Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just in it for the popcorn sales. That said, here’s the plot summary.
A lot of the alarmist side of blogosphere (especially John Cook at SkS and Tim Lambert at Deltoid) spent a lot of time trying to distract from the science presented during Lord Monckton’s summer tour in Australia. Of course, Monckton himself made some ugly distractions at the outset, with a poorly chosen comparison of Ross Garnaut.
That row aside, basically as the tour went on, they didn’t like the message, so they attacked the man.
Here’s how the peerage title tiff got started. Responding to some small outrage in the southern hemisphere, and some emails that came his way as a result, Dave Beamish, Clerk of the UK Parliaments, posted up a letter on the House of Lords’ official website telling Lord Monckton not to call himself a member of the House of Lords. Trouble is, Dave had gotten it wrong.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles, commentaries and blog postings were aimed at Monckton, for having answered an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interviewer in August 2011 by saying he was a member of the House of Lords, “but without the right to sit or vote”.
This is sort of like being an “ex US senator”. They enjoy certain rights and privileges of the once held office, like getting to use the library and automobile parking in the senate, but they don’t get to vote of course. In England, these sorts of privileges get passed down hereditarily, such as in Monckton’s case. While “hereditary US Senator” probably wouldn’t fly in the USA, England and its Monarchy has its ways of tradition that don’t translate to such expectations in other countries.
Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers, overlooking the River Thames just a mile downstream from the Houses of Parliament. His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”
O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question. He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”. The conclusion of his 11-page opinion (see PDF at bottom of this article) , reviewing 1000 years of Peerage law, is clear on the issue:
“Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”
Lord Monckton has sent copies of the Opinion by registered mail to the Lord Speaker (Baroness d’Souza) and to the chairman of the Privileges Committee (Lord Brabazon of Tara). I have a copy too.
Monckton said:
“I am awaiting with interest the response of the soi-disant ‘authorities’ at the House of Lords to Mr. O’Donoghue’s definitive statement of the law as he sees it. At the very least, it is surely clear that I am entitled, in what is supposed to be a free society, to speak freely about my point of view.
“Dave Beamish has made a prize ass of himself. This criminous clerk has brought the already-tarnished House of Lords and the ancient office of clericus Parliamentorum into further disrepute. His position is now untenable. He must resign at once, or be fired by the House. I was embarrassed by having had to deflect journalists’ questions about whether Dave has been in league with climate-extremist lobby groups. I was not and am not in a position to answer those questions.
“I hope that, for the sake of sparing further harm to elderly and vulnerable family members who have been getting hate-mail as a result of Dave’s unprecedented and extraordinary abuse of his office, the House ‘authorities’ – if that is the right word – will have the common courtesy and good sense to take down his offending and offensive letter from Parliament’s website and replace it with an apology.”
To people outside of England, who don’t deal in formal titles of hereditary peerage, this might look like an overblown egotistic row . But in England, such things are considered very important and are a tradition of position that affects families and reputations going back centuries.
In short, Lord Monckton is not amused, less so at the boys down under than at the Clerk of Parliaments, Dave Beamish, in London. He adds in his letter:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Summary of Mr. O’Donoghue’s learned Opinion reads as follows:
“I am asked to consider whether The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was correct when, in a recent radio interview in Australia, he answered the question ‘Are you a member of the House of Lords?’ by saying, ‘Yes, but without the right to sit or vote.’ My conclusion is that Lord Monckton’s answer was and is correct at all points. We have the authority of two Law Lords in the Privileges Committee that the meaning of the words ‘membership of the House’ in the Act is confined to the right to sit and vote. The implication is that in all other respects excluded Hereditary Peers remain members of the House. Also, the Letters Patent that created Peerages such as that of Monckton of Brenchley have not been revoked, and we have the recent authority both of the Leader of the House and of the High Court for that. Though the House of Lords Act 1999 purported to remove ‘membership of the House of Lords’ from excluded Hereditary Peers including Lord Monckton’s late father, its constitutionality is questionable. Peerages entail membership of the House. Lord Monckton is correct to state that he does not at present have the right to sit or vote, though if the 1999 Act is unconstitutional the excluded Hereditary Peers are unlawfully excluded. Therefore, Lord Monckton remains a Member not only of the Peerage but also of the House of Lords, save only that he cannot for now sit or vote there, and he was and is fully entitled to say so.”
