B1218 - Privatisation of Mute Swans Bill 2017

Watch
This discussion is closed.
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B1218 - Privatisation of Mute Swans Bill 2017, Rt Hon mr T 999 MP





Privatisation of Mute Swans Bill 2017

An act of removing mute swans from royal ownership


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Privatisation
(1) Mute swans are no longer royal ownership

2: Repeal
(1) An Act Concerning Swans 1482 is hereby repealed

3 Extent, Commencement & Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force immediately
(3) This Act may be cited as the Privatisation of Mute Swans Act 2017




Notes
In 1482, that status was legally defined by the Act of Swans, and anyone who was not the king/Queen or given permission caught with a swan could face imprisonment. Royal ownership of the swans was primarily derived from the belief that swans, especially cygnets and young swans, were tasty. They wanted to protect the swans so the royal family are the only ones able to consume it. The royal family no longer consumes swans in this modern age and I see no reason as to why mute swans should be in royal ownership and thus should be privatised.


http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/w...ning-swans.jpg
1
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
*facedesk*

What's the point in this?
2
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
B1218 - Privatisation of Mute Swans Bill 2017, Rt Hon mr T 999 MP




Privatisation of Mute Swans Bill 2017

An act of removing mute swans from royal ownership

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Privatisation
(1) Mute swans are no longer royal ownership

2: Repeal
(1) An Act Concerning Swans 1482 is hereby repealed

3 Extent, Commencement & Short Title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force immediately
(3) This Act may be cited as the Privatisation of Mute Swans Act 2017





Notes
In 1482, that status was legally defined by the Act of Swans, and anyone who was not the king/Queen or given permission caught with a swan could face imprisonment. Royal ownership of the swans was primarily derived from the belief that swans, especially cygnets and young swans, were tasty. They wanted to protect the swans so the royal family are the only ones able to consume it. The royal family no longer consumes swans in this modern age and I see no reason as to why mute swans should be in royal ownership and thus should be privatised.


http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/w...ning-swans.jpg
What happened to the formating?

I've fixed the formating in the above quote, can you update the op accordingly please?
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Meh, nay. Also, swans were eaten by both rich and poor alike in mediaeval times so the notes has a factually incorrect element. Plus it's a mere symbolic ownership these days. Don't really see the point in a repeal of this as a result.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
*facedesk*

What's the point in this?
I would like to point to the right honourable gentleman this bill seeks to remove royal ownership from Mute Swans. I see no reason why they should remain royal property and thus should be privatised.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
What on earth is going on with the grammar in s1(1)?

I don't give a **** but aye.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
What on earth is going on with the grammar in s1(1)?

I don't give a **** but aye.
s1(1) ??
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
mr T 999 I have mixed feelings on this bill and would probably abstain.

First, I like Britain quirky laws. But, I agree that this one is pointless.

I would however, provides the following formatting suggestions:
Spoiler:
Show

1. Definitions:
Define what is meant when referred to in this bill as a mute swan

2. Find the act.

3. (2) immediately, upon royal assent

3. (3) But it isn't privatisation: you haven't told us who owns the swans, therefore: nobody owns the swans.
0
user 42005
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Privatised swans? What an unusual combination of words :lol:

Nay, anyway.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Aye to the principle but who is going to own the swans?
0
Kyx
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Nay


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
Nay. An utterly useless bill, quite honestly. I do believe that as they're under the ownership of Her Majesty they're consequently considered a "protected species". Wouldn't this be a reason to keep them under royal ownership? I think it is.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by 04MR17)
mr T 999 I have mixed feelings on this bill and would probably abstain.

First, I like Britain quirky laws. But, I agree that this one is pointless.

I would however, provides the following formatting suggestions:
Spoiler:
Show


1. Definitions:
Define what is meant when referred to in this bill as a mute swan

2. Find the act.

3. (2) immediately, upon royal assent

3. (3) But it isn't privatisation: you haven't told us who owns the swans, therefore: nobody owns the swans.
2. Is a lot harder than you would think
0
Iridocyclitis
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
And if Her Majesty refuses Royal Assent to this treasonous, seditious Bill?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by joecphillips)
2. Is a lot harder than you would think
How can you tell what I think?:holmes:
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by 04MR17)
mr T 999 I have mixed feelings on this bill and would probably abstain.

First, I like Britain quirky laws. But, I agree that this one is pointless.

