book, play or a song about Bentley, especially if
it can be turned into an Establishment Conspiracy. Meanwhile many
low-profile, genuinely innocent people rot in jail at home and abroad.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk (John Cartmell) wrote:
> and if he did the saying has (at least) 2 meanings...
However at the time the law was clear. Regardless of what was said
and done at the scene. If Bentley knew that Craig had a gun before
setting out to commit a crime, he was an accessory before the fact.
That carried the death penalty for murder. It has to be remembered
that contrary to popular opinion the Law is only concerned with
questions of law not of justice.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a31dpj$k6u$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> Vaughan Sanders <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a3164n$s08$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > As the three British held in Cuba seemed to have joined up after the
WTC,
> > they would be open to a charge of *Treason*
> > wouldn't they.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> And they'll be there alongside Jerry Adams and the rest of the IRA.
>
> Nobody's going to be daft enough to charge anyone with treason.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
Apart from T B's government, according to this evenings news.
Jamie
Phillip Wallace
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C476E15...@btinternet.com...
> > The right of parliament to legally try Charles stems from Magna Carta
> > doesn't it ?
>
> Parliament had no legal leg to stand, particularly as they also tried to
> suggest a) that the monarchy was originally elective and b) that there
> was an original contract which the King had failed (a la Hobbes). They
> also suggested that the King had committed treason against the people,
> which is patently absurd (treason is an offence against the king's
> person). The only grounds that they might have had him was that he was
> in breach of his coronation oath (as they perceived it). Yet, there was
> no legal recourse in such an eventuality; God tidied that one up on
> Judgement Day.
>
> And Magna Carta was so influential that it was instantly forgotten
> about. It only came into its own due to the fortune (for the barons) of
> a minority in Henry II. Had there been no minorities, maybe it might
> never have been re-issued and actually come into force.
>
> Cheers, Alex
Henry II, must be a miss print in the finger's !!!! l have always read that
he was before that particular peice of parchment was thought up.
Phillip.