The ancient common-law offense of wilful misfeasance in a public office gives the citizen the right of redress against a defalcating public official who might otherwise persist in his crime with impunity. In the present case, the rap-sheet might read as follows:
“You, Dave Beamish, Clerk of the Parliaments, of the House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW, are charged with wilful misfeasance in a public office, contrary to common law, in that, on a date unknown in July or August 2011, in London, you did knowingly and without lawful excuse cause to be posted on the House of Lords’ official website a letter to The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley falsely stating that the said Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not entitled to say that he is a member of the House of Lords, and that upon repeated request to desist you wilfully and harmfully persisted in the said misfeasance.”
Section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1998 creates the offense of unlawfully processing unregistered data. Here, the rap-sheet might read:
“You, Dave Beamish, Clerk of the Parliaments, of the House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW, are charged with unlawfully processing unregistered data, contrary to Section 21, Data Protection Act 1998, in that, on a date unknown in July or August 2011, in London, you did knowingly, harmfully and without lawful excuse cause sensitive personal information about The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to be published on the House of Lords’ official website.”
Article 8-1 of the European Human Rights Convention, enacted by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK, gives everyone “the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence” and states plainly that (except on grounds manifestly inapplicable here) “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right”.
Under Freedom of Information law the disclosure of the Clerk’s letter to Monckton is a misfeasance at least fourfold. The Act prohibits disclosure of the Clerk’s letter in that the disclosure is a breach of an enactment (the Human Rights Act); and a breach of a Community obligation (the EU has adopted the human rights convention); and the Act exempts disclosures of sensitive personal information (the Clerk could have given his opinion about excluded Hereditary Peers without mentioning Monckton by name); and exempts disclosures of confidential information (it was calculated to cause harm). Breaches of the Human Rights Act and of the FOIA do not give rise to offenses, but are actionable in damages, as is libel. A complaint has gone to the UK’s Information Commissioner. Furthermore, as Hugh O’Donoghue’s Opinion says: “Lord Monckton may legitimately raise not only the matter but also the manner of the conduct of officials of the House with the Privileges Committee.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lord Monckton is quite skilled in oratory skewering. Thus, I had to look up “defalcating”. It has roots in the bankruptcy code. I think he’s implying Mr. Beamish was/is morally bankrupt.
In short, don’t mock the Monck for his title. Here’s the PDF of the legal opinion:
O’Donoghue-lords-opinion (PDF 335k)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
peter_dtm says:
November 21, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Superb. It is a common misconception that England does not have a written constitution, put about by those who would benefit from us not knowing about it. Good to see you know your stuff.
The point of Monckton being of the House of Lords or not is a non-issue. The key issue is do his arguments hold water or not. The attack of his position is a ad hominem fallacy and anyone attacking his position is really avoiding dealing with his arguments.
Here is a response to Monckton’s latest attempt to prove he’s really a member of Parliament that Parliament doesn’t know about.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-monckton-files-lawyering-up/
Lucy Skywalker says:
November 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm
“He’s taught me a few words too, mendacious being one I too now relish.”
Had you seen the movie “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” Burl Ives would have supplied you with the word mendacity.
Christopher confronts the mendacious with veracity and the mendacious, in turn, being without veracity, divert the discussion by attacking Christopher’s heritage. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the mendacious.
“…the sorry caricature of Science that Climate Science has become.”
Climate Science is. The sorry caricatures are the mendacious who deny the science.
I consult the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for word definitions and synonyms and antonyms.
