Parliament issued information about the absolute exemption for the royals which we commoners are allowed to read and share.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000, as amended, includes an exemption for
communications with The Queen, other members of the Royal Family and the Royal
Household, and the awarding of Honours by the Crown (section 37). Certain information
relating to the Sovereign and to the heir and second in line to the Throne is absolutely
exempt from the Act, whereas information relating to other members of the Royal Family and
the Royal Household is subject to the public interest test.
So Brenda and Choss and William are all absolutely exempt. They can plot with Boko Haram if they want to and keep it entirely to themselves.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply directly to the Royal Household, as the
Royal Household is not included in the Act’s definition of a public authority. However,
communications with the Royal Family are exempt under Section 37 of the Act which
provides that information is exempt:
(1)… if it relates to— .
(a) communications with the Sovereign, .
(aa) communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in
line of succession to, the Throne, .
(ab) communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or
become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,
(ac) communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than
communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made
or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and .
(ad) communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall
within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a
person falling within any of those paragraphs), or .
(b) the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity.
They’re Special, Magical, Anointed, Superhuman, Enchanted people, who stand on the very pinnacle of the UK, benevolently guiding it, therefore they have to be allowed to operate in total secrecy, because.
Well, they are God’s representatives on Earth, so you gotta trust ’em, don’t you?
Is there any better argument for why monarchies need to just go away now?
Ah!!
Where are John Bradshaw, Lord Grey, Oliver Cromwell and all when you need them??
@3 richardelguru : the Puritan theocracy that ruled after the execution of Charles II and the Civil War was hardly needed.
Their spawn infects the Anglo-American world to this day.
The current conflicts with ISIS/ISIL shows a similar pattern after the execution of Saddam Hussein; doesn’t look like a net benefit.
Replacing the dictators and monarchs has proven to be more complex than substituting a marginally less monarchical president.
I should be more genuinely concerned about them plotting with the government of Saudi Arabia whose subjects currently seem to own half of London.
krambc: Yup, it’s just that he is such an upper-class-twit-of-the-year and then some….I think that the high point of my opinion of him came when he performed in a dustbin during a Cambridge Footlights review (I think doing something from the Goons—it was a loooong time ago),
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1969-prince-charles-as-student-at-cambridge-university-in-a-dustbin-319909.html
I have a friend who moves in strange circles who told me a very funny thing he believes he uncovered, which is that the House of Windsor still owns more or less controlling rights on opium, as a left-over from the opium wars now it’s the legal source of most of the opiates in Europe. I did a bunch of google-whacking and came up dry; my friend says the relationship is very well and deliberately obscured. It would be rather ironic if Charles, who is an alt-med slobberer, was also beneficiary from the world’s largest heroin ring.
Where are John Bradshaw, Lord Grey, Oliver Cromwell and all when you need them??
Long dead, fortunately. Cromwell was not a step in the right direction.
Pen @ 5 – yes so am I, definitely, but I’d already mentioned the Saudis (in the earlier post I guess), plus there’s the lure of hyperbole. I’m a sucker for hyperbole.
@5 Pen,
“I should be more genuinely concerned about them plotting with the government of Saudi Arabia”
What a legal extravaganza that would be, could the Queen (or CharlesIII) be charged with treason?
Marcus Ranum @ # 8 – Do your friend’s strange circles include what remains of the Lyndon LaRouche cult?
LaRouchies have long contended that Her Most Britannic Majesty controls the world’s heroin trade, based on the undeniable evidence that Lyndon said so.
#RJW: “What a legal extravaganza that would be, could the Queen (or CharlesIII) be charged with treason?”
Better yet, could Charles be jockeying to be the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?
No. The monarch has personal immunity from civil and criminal law.
The Crown (as an entity) can be sued for breach of contract, and are liable under labour and property laws.
I’m not sure what would happen if the Monarch went on a killing spree – probably confinement to an expensive private hospital?