Monckton vs House of Lords

Monckton's fight with the House of Lords continues, with The Guardian reporting

Last month, Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, and nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis. ...

Buckingham Palace confirmed it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". It did, though, guide the Guardian towards a document on its website which says misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the Palace pursued the matter and successfully prosecuted him.

Hat tip: lord_sidcup.

More like this

After The House of Lords wrote to Monckton telling him that he should not claim to be a member, Monckton kept doing it. So now The House of Lords has written an open letter to Monckton: My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you…
Christopher Monckton was so annoying when interviewed by Adam Spencer that Spencer hung up on him before finishing the interview later on. The Australian was so impressed by Monckton's performance that they posted a partial transcript. Moth at New Anthropocene corrects many of Monckton's…
Gavin Schmidt has caught Christopher Monckton in yet another fabrication. Monckton published graphs that purport to show that temperatures and CO2 concentrations haven't followed IPCC projections, but the IPCC projections Monckton plots are fictional. Schmidt graphs the actual projections, and…
A summary by John Abraham of his thorough demolition of Monckton was published last month in the Guardian, along with commentary by George Monbiot. Now Monckton has responded with 446 questions for Abraham. Just to be clear here, "446 questions" is not hyperbole for "lots of questions". There are…

From the Guardian article:

"In June, following the death of Viscount Colville of Culross, Monckton, as a qualifying hereditary peer, put his name forward as a candidate at the resulting byelection to find the replacement elected peer. However, he failed to secure a single vote among the 29 crossbench hereditary peers eligible to vote."

Wow, 0 out of 29. He really is popular amongst his peers. (pun intended)

Nice to see the two logos side by side: one can see that in Monckton's version the chains are unhinged and there is empty space beneath the crown. Can anyone explain the symbolism?

If limericks are out of place here, feel free to delete this. It will also be over at In It For the Gold.

The Parliament clerk, Michael Pownall
Lately wrote about Monckton's downfall:
The way his peers voted
Left him deeply demoted;
He got naught of 29 votes withal.

By Chris Winter (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

Trying again, for proper format.

The Parliament clerk, Michael Pownall
Lately wrote about Monckton's downfall:
The way his peers voted
Left him deeply demoted
He got naught of 29 votes withal.

By Chris Winter (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

What does it matter? He'll just keep running around claiming he's a member of the house of lords. This might just incite him to start claiming that he's the king of England!

Vagueofgodalming, comment of the day!

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

Just wanted to point out how much I like the name "Pownall." Keep pwning, Michael.

Say whatever you want, but what Monckton is wearing in the picture is one of the loudest suits I've seen in a while. What audacity!

Two snaps up for Vagueofgodalming who salvaged what was yet more exasperating ink spilt on this lemming with some tidy work there.

By Majorajam (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

Monckton versus the world.
Who else is he going to take on?

>Can anyone explain the symbolism?

Try the House of Commons Information Office fact sheet G9.
According to that it is a symbol of The Palace of Westminster, not specifically the House of Lords.

It states:
"Probably the original idea of using a portcullis in arms was to betoken strength and redoubtability"

www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g09.pdf

8 JasonW,

I first saw that image at Hot Topic in one of Gareth's hilarious Rawlinson End-inspired stories. I've always assumed it is a very good "Photoshop" job intended to ridicule the Pompous Potty Peer. Pith helmet indeed!

Can it really be that this photo is genuine, one that Lord Munchkin actually posed for, thinking that it shows him "cutting a dash"?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

New Model Emblem with improved symbolism.

By Doug Bostrom (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

Paul UK,

Monckton versus the world. Who else is he going to take on?

He'll find someone. Even if he needs to search for life on other planets, he'll find someone.

The Guardian got one detail wrong - Monckton has actually stood for election to the House of Lords four times, not just once, but has yet to record a single vote. From Wikipedia:

He stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Lords after the reforms. He stood for a Conservative seat in a March 2007 by-election; of the 43 candidates, 31 received no votes, Monckton included. He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008, July 2009, and June 2010, again receiving no votes.

2: Nice to see the two logos side by side: one can see that in Monckton's version the chains are unhinged and there is empty space beneath the crown. Can anyone explain the symbolism?

(end quotes)

Besides these beauties, given the potential prison sentence for misuse of the emblem, is there a possibility that its appearance in this context might prove to have been unwittingly prophetic?