Only one word, Truth, is listed as an antonym for mendacity. These are the synonyms for mendacious:
fable, fabrication, fairy tale, falsehood, falsity, fib, lie, prevarication, story, tale, taradiddle (or tarradiddle), untruth, whopper.
There is only one truth.
From Dave Springer on November 21, 2011 at 7:39 am:
My, you’re being rather sparse on the actual details:
By your wording it sounds like they were selling T-shirts. In actuality, Lord Monckton and his wife were successful entrepreneurs, who founded a business selling a high-quality well-respected product, grew the business, cashed out. Thus in your grandiose comparison to Craig Venter that you apparently adore, you have somehow not mentioned that Monckton prospered in the hard-edged world of retail clothing sales, while Venter succeeded when the promising field of genetic research was flush with venture capital. You also were not precise on those details:
Venter had a non-profit lab, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), which developed the “random shotgun” strategy for DNA sequencing. He was brought in as the first President of Celera in 1998, which was founded as a business unit of what would become Applera but was then known as the Life Sciences Division of the Perkin-Elmer Corporation.
While you are applauding this company founded by a biotech giant for sequencing the human genome cheaper than the US government, it is noted in Wikipedia’s Celera entry:
Venter was subsequently fired from Celera in early 2002. Also, as revealed in 2007 by Venter, he didn’t really fully sequence a human genome back then. Not getting the results he wanted, he had then moved to sequencing his own personal genome. This was completed by Venter and colleagues at the J.Craig Venter Institute and subsequently published in 2007, and used the highly-accurate traditional Sanger method which the Human Genome Project was originally using before switching to the faster though less-accurate shotgun method.
Also in your comparison, you did mention the time after Celera when Venter went circumnavigating the world in his personal yacht, collecting samples. But you didn’t mention Lord Monckton’s decades in journalism, as found in his Wikipedia entry, that section also mentioning a paper he wrote about privatizing public housing which led to government work with the Number 10 Policy Unit.
And currently, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a much-beloved (C)AGW skeptic. What is Venter doing?
So Venter is working towards Big Biofuels, “in the pay of” Big Oil, as part of Exxon Mobil’s positive-PR-generating move into investing in renewables, specifically algae-based biofuels.
Given your frequently-voiced concerns about Peak Oil, I can see why you give more respect to Venter, buoyed by many talented colleagues and supported by public (government) funding and large corporate interests, over Monckton, who is all-around a self-made man.
R. Gates:
I don’t mind being regarded as a chimp. However, as in your case, some chimps are chumps. GK
Barry Bickmore said on November 22, 2011 at 8:29 am:
On your own personal (C)AGW-pushing blog, which has targeted Monckton with two main tabs on top, “Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet” and “The Church of Monckton”.
With said response concluding with this insult against Anthony Watts, the owner of this blog that you’re trying to use to promote your tiny blog (bold added):
Now I regret giving your site a hit when I peeked into that bucket of excrement. Hopefully others will now know it’s not worth looking at all.
@kadaka
“… Monckton, who is all-around a self-made man.”
Absolutely, indeed he brings a whole new meaning to the expression…
Kadaka,
Did you also read the part about how Monckton’s lawyer took the judge’s opinion about the Mereworth case out of context? Or the part about how a large portion of The Lawyer’s argument was about points that everyone involved already concedes, and thus were designed to cloud the issue? Or the part about how Watts promoted Monckton’s argument that when trying to discredit the IPCC’s temperature projections, he wasn’t obligated to disclose their “actual projections”? Or the part about how Monckton claims John Abraham lied to the scientists he contacted about how Monckton had represented their work, and yet Monckton hasn’t managed to get any of them to write an e-mail saying that they were misled?
