Comments on: Tom Paine, the lesser known legacy

By: barry kingsley

barry kingsley — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:27:58 +0000

Michael’s article needs to be studied in depth. There is a lot here ,which deserves comment and further development.The strongest message that comes across to me,personally,from initial readings, is the ever increasing need for more general co-operation between nations. Further to this, as one thread of the debate, although I think it is a good and desirable thing for a country,( like ours of course), to possess and enjoy a national identity, it is important not to be too insular,self regarding and even xenophobic. To my mind ,an excessive regard /tolerance for a monarchical system could be a negative factor.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:27:00 +0000

Just NB on Tim’s point – New Zealand renamed QCs to “Senior Counsel” in 2005, along the lines of Hong Kong and various Commonwealth jurisdictions. The Government has proposed to revert the title to QCs however, although the legislation to do this hasn’t been introduced.

By: Tim Sharp

Tim Sharp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:46:15 +0000

In a recent New Zealand blog we discussed QCs (officers of the court who can litigate on behalf of the state) In New Zealand I was of the opinion that some occupations need to have a maori equivalent term in this case kaumatua (counsellor)- my own profession kaimatai hinengaro (clinical psychology) uses this term if working with maori. The point here being that counsel act for the people but in pretence on behalf of the Queen. For me this issue provided a perfect labratory where we could copare and contrast the underlying meaning of these terms.

By: eclub

eclub — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:33:26 +0000

@Graham

At some point some of these officials, especially the MP’s have got to walk the walk. Nothing can ever change unless members of Parliament, and the establisment, removes the muzzle and speak up, debate the issues in their official capacity. At the least, members of Parliament should not be allowed to be associated with republicanism unless they are willing to remove their muzzle. How could a law maker not debate issues relating to the head of state?

We can see that Tom Paine would never have been a member of Parliament today, or then. His legacy endures for that principle.

On the other blog about Peter Hitchens, it’s amazing that his own brother is a republican, and has been one for many years; Peter was unable to convert his own brother, so his power of persuasion is either questionable, or he doesn’t have the better of the debate; Peters last resort is to name calling. I wonder if Christopher will admonish him for that.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:14:58 +0000

How about debating the issues raised in the article rather than having a go at Michael’s job title? He talks about becoming a QC in his memoirs and makes it clear it wasn’t a simple decision, but there’s a job to be done and that’s the job title.

By: barry kingsley

barry kingsley — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:27:11 +0000

The “honour ” of Queen’s Council” should not exist. The Law should be completely free from any connection with a monarchy.

By: Real

Real — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:26:52 +0000

Michael, do you not agree that it is rather hypocritical that a staunch, outspoken republican accepts the honour of Queen’s Council?

The position of a Queen’s Council holds deep connotations with monarchy and represents the antithesis of your beliefs, yet you happily display it against your name.

Even if you believe that the role is purely professional, it is still questionable (in my view) that you allow a term associated with monarchism to be such a fundamental aspect of your character (which titles and positions arguably are).