New British law’s means Queen's Secrets to stay Secret
What goes on in Buckingham palace stays in the palace so to speak apart from of odd leak every now and then?A new British law that took effect Wednesday 19 January 2011 makes Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and Prince William (King Philip?) exempt from freedom of information laws, meaning many private details of their lives won't be made public for decades.
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke says the exemption will protect the monarch's private conversations with politicians and officials but information advocates say it will make it even harder to hold to account a royal family that costs English taxpayers millions a year.
For centuries, the workings of the British monarchy have and were shrouded in secrecy by a blend of law’s, convention, deference and media self-censorship. That media acquiescence is long gone, and under freedom of information laws that took effect in 2005, information about the royal family could be released if it was shown to be in the public interest not that these days the English public really cares, As the queens is so far removed from her English peoples no one cares having far much more to worry about? Like keeping their homes, jobs, paying bills and meeting the ever rising cost of living each week to have time to worry about what she’s up to or her family.
"It at least raised the possibility that information could be disclosed," said Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. "What the changes do is remove the public interest test exemption becomes absolute."
The 84-year-old queen has no political power that she uses, but she meets regularly with the British prime ministers and other senior politicians to talk about events of the day which go over her head like bubbles in the air. Imagining such scenes has been grist for writers of movies like "The Queen" which shows Elizabeth meeting Tony Blair and "The King's Speech," in which her father George VI consults 1930s Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin which is more like peter Pan than real life more fiction than facts if the English public only new a half of the real truths and the real queen and the real King Phillip Opps sorry prince Phillip?????.
Authors will have to continue to use their what they call imagination thanks to the new legislation, which amends the Freedom of Information Act to exempt communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne and the second in line, “””Or with others acting on their behalf”””” catch 22 their behalf?
In an irony noted by anti-monarchists, the change is buried within the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, legislation the British government says is aimed at "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny."
Clarke, the justice secretary, said the new rule was needed "to protect the long-standing conventions surrounding the monarchy and its records, for example the sovereign's right and duty to counsel, encourage and warn her British government, as well as the heir to the throne's right to be instructed in the business of British government in preparation for their future role as monarch."
The British government argues the law enshrines the "well-established conventions of confidentiality" that protect the monarch's political neutrality.
But critics say Prince Charles, the 62-year-old heir to the throne, has cast neutrality aside by peppering ministers with letters on behalf of environmental issues and his pet projects. With the new law, they despair of getting their hands on evidence of his alleged meddling (What a shock is install for them all, when he becomes King if he ever dose as Lizzies is holding on to the end by the look of things un-like dear old mum who gave it all up for her?.
"What he's doing in some of these cases is obviously lobbying," said Frankel. "That raises the question whether he should still enjoy the special protection that the monarch and the heir to the throne traditionally get." (Frankel won’t be talking like that when charily becomes KING??? Long live the King, Charles’s will make a grate King despite what many others think who don’t really know him nor understand him, he has always had England’s and its people best interests to heart un-like some?
All freedom of information requests for details about Prince Charles' correspondence has been rejected and rightly so. But such requests have managed to extract some royal nuggets, including the queen's 2004 request for money from a fund intended for low-income households to help pay palace heating bills. The request was turned down
Frankel said the effects of the change would likely be limited. The royal household is already defined as a family rather than a public body, and so is exempt from most requests. And the new rule shouldn't let the British government keep factual information such as the size of royal budgets secret.
Buckingham Palace publishes annual accounts, which last year showed the total public cost of supporting the monarchy to be 38.2 million pounds, the equivalent of 62 pence per person. (Cheap at half the price only 62p)
Republic, a group that campaigns against the monarchy, said the change will "make it almost impossible to hold the royal household to account for their actions and spending." (Republic is always free to leave England whenever they like?)
"The monarchy was/is English public institution, it is part or once was in our political structure and it is funded entirely by the English public’s money," However the queen’s dose bring in a lot of capital in ways of tourism?
The British Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government insists its new legislation makes the British government more open, expanding the number of bodies covered by freedom of information rules which in real terms means it just gets a bit cleverer in coving up its mess.
It also reduces the time the British government papers are routinely kept secret from 30 to 20 years. Papers relating to the royals also will be released after 20 years or five years after the death of the individual in question, whichever is later. At the end of the day all the above means absolutely nothing as no one actually gives a dam in England because most of the English people have now become British, and not giving a dam is the British way of life?