I understand that everyone is less skeptical of information that seems to go along with their established point of view, but when Monckton lobbing ridiculous arguments like those, one would think some over on your side of the fence would start shifting about uncomfortably and wondering whether they should try to distance themselves from a guy who 1) makes up fake data, 2) misrepresents scientists’ work by the truckload, 3) is a fake member of Parliament, and 4) claims to have invented a miracle cure for a large number of serious diseases. When you guys just lap up whatever he spews your way–face it, you’ve been ridiculously gullible.
Oh, and to all those who are catching the vapors and fainting about “ad hominem,” remember that Monckton was the one who started representing himself as a member of Parliament to enhance his credibility in the debate about climate policy. If a fake doctor were to testify as an expert medical witness, would the opposing side be off base to point out the fake credentials?
From Barry Bickmore on November 22, 2011 at 10:18 am:
Nah. I Googled your site URL, that your name is linked to, got an impression of your writing. Looked at your site anyway, saw those main tabs, your list of links to horrendously-abusive (C)AGW-pushing sites, skimmed down that post to where you smeared Anthony, and accepted you are a small petty person consumed by your personal vendettas who could never write anything I’d consider worthy of reading let alone analyzing.
Have a nice day.
Kadaka,
I thought so. Insulating yourself against contrary information is the most effective way to make yourself gullible. Congrats.
REPLY: I agree, Barry you should spend time then reading the climatgate 2.0 emails instead of pissing around here in this thread – Anthony
@ur momisugly Barry Bickmore on November 22, 2011 at 11:18 am:
Thus to be truly open-minded I must consider the contrary information compiled and proffered as authoritative as presented by a known strongly-biased individual such as yourself? Such an intriguing concept. Imagine all the contrary information about Judaism I could consider if I’d simply review the presentations at the many little blogs similarly sized to yours that are run by those as strongly biased against Judaism as you are against Lord Monckton. Perhaps if I was really truly open-minded, I’d undoubtedly come around to distrusting and hating Jews after reviewing such evidence, just as you are so obviously certain that others would logically come around to distrusting and hating Lord Monckton as much as you if they would simply read your evidence.
Please, continue to display your pettiness, if you must. It is amusing.
Anthony,
I have been. Even out of context, they’re still boring.
And by the way, what do you think about any of the arguments I brought up about Monckton’s claim to be a member of Parliament that Parliament doesn’t know about? What do you think about his post (on your site) in which he claimed that when trying to discredit the IPCC’s temperature projections, he wasn’t obligated to disclose their “actual projections”? Does any of that bother you at all?
I’ve noticed that you often start your posts about Monckton with “I don’t have a dog in this fight”, or some such disclaimer. Well, given how much you’ve used your forum to promote his views without taking a hard look at his alleged chicanery, I’d say he’s your dog now.
Another one of those pets you might have trouble shaking off is Girma Orssengo, whose nonsense you also published on your site. If I remember correctly, his point was that he could fit a line plus a cosine wave to the 20th century temperature data, so it all must be a natural cycle. Really.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
The only stupider thing I’ve ever heard anyone with any scientific training say about climate change was when Joe Bastardi told the Fox News audience that the greenhouse effect violates the First Law of Thermodynamics and Le Chatelier’s Principle. Oh, wait! You let him do a guest post about that on your site, too!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/
What do you think about that? Is that how you view the greenhouse effect?
Do you see why I get the impression that you will publish anything on your site that seems to go against the scientific consensus on climate change?
REPLY:I don’t think anything about it. I give a voice to lots of people, to you or to anyone who wants to make an reasoned argument. Feel free to submit a guest post here. – Anthony
Kadaka,
If you had bothered to read the stuff I have about Monckton on my blog, you would find that I am one of the scientists who have personally taken apart many of Monckton’s claims. Have you done the same?
Really, Anthony? You don’t think ANYTHING about it? This brings up another question. I.e., do you have any quality control standards for guest posts? Seriously–Bastardi said the greenhouse effect violates conservation of energy, because adding CO2 to the atmosphere is supposed to be adding energy to the system. If so, what are your standards? Note that I’m not asking about your standards of “politeness” and “civility”. I’m just asking about the quality of the science.