I would however, provides the following formatting suggestions:
Spoiler:
Show

1. Definitions:
Define what is meant when referred to in this bill as a mute swan

2. Find the act.

3. (2) immediately, upon royal assent

3. (3) But it isn't privatisation: you haven't told us who owns the swans, therefore: nobody owns the swans.
1) It's kinda obvious what a mute a swan Is lol I didn't think I had to define it

2) I linked the act in the bill. This is quite an old act and searched everywhere to find the act but all I can find is that.

3) (2) Noted

3) (3) I did say who owns the swans the royal family and mentioned removing royal ownership from mute swans.

(Original post by Count Bezukhov)
Privatised swans? What an unusual combination of words :lol:

Nay, anyway.
I agree with the right honourable gentleman this is indeed an unusual use of combination of words. May I ask the right honourable gentleman what the reasons are for opposing this bill?

(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Aye to the principle but who is going to own the swans?
Who owns the wild animals in this country? Nobody right? Or is there someone that owns wild animals?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by mr T 999)
1) It's kinda obvious what a mute a swan Is lol I didn't think I had to define it

2) I linked the act in the bill. This is quite an old act and searched everywhere to find the act but all I can find is that.

3) (2) Noted

3) (3) I did say who owns the swans the royal family and mentioned removing royal ownership from mute swans.



I agree with the right honourable gentleman this is indeed an unusual use of combination of words. May I ask the right honourable gentleman what the reasons are for opposing this bill?



Who owns the wild animals in this country? Nobody right? Or is there someone that owns wild animals?
Nothing is obvious when it comes to legislation, which is why it is written in such a laborious way, so that even Oompa Loompas (*cough* Trump *cough*) can understand it.

Fair enough.

See Saracen's comment. That's what I meant.
0
user 42005
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by mr T 999)
1) It's kinda obvious what a mute a swan Is lol I didn't think I had to define it

2) I linked the act in the bill. This is quite an old act and searched everywhere to find the act but all I can find is that.

3) (2) Noted

3) (3) I did say who owns the swans the royal family and mentioned removing royal ownership from mute swans.



I agree with the right honourable gentleman this is indeed an unusual use of combination of words. May I ask the right honourable gentleman what the reasons are for opposing this bill?



Who owns the wild animals in this country? Nobody right? Or is there someone that owns wild animals?
I will not vote for something that will essentially lead to the slaughter of an animal as majestic as a swan. Furthermore, their numbers are already low and the species needs to be carefully managed as part of the conservation of our natural environment. Marketising them undermines this goal. 'Privatising' swans will simply lead to them ending up on our dinner plates... unless you specifically exclude the commercial sale of them. In which case, there isn't really any need to change the law in the first place. The Royal ownership is symbolic at most; they are effectively owned by the government.

Edit:
Upon further investigation, it appears that the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) prevents swans from being killed, maimed etc anyway, so my previous fears are allayed somewhat. But I still contest, what the actual point of this act is? What do you hope to achieve? Natural wildlife should be public property, i.e. managed by the government.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
Nay. An utterly useless bill, quite honestly. I do believe that as they're under the ownership of Her Majesty they're consequently considered a "protected species". Wouldn't this be a reason to keep them under royal ownership? I think it is.
(Original post by Count Bezukhov)
I will not vote for something that will essentially lead to the slaughter of an animal as majestic as a swan. Furthermore, their numbers are already low and the species needs to be carefully managed as part of the conservation of our natural environment. Marketising them undermines this goal. 'Privatising' swans will simply lead to them ending up on our dinner plates... unless you specifically exclude the commercial sale of them. In which case, there isn't really any need to change the law in the first place. The Royal ownership is symbolic at most; they are effectively owned by the government.
The swans would be protected by various protection laws already in place. "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981" provides protection for rare species It also protects all wild birds in Great Britain, their eggs and active nests. Protection for all wild birds is required under the EU Wild Birds Directive.

The UK is also signed up to the Bonn Convention, which aims to provide protection for endangered migratory species.

"Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010" Some of the most highly protected animal and plant species in the UK are classified as ‘European Protected Species’. This protects these species from different forms of harm. They also protect them from being disturbed and protect the places in which they live.

Various protected species are protected by these laws this inlcludes mute swans. I see no reason why the mute swans needs be in royal ownership to have protection, where they are already protected by various laws.
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
What does the Right Honorouble gentleman have to say about the untrue elements of his justification and justification of this rather useless piece of legislation as a whole for that matter?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With no certainty that exams next year will take place, how does this make you feel?

More motivated (86)
31.27%
Less motivated (189)
68.73%

Watched Threads

View All