Jump to content

[BBC News] Wig worn full time in Parliament


Newsbot

Recommended Posts

It is time we did away with the speakers wiggie. I really do not see the point.

 

A wig is used in an attempt to try and show you have an air of authority. The last chap didn't need it and Steve Rodan doesn't need it either and steve Rodan isnt even baldie.

 

I think if anyone wears a wig in Tynwald (or any other Court for that matter) they should be made to wear make up too including a black spot on their cheek like in the pantomimes. That way they know why we are laughing at them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is only going to wear it because he is an ego maniac.

 

He like people thinking "Ooo look at that tit in the wig" or maybe he is wearing it to hide a bald spot :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like Mr Rodan to provide a statement as to why he is going to wear the wig.

 

I think he would lose a fair bit of credibility if he said he was keeping tradition up.

 

If he was going in a panto I think red lipstick and white rouge would look pretty good on him. The black beauty spot on the cheek would be optional but to be quite honest Lynsey De Paul had one but Steve wouldnt suit one.

 

 

post-353-1167309981_thumb.jpg

post-353-1167309991_thumb.jpg

post-353-1167310655_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the hat really, I'd abandon the free wig in favour of a nice trilby or panama. Perhaps he's adopted the wig because his request for some form of crown was turned down and he wouldn't settle for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to harp on a bit but ive been thinking about this all day since this morning and im a bit concerned. I got the paper and i see it made front page news and indeed Mr rodan has given a public explanation even with the 16/17 year olds too.

 

I just think the wig is a load of bollox, tradition or no tradition.

 

Tradition is waving to the Little Folk on Fairy Bridge not wearing a wig. Well at least the Chief Minister doesn't have to wear a wig. I suppose they all used to wear them hundreds of years ago. The thing is right, I bet his head swets like mad and he'll say "Hey, I wish I hadnt bothered with this wig lark, but Ill have to keep it now for at least 5 years until the next election"

20061228iomexp1steverodmz0.jpg

 

Then he might see the error of his ways and say "That Mr Brown new what he was doing all right!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having pondered on this, I think that it's a strange tradition and I found that it was best summed up by this:

 

In short, English judges and barristers began wearing wigs and robes because everybody in polite society was wearing wigs and robes in those days. They continue to wear them because nobody has ever told them to stop. Wigs are expensive, and English judges get a stipend to cover the cost of their wigs and robes. Barristers, on the other hand, must buy their own, and there is a thriving market in used wigs. It is not clear, however, that used wigs are cheaper than new ones. Tradition being what it is in Great Britain, wigs that have previously been worn by great jurists and lions of the bar acquire a certain cachet that makes them highly sought after. Of course, such pre-owned wigs may also acquire some other, less-attractive attributes, like a yellowish color or off-putting aroma. It is also not unheard of for wigs to be stolen and resold on the black market. As one barrister put it, "The courts are full of criminals."

 

In April 1992, there was much speculation that English judges might finally stop wearing all their ridiculous paraphernalia and slip into something a little more comfortable. The judges of the commercial court, the division of the High Court that deals with commercial litigation, were scheduled to vote on a recommendation that the wearing of wigs be abolished in commercial court proceedings. The new lord chief justice, Justice Taylor of Gosforth, was also on record as being strongly anti-wig.

 

It didn't happen. The commercial court judges voted not to abandon their wigs, but instead to place the whole matter before all 55 judges of the Queen's Bench Division for continued consideration and de 1000 bate. Interviewed the following day, the clerk to the chief judge of the Commercial Court stated, "I think they felt it was too big an issue for them to sit in splendid isolation." Remember, these are the judges of the highest court of original jurisdiction for commercial matters in England. Sitting in "splendid isolation," each judge frequently decides cases involving the most complex business affairs and the disposition of many millions of pounds sterling. Yet whether or not to take off their wigs in public was "too big an issue" for them to decide alone. Clearly, the judicial wig was directly connected to something deep within the English judge's psyche. The most cogent rationale for deciding not to decide, however, was provided by one of the most senior judges, the master of the rolls, Lord Donaldson. As he put it, there was no urgent need to go "discarding something which has been out of date for at least a century." (Emphasis added)

 

I really do not understand the logic in reviving something to replace what has been an accepted practice for the last five years. I beleive that the objectives of the Keys and Tynwald should be cutting edge and moving forward all the time. The reviving or wearing of "ridiculous paraphernalia" is moving backwards and will be laughed at by the rest of the world. If he really wants to keep ancient traditions, perhaps he should wear a Viking helmet because I doubt that they were wearing wigs when they established parliament in 979.

 

Don't these people have anything better to do than decide what they're going to wear for work and then do a press release?

 

Stav.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...