I'd like to examine another post over at WUWT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/
Don’t mock the Monck
Posted on November 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts
“Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.”
{...}
“Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers. . .”
Yet if one takes the time to look up their member profile here’s what you’ll find for Hugh O’Donoghue:
“PRACTICE
Criminal and civil advocacy. Hugh has 15 years Higher Rights Advocacy experience in the Irish Courts where he practiced as a solicitor. His specialism is in International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals. He regularly appears in the Court of Appeal and High Court and is noted for his strong reputation for doing a thorough job combined with a singular resolve to serve the needs of his clients.”
No mention of constitutional law expertise. Going down the list under 'background' you'll find:
“Hugh's transfer to the UK coincides with his focus in the International field and the growth of his reputation at the Bar as a meticulous advocate.
{...}”
Likewise reading though the forty some cases listed none mentioned arguing a constitutional law case. Though I found his defense of a drug and firearms peddler interesting in that it underscores that this man is a lawyer for hire and will argue your case as a meticulous advocate - not as an impartial expert.
It is noteworthy that the House of Lords has yet to repeal it’s reprimand of Lord Monckton’s misrepresentation nor its demand that Lord Monckton cease and desist from making said claims - see for yourself at http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
18 July 2011
Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
{...}
I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.
David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011
But isn’t that how it goes with Anthony Watts and his echo-chamber, the real experts are trivialized and their learned opinions ridiculed while anyone with a winning yard to spin is elevated to “expert” status.
Shame on you Mr Watts!
No comments:
Post a Comment