It’s all well and good to “give a voice” to various people, but don’t you feel any responsibility to help your readers separate the wheat from the chaff? Just look at the comments on Joe Bastardi’s piece. Many of your readers don’t have the background to even know what the First Law of Thermodynamics and Le Chatelier’s Principle are.
REPLY: No, I don’t think anything about it right now, because I have far more important things to do than worry about your questions and get dragged into a long drawn out discussion which is your MO, much like John Mashey. Mostly you just waste time, of which I have little right now. I get it you don’t like WUWT, and don’t agree with what I do. My broad response is that I don’t give a care for your opinion nor will I bother responding to it. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
Anthony,
That’s fair enough. You don’t care about my opinion, and you don’t care whether any of your guest posters is talking nonsense. I get the picture.
Hey, you said I could feel free to submit a guest post, as long as it was a “reasoned argument”. Would you post it if I were to submit a guest post about how you ought to raise your quality control standards? I promise the argument would be reasoned. I would even promise to be perfectly civil!
I’m not asking you to make a definitive decision about it. Just give me some conditions that I would need to fulfill to have you post such a piece.
REPLY:To be clear, I just don’t care about your opinion right now, its a distraction from the more important issues of the day. Perhaps in a few weeks when all this dies down, busy right now with the more important issue. I actually have peer review system in the works (see my 5 year anniversary post) so maybe it would be appropriate after that is implemented. There’s also another system I’m looking at to improve quality, which is an on-top layer app, but again can’t get into it right now. – Anthony
Barry Bickmore,
I’m glad to see you dealt with correctly here. Personally I have seldom seen a more mean-spirited or bigoted site than yours. You keep advertising your ‘rebuttals’ of Lord Monckton yet you refuse to answer his legitimate questions. That makes me suspect that your aim is not to find the truth but to purvey the opposite.
Paul
A furphy, also commonly spelled furfie, is Australian slang for a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story.
Bickmore raises a superficially reasonable case against LM; to wit he is a peer but not member of the HOL and that in respect of the 1999 Act, “The intent of the Act, therefore, was to remove ALL privileges of membership [of the HOL]”.
This is fundamentally wrong because the most important right in respect of membership of the HOL is the right to run for election to that body.
Only hereditary peers are eligible to stand for election to the HOL; LM is a hereditary peer and therefore retains the right to stand for election to that body which he has done, unsucessfully. But it is this point, as shown by the difference between the Letters Patent granting specific peerages and the generality of the 1999 act which Bickmore doesn’t understand. The 1999 act did not remove LM’s membership but created a condition precedent before that membership becomes extant.
LM’s description of himself as a “a Member not only of the Peerage but also of the House of Lords, save only that he cannot for now sit or vote there” is a reasonable description of that situation.
Their Lordships should know better than to be caught so publicly abusing their Members .
Stillgar says:
“…Claiming that the House of Lords disagrees proves nothing…”
Not even the House of Lords, but some clerk, appointed to do the housekeeping.
the letter is still up on the parliament site:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
as the main bone of contention, there is absolutely no way that it would still be there if there were a ruling in favor of the person in question
a lawyer’s letter proves exactly what?
only that someone has gotten a snit
like an ex-senator – maybe. but claiming that you’re a member of the senate house is not the same thing – and why would it matter to an honest broker? no idea…
“We have the authority of two Law Lords in the Privileges Committee”
what does that mean? that 2 support the view? or something more concrete?
the Privileges Committee consists of 16 members…
that’s lawyers for you
i can well imagine that there’s a point to be successfully made: amending historic precedents is almost impossible, not least because of language change over time: you’ll never close every loophole
certainly not every point of irrelevance (only of interest to snakeoil fans); the law was extremely rushed – they didn’t even cover expulsion of current members correctly! i don’t imagine that they ever thought of the nomenclature of people no longer permitted… or that anyone would be so petty