Humanities desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 28

Who polices the police who police the police?

The Metropolitan Police Service has a specific department for investigating complaints against officers, ie the Directorate of Professional Standards, Who though is responsible for policing them? I have read a Freedom of Information Request that suggests it used to be the Metropolitan Police Authority, but has that not been replace by the Police and Crime Commissioner? Is their office responsible for keeping the DPS in line? Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the Metropolitan Police Service in Greater London?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I suppose the question also applies more broadly to other constabularies within the UK, as I would have thought they would all follow a similar structure regarding these matters. If not though, the Met is the on I am most interested in. Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (according to the Met's website [1]) "primary statutory purpose is to increase public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales." It continues; "The IPCC also investigates the most serious complaints and allegations of misconduct against the police in England and Wales, as well as handling some appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way police have dealt with their complaint". So the IPCC seems to have a regulatory role as well as being the ombudsman for those dissatisfied with police internal investigations. The Police and Crime Commissioner does not appear to have a direct role in enforcing police standards or the investigation of complaints according to Role of the PCC. Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a division is responsibility between the IPCC and PCCs - the latter's role explained here. My understanding of the original question here would suggest that the PCC polices the DPS in all PCC'd areas. But for London, no PCC, but instead still Boris & co. [2] [3] ... and so the London assembly is the next level up. Clearly there is a lot of common ground between the IPCCs remit and that of PCCs; not sure how they handle that overlap. I disagree with Alansplodge ... if PCCs hold chief constables to account, then they are standards enforcers. If the DPS is failing, that is a matter for the PCC/Boris; but I suspect the cases which are failing in the DPS are the remit of the IPCC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When in the Course of human events...." μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, enlighten us please. What is the relevance? Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain you can identify the next noun in that sentence without my help. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"People"? Still means nought to me I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, people armed with video cameras. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bugs. I knew there was a point in there somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more people empowered by pitchforks and the second amendment, as well as elections, but yes, the video cameras are great. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing to consider is that the police, unlike victims of the police, are fairly well able to defend themselves. Consider a prostitute who is raped by a cop. Who is going to believe her ? Nobody, so he gets away with it, unless there happens to be some rather substantial proof. Now consider a cop who is told by somebody investigating him that he needs to pay a bribe or be found guilty of whatever offence. The copy would know how to wear a wire, mark the money he pays as the bribe/write down the serial numbers, contact the proper authorities, etc. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your POV, please. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK royal assent

The discussions up above make me wonder: who officially grants Royal Assent to Acts of the Scottish Parliament? It's not in the UK section of Royal Assent, but neither is anything on