View Topic

So, here we are again.

First off, I dislike posturing, so I'll get this out of the way first: yes, I have been horrendously inactive, and yes, I have been a monumental failure as the Speaker in this last term, and based on those two things alone, I am far from the best candidate.

I don't even have a solid list of promises, as I've seen now that promising to revolutionise the judiciary is a dead-end. I'm of the belief that instead of pushing for completely new systems, we should simply fix the ones we have.

What I can say is that I am an experienced member of the Underhusen, and that I almost always have an interesting idea to offer when faced with a challenge. I'm also often the one to take the first step and get everyone together to try and analyse a situation and share their thoughts, before rushing headlong into a messy situation.

Admittedly, trying to maintain the Underhusen's approach with an involved citizenry didn't work out quite so well when the citizenry became inactive, so I'll take this into account going forward, and instead of waiting for many varied responses from the citizenry, I'll simply look at a situation from their perspective and act accordingly. Believe me when I say, I'll go to war with people if they infringe on your rights as citizens, and I vehemently oppose any piece of legislation that I view to be unfair, especially when limiting a citizen's rights.

So to summarise:

1. I'll be more active than I have been.
2. I'll try to take evolutionary, not revolutionary steps to try and fix our judicial system.
3. I'll continue to be a strong voice for the citizenry, even when that results in unpopularity.
4. While my adaptability didn't lend itself well as the Speaker, I'm fully capable as a Skrifa to work with anyone, and take charge when a situation gets messy.
5. I'm fully capable of making wildly unpopular decisions when the situation calls for it, and damn the consequences.

Please, ask me questions, and decide if I'm worthy of your votes.

First off, you weren't a monumental failure in the UH, so don't say that you were.  You did a fine job, but shit just happened that pulled you away from the internet for a bit...it happens.  You were a valuable Skrifa in the UH the previous before the current term, you were a fine enough speaker this term, and I know you'll be a fine Skrifa this term as well, so discard the illusions of otherwise.

Second, best of all in elections Laurentus. 

What do you think you can do differently?

What can be done as a whole, for the next UH to work on?

I have unfinished business with the Warning System and so forth. It would be nice to concentrate on that.

I have unfinished business with the Warning System and so forth. It would be nice to concentrate on that.

Could you elaborate?

A progressive warning system which would make disciplinary processes more fair. Pretty self explanatory.

In what way do you think the current system is unfair, Laurentus?

There is currently no moderate warning system in place, which means the monarch is powerless to officially warn someone, and any transgression has to go through a lengthy trial by the courts, which consequently makes people more favourable to going for extreme approaches like revocation systems.

There has to be some way to make our system not only more efficient, but less extreme when dealing with transgressions, and for some sort of levelling system to come into play to dish out progressively harsher punishments.

Ah, I see. In that case I absolutely agree with you. For minor infractions there should be the option for the King (or some designated moderator or admin) to give summary warnings, perhaps a "first warning" and a "final warning". Of course, for major violations of the law, we should have a swift and fair court system with the ability to order pre-determined punishments to be carried out. I believe that the court system should also be resorted to when a person has been given a final warning and has continued to do whatever he was warned about, even if it was a "minor" breach of the law.

Is that something like what you were thinking of?

That's exactly what I mean.

You have stated that you want a Standing Court, however you do realize that here in Wintreath, a standing court is something that was explicitly designed against and it has been stated by the Monarch/Founder that he will refuse to allow any form of that to exist. How do you feel about that?

I'll try to convince him. Or at least debate him.

That being said, since I've failed to gain much support for the idea, I've adopted an approach of evolving our current system. My ideals are worlds apart from what can be achieved.

You have stated that you want a Standing Court, however you do realize that here in Wintreath, a standing court is something that was explicitly designed against and it has been stated by the Monarch/Founder that he will refuse to allow any form of that to exist. How do you feel about that?

If a standing court is off the table, what about having certain judicially-inclined people included in the Overhusen as a matter of tradition. This was the way the highest appellate court in Britain the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (usually referred to as simply the "House of Lords") was structured until 2009.

I'll try to convince him. Or at least debate him.

That being said, since I've failed to gain much support for the idea, I've adopted an approach of evolving our current system. My ideals are worlds apart from what can be achieved.

You have my support.

Should you and I get elected to the UH together, I'm sure we can work on a bill together to help push form some form of reform at the least

You have stated that you want a Standing Court, however you do realize that here in Wintreath, a standing court is something that was explicitly designed against and it has been stated by the Monarch/Founder that he will refuse to allow any form of that to exist. How do you feel about that?

If a standing court is off the table, what about having certain judicially-inclined people included in the Overhusen as a matter of tradition. This was the way the highest appellate court in Britain the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (usually referred to as simply the "House of Lords") was structured until 2009.

You mean like Law Lords?

Yes indeed, that's precisely what I'm getting at. Or at the very least I think we should clearly delineate the functions of the legislature (or a selection thereof) from its judicial functions. I think that's an area that could do with a lot of work, especially if we move beyond simple criminal trials and move into the area of deciding on the constitutionality of bills. Though of course, that raises the question of conflict of interests, with the legislature deciding on the constitutionality of its own work, however if people are willing to wear their "judicial hats" rather than their legislative ones, then I don't see a problem.