By Zibethicus (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

Of course, there may be a reason for all this, as Monckton has Grave's Disease, as some have suspected. Wikipedia cites him as saying so, and it certainly fits very well with:

a) Appearance.

b) Behavior,

Read:

Neuropsychological manifestationsâ
Especially starting at:
âReported symptoms vary from mild to severe aspects of anxiety or depression, and may include psychotic and behavioural disturbance"

The really weird thing is that his endocrinologist Schulte would surely know the behavioral issues, which makes his involvement in the 2007 effort especially puzzling.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 11 Aug 2010 #permalink

John Mashey @ 19: but, but, Lord Monckton cured Graves' Disease (and AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, the flu, the common cold, herpes and food poisoning)! Surely you're not claiming he still suffers from a disease that he personally cured!

By James Haughton (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

Is it allowed to call his fans Monckey Nuts?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

Over on RealClimate, tamino has noted that Watts has a [new post](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/) in support of Monckton, but even funnier are the comments. Here's my favourite:

We have many fine spokesmen on the side of realism; Anthony Watts, Christopher Horner, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. Lord Monckton is unique. He is an eloquent, gifted orator.

For that comment's use of the word "unique", Dr. Dave gets a nomination for the Vizzini award!

Thanks Pough,

I was getting a little worried there that we were in the process of losing the invaluable services of Christopher Monckton but your link to Watts has reassured me that C-b-a-c will continue to be the face of denialism for some time to come. If AGW was a conspiracy you could conjure up a character like Monckton as being in the pay of the conspirators to discredit any opposition.

Meanwhile, the poor staff in the HOL's information office must be on overtime to answer all the email questions from around the world about C-b-a-c's membership.

BTW and OT but can anyone tell me about the sudden labelling by denialists of views by climate scientist et al as 'CAGW'. It seems they are all using it or have I missed something, anyway its a neat propaganda meme someone has originated. You gotta hand it to these denialists they really know how to do propaganda.

@Jeremey C #23

It appears that regular, wholesome AGW is the pleasant kind of global warming that no reasonable person can deny - mild winters, barbeque summers, birdsong earlier in the year etc. etc.

Catastophic AGW is what alarmists preach - death, doom, record breaking heatwaves, entire countrysides on fire, huge blocks of the arctic breaking off, in other words scaremongering minnies.

I believe the former like to refer to themselves as 'climate realists'.

Or even, try again, 'Catastrophic AGW'

Jeremy C, I asked that myself lately. Because AGW can hardly be denied anymore, you have to up the ante. "CAGW, puleez! Those alarmists!!"

Nevermind the fact that "CAGW" is not a term used _anywhere_ in scientific literature.

Look at that gigantic strawman, people! Oh, here it goes, it's toppling...

The thread at Watts' is excellent satire, the denizens there don't seem to realise that the shaking Monckton induces in 'warmists' is not from fear, but from helpless laughter. The fawning admiration for Monckton's model of 'honesty and civility' is making my stomach more than a bit queasy though.

I have to be honest though that this particular side-show has outstayed it's welcome. Too much digital ink is being wasted on the eccentric peer.

Re #23-26.

If the comments about Catastrophic AGW are correct, that would seem to suggest a shift in thinking.

From the "it's not happening" or "it's just a conspiracy to get access to more funding" to "if it is real, it isn't going to be as bad as they (the climate scientists) say and may even be a good thing." A slight paradigm shift, but a shift in the right direction nonetheless.

And that has to be a good thing.

By Jimmy Nightingale (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

Jimmy,

I think you may be a little too optimistic.

The move is about shifting from a position of almost zero credibility to one that has more, not for the purpose of better reflecting reality, but to more effectively muddy the waters.

Jimmy N. #28 said: "A slight paradigm shift, but a shift in the right direction nonetheless. And that has to be a good thing."

I sort of can see where you're coming from Jimmy, but to me it's a little too close to 'Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia'.

In other words classic, intellectually crippling, dishonest doublethink.

Very nice Chek, very nice.

[Jeremy C]().

The "C" word is being adopted by conservative denialists across the board these days. Consider [this week's Counterpoint](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2973381.htm):

Paul Comrie-Thomson: What do you say to the arguments of the peak energy catastrophists with regard to uranium?

Oo, so the matter of finite resources is all a big scare apparently. How they must itch to hyphenate "catastrophic" and "Malthusian"...

