Same sort of thing that leads to the Democrats not kicking their assorted charismatic crooks like Teddy Kennedy out of the party permanently, probably.
He surely can't enter Parliament again: not in the Lords, and not even if he ran for a seat in the Commons. It's not just that someone would try to stop him, there's the tricky matter of his Oath of Allegiance. A convicted perjurer cannot 'give his word' - nor, in the strictest terms, his signature, handshake or any other undertaking.
The point being: a crime is a specific action, a fraud is a specific deceit; time passes and you may atone for them. Or not, but the law does explicitly state that criminal convictions 'expire'. But perjury is more than action in breach of the law: it is to wilfully repudiate your own duty, the truth, the Bible and anything you consider sacred, in the pursuit of personal gain. It's a permanent mark of your inability to enter into any agreement or compact in good faith, and of your unworthiness be received into any society of men who prize honour and virtue over the external advantages of rank and fortune.
Nobody will be seen shaking his hand. Not if they've any sense: the mark rubs off! If I knowingly enter into a compact with a perjurer my word's worthless too.
I'd look forward to seeing Archer try to re-enter the House of Lords - as, apparently, the 'Department of Constitutional Affairs' believe he is still entitled to do - because any Peer could halt the debate by pointing out that, while a convicted perjurer is present among them, he cannot address the House as 'Noble Lords'. It's the equivalent of the Commons, where MP's are addressed as 'Honourable Gentlemen', and it's more than just a compulsory verbal flourish; the House does not act unless they are. Although I suspect that someone would be very unpopular for removing, or even drawing public attention to that flimsy constitutional figleaf over Parliament's all-too-frequent lapses from nobility and honour.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 12:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 12:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 01:40 am (UTC)He surely can't enter Parliament again: not in the Lords, and not even if he ran for a seat in the Commons. It's not just that someone would try to stop him, there's the tricky matter of his Oath of Allegiance. A convicted perjurer cannot 'give his word' - nor, in the strictest terms, his signature, handshake or any other undertaking.
The point being: a crime is a specific action, a fraud is a specific deceit; time passes and you may atone for them. Or not, but the law does explicitly state that criminal convictions 'expire'. But perjury is more than action in breach of the law: it is to wilfully repudiate your own duty, the truth, the Bible and anything you consider sacred, in the pursuit of personal gain. It's a permanent mark of your inability to enter into any agreement or compact in good faith, and of your unworthiness be received into any society of men who prize honour and virtue over the external advantages of rank and fortune.
Nobody will be seen shaking his hand. Not if they've any sense: the mark rubs off! If I knowingly enter into a compact with a perjurer my word's worthless too.
I'd look forward to seeing Archer try to re-enter the House of Lords - as, apparently, the 'Department of Constitutional Affairs' believe he is still entitled to do - because any Peer could halt the debate by pointing out that, while a convicted perjurer is present among them, he cannot address the House as 'Noble Lords'. It's the equivalent of the Commons, where MP's are addressed as 'Honourable Gentlemen', and it's more than just a compulsory verbal flourish; the House does not act unless they are. Although I suspect that someone would be very unpopular for removing, or even drawing public attention to that flimsy constitutional figleaf over Parliament's all-too-frequent lapses from nobility and honour.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 07:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 08:37 am (UTC)They are clearly mad, however.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 10:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 10:36 am (UTC)It's easier than admitting that the ship is becoming a submarine.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 10:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-07 04:53 pm (UTC)The Tories haven't changed one ickle bit in the intervening eight years.