Jeffrey Archer banned from the House of Lords?

[cybermule]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3118148.stm

Heh. The whole thing is all fairly meaningless to be honest, but it's nice to see him copping some sort of punishment. As opposed to sitting around in prison, soaking up my tax £s(*) to write a new book and pop home for the odd dinner party :P

(*) = personal disclaimer. I don't really give much of a rat's backside where my taxes go. Well, I have some preferences, but I don't mind people being on benefits etc. What I do mind is that some slimy Tory low-life gets supported to write a book. Dammit.

Comments

[quercus.livejournal.com]

I think Lord Archer should keep his title.

Ouch. That hurt.

I'm no Archer fan. I despise the plagiaristic little creep. But we shouldn't change laws to oppress any one transgessor (even Archer) and a retrospective change to punishment is an extremely bad move. I wish this law had been in place a long time ago (I'd always vaguely assumed it had been) and it's certainly a moral argument that a perjuring lord should be de-throned, or de-bagged, or something. However the idea of retrospective changes to judicial punishments are just so Kafkaesque that we should simply never do it.

I suggest a compromise. He may keep the address "Lord Archer of Mud", providing he's wearing his robes at all times. The idea of Jeffrey Archer being compelled to dress in a coat of weasel-fur has a certain poetic justice to it.

[cybermule.livejournal.com]

However the idea of retrospective changes to judicial punishments are just so Kafkaesque that we should simply never do it.

Yeah - even I thought that the retrospective law was a bit much. It's not like he'll be able to restrain himself from further dodgy behaviour - we just need to wait...

Heheh - weasel fur 8D I never thought of it like that.