The whole piece is actually a curious exercise in pseudo-intellectual spin, and is particularly ironic considering that one of the [preceding stories](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2973393.htm) was a swipe at the Bolshy Western intellectuals who got it all wrong.

Sometimes I can't help but think that Couterpoint is a giant Poe, and that one day they will admit that they've been hoaxing the conservatives of Australia all along.

It would be a better explanation for some of the stuff that they broadcast, than the thought that they do so in all seriousness...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

I see Watts Up With That now refers to the viscount as " A compellingly articulate British Lord"

Haw Haw.

By Russell Seitz (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

The crown represents the Red Queen, and the portculis is the front gate of Bedlam.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

Russell@33. Nice one!
Slainte

BJ@32. Counterpoint used to make my ears bleed, but thinking of it as Phillip Adam's poe might just work...nah. Slainte.

Jeremy C #23: I've wondered that myself and have challenged people on other boards. Tom Fuller has stated that the "C" is for a sensitivity above the IPCC range, but I do not believe this opinion is shared by others.

Anti-"CAGW" seems to be the new "lukewamer" position - a way of splitting hairs and setting up a strawman, since the term can mean whatever the writer wants it to mean.

Doug@14

Re: new Monckton emblem.
I like the replacement of the portcullis with a waffle.
Ingenious.

I see from an ad in the property section of the "Scottish Field" that Carie Estate is for sale. Is that not the humble abode of the Discount Monk? Perhaps he is in need of substantial funds for upcoming legal fees.

It is interesting that his estate is on a road to no-where. It is on a dead end road which stops deep in the Highlands. Perhaps he can become the Pied Piper of AGW deniers and have them follow him on the "road to no-where"?

I can just imagine him at the head of the line chanting the old favorite song of Scottish comedian Harry Lauder, "keep right on to the end of the road".

Let's just hope that this is the start of the end of the road for AGW deniers.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 13 Aug 2010 #permalink

I see Watts Up With That now refers to the viscount as " A compellingly articulate British Lord"

Haw Haw.
= = = = = = = == = = = = = =
>.< that close to a Godwin but I like it.

Jeremy C #23: I've wondered that myself and have challenged people on other boards. Tom Fuller has stated that the "C" is for a sensitivity above the IPCC range, but I do not believe this opinion is shared by others.

Fuller trapped himself with that statement (I remember seeing it, where was it?) ... you can't argue convincingly that climate science is exaggerating the threat (CAGW) when you define CAGW as being a sensitivity above the high range of the IPCC estimate.

dhogaza,

Are you making the mistake of expecting internal consistency from interacting memes flying around the denialverse?

Why should anyone take any notice of what the Guardian prints re global warming, when it comes from the pen of the lunatic George Monbiot whose only ambition is to take us back to the economic conditions prevailing at the time of the medieval warm period.

Lord Monckton is a great asset and advocate for AGW sceptics and the warmists know this. Their cause has been coming off the rails for some time now and even a scientific layman such as myself can see that untruths and propaganda pedalled by the IPCC and championed by the Guardian is contradictory and self defeating. Their dior predictions are increasingly unravelling as they are based on myth and fabrication.

The respect once enjoyed by the House of Lords with educated independently minded hereditary contingent largely evaporated when they were replaced with 'the sale of peerages' system introduced by Tony Blair

By Robert Stevenson (not verified) on 15 Aug 2010 #permalink

RS, if you want lunacy, look to your own posts.

"Lord Monckton is a great asset and advocate for AGW sceptics "

Oh dear.

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton-copenhagen-i-will-not-sh…

Mind you, you consider that 17 records being broken on the warm side and 1 record being broken on the cold side means that it's cooling, so I don't know what your brain is on at the moment.

PS The lords are pissed off at monkey's posturings too.

The House of Lords indeed earned loads of respect in the past, being filled with people owning the land your house was built on...

Oddly enough, Marco, the Lords did a shitload for the average punter in the UK during Tony Blair's term in office.

Yes, they also stymied the ban on fox hunting but they kept TB's government in check and off the backs of the people.

Because they weren't political appointees.

However, TB's doing his best to change it. And one method is by smearing all lords by getting seats for rich chums and the whole cash-for-honours/questions debacle.

What's galling is that nearly all the villification is on the lords, not Tony and, rather than kick out the paid-for peers, is being used instead to get ALL the lords ousted.

Rather similarly, all the lies TB and GWB spewed and the spinmasters they used are now being used to deny any AGW (and any science). "We ALL know politicians lie! Therefore AGW is another lie!".

PS isn't the reason why the president of the USA and Australia given respect for the theft of land from the aboriginals?

Just sayin'.

Much as I dislike Tony Blair, the house of lords has always been there to be packed with placemen and friends of the ruling party. I think it was Lloyd George a century ago who threatened to make enough liberal peers to get his way with legislation, and there appears to be a direct correlation between how much you donate to the tories or labour and whether you get a peerage or not. This is not a new issue folks, go and read some history.

Robert Stevenson:

Their dior predictions are increasingly unravelling

At least his spelling is as good as his climate science.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 16 Aug 2010 #permalink

"Much as I dislike Tony Blair, the house of lords has always been there to be packed with placemen and friends of the ruling party."

And as much as people dislike the House of Lords, if it hadn't been there, the UK would be right now unlivable.

Check the number of "popular" legislation from the lower house the upper one killed, legislation that was pushed through by Tony because Tony Is Always Right (tm) team.

Because they don't get reelected, they aren't under *political* pressure.

Have a look at the US judges pushed in by Reagan and Shrub. Solid Party Men and some few of them are actually not that bad in unelected posts (see the judge who turned down Prop. 8). They may have been solid GOP party boys but moved into sinecure positions they didn't HAVE to toe the party line.

Under the second Blair term when Tony bought into his own press and wanted things because he was ALWAYS right (else why did he get elected?) and later, the HoL really became the only place where what the people wanted remained a point.

Ah, but Wow, because they are not (re)elected, they can do whatever *they* think is right. Which can be problematic when something is bothersome to them (see the fox hunt ban as just one example). It works both ways. The problem, of course, is the whole setup of the House of Lords and the way people can get 'elected'.

Wow, you're comments could be taken as meaning that the HoL is a good thing; it appears that you have mistaken mine in the same way, insofar as it was actually directed at the denialist upthread who patently knows no history. I am well aware of the HoL stand against detaining people without trial for arbitrarily or very large amounts of time, and other issues. That they could do some good even after being packed with tony's crony's is a good thing, but you should recall that the HoL was deciding on subjects like that on legal bases, with no recourse to what the populace at large thought; in fact like with ID cards, many of the population would be happy to have terrorist suspects locked up without trial. Perhaps you have evidence of the HoL paying attention to what the people want?

"Wow, you're comments could be taken as meaning that the HoL is a good thing"

So does your current one. Until you get here:

"but you should recall that the HoL was deciding on subjects like that on legal bases, with no recourse to what the populace at large thought"

Funny. The MPs in the HoC were deciding on subjects like that and the law is the same, but they got a different answer.

"in fact like with ID cards, many of the population would be happy to have terrorist suspects locked up without trial."

No, the very LOUDEST want that. I would point you to other polls where such assumption on behalf of other people are made:

"Australian politicians overestimate the electorate's skepticism about global warming"

And even if it were true, this isn't what ID cards would have done, as was plainly shown by the Home Sec's continual change of what ID cards would do for us.

"Perhaps you have evidence of the HoL paying attention to what the people want?"

Yes, you gave some yourself:

"I am well aware of the HoL stand against detaining people without trial for arbitrarily or very large amounts of time, and other issues."

And the ID card thing.

"Ah, but Wow, because they are not (re)elected, they can do whatever they think is right."

And you don't think that you should vote your conscience?

And guthrie doesn't think it's just "whatever they think is right":

"but you should recall that the HoL was deciding on subjects like that on legal bases, with no recourse to what the populace at large thought"

they *can*, but they don't all have black moustaches that they wax and twirl whilst plotting the capture of the nubile young Penelope Pitstop, you know.

The Lords love their children too.

"(see the fox hunt ban as just one example)."

To be honest, the stand was right. The procedures were ill thought and unargued. The use of HoC privilige to ignore the HoL was also wrong.

What *should* have worked is a land right. If fox hunting occurs over your land, it's plain trespass and handle it there.

Then BAM! suddenly fox hunting not a problem: just assertion of property rights.

And look at the good the HoL has done. It's not all bad.

It goes both ways, you know.

"The problem, of course, is the whole setup of the House of Lords and the way people can get 'elected'."

Is it?

I doubt it.

Cash for peereages was wrong, but it is wrong in the current system, so the failure there is not the HoL but the HoC.

And their ascention to the seat is no real difference from, say, a court judge or even more a Supreme Court Judge.

Is there a problem there too?

They aren't elected. But then the HoC is and it's stuffed up. Similarly the House of Representatives are elected, but 87% of US citizens want Medicare, Medicade and the Social Security stuff left alone. Yet this is being ignored. The people want healthcare reform and financial reform. Yet the ELECTED house isn't giving it to them.

Maybe the whole problem is how those houses are set up...

Wow '54- skipping from topic to topic is a great way to confuse people, do you do it deliberately?

Yes it is funny that the HoL gets a different asnwer to a parliament overwhelmingly run by a party led by a possible war criminal?
What I meant was that the discussions from the HoL were very much based on legal realities and practical realities, [eg: this report from 2008](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/09/terrorism.police)

At the same time some polls were finding the majority were in favour of increasing the time of detention:
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2107480/42-day-terror-detention-…)

Then of course you start talking about Australia and ID cards, perhaps aware that in the UK many people couldn't care less or were in favour of ID cards, although that changed somewhat after campaigning and morepublicity of how bad and expensive they were. Of course I fully expect you to disagree with me and rubbish the poll I linked to above, since polls are only useful if they agree with you...

As for your post 55 it makes no sense to me.

Meanwhile

50 Chris,

Not being interested in fashion, I have no idea if the Grauniad is any good at Dior predictions.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 16 Aug 2010 #permalink

45 MFS,

Phew! I thought I'd got trapped in that parallel universe!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 16 Aug 2010 #permalink

"Wow '54- skipping from topic to topic is a great way to confuse people, do you do it deliberately"

Wow, did you just claim a priori that I was skipping from topic to topic? And was it so you could ignore any points made in it?

Looks like it.

Topic (is OT for thread, but heck...) is about HoL. An that post was about HoL.

"Yes it is funny that the HoL gets a different asnwer to a parliament overwhelmingly run by a party led by a possible war criminal?"

Now how come this isn't skipping from topic to topic? What way does the HoC which has several political parties only one of which is notionally headed by Tob Blair change what the HoL did? And if you think Wedgie Ben was led about by Tony, you don't know british politicians.

"Then of course you start talking about Australia and ID cards,"

Oh dear. I was talking about Australia in response to someone else who was talking about the HoL getting respect for owning the land your house was built on. Just like the Australian Parliament.

And you asked for one place where the HoL did good. That is in the ID cards.

If you're going to ask questions and then when answered complain that the answer is skipping from topic to topic, what the heck am I doing with you? Shall you just be killfiled?

"perhaps aware that in the UK many people couldn't care less or were in favour of ID cards"

And not caring is the null statement if they don't know, therefore you've just shot yourself in the foot with the next sentence:

"although that changed somewhat after campaigning and morepublicity of how bad and expensive they were."

And one reason why there was the campaigning was because many people in the UK DID care and were NOT in favour of ID cards.

Even if it were true, the HoL still took a stand against it and if people after hearing "the truth" changed their minds, then the HoL WERE REALLY looking after the populace's best interests.

As before, you seem to be complaining about building up the HoL yet you're doing a much better job of making them look good than I am.

Ironic.

"As for your post 55 it makes no sense to me."

Well, neither have your posts, but the difference is I'm TYING to make sense of your gibberish. And in doing so, getting complaints of "skipping from topic to topic".

Wow.

Oh, gussie, I see where your confusion about Australia comes from.

It's an EXAMPLE.

You see, you have made a jump from what YOU *think* you know about everyone else and made it what people *actually* think.

Just like the example given.

Pop along to the "Recent topics" list here on this site and look for one called "Australian politicians overestimate the electorate's skepticism about global warming"

It's another example of how somebody (a group of them, actually) have made the ASSUMPTION that others think one way because of the noise made in that direction.

When actually looked at, this turned out to be a shibboleth.

It was, in short, wrong.

And the actions they took are EXACTLY the same ones you're taking.

An example.

All it takes is thinking with an open mind and you can see the answers. Try it.

Ah ha ha!

"One of the party's [UK Independence Party] two deputy leaders - David Campbell Bannerman - has indicated he would like to replace Lord Pearson. His fellow deputy Christopher Monckton may also stand"

Ha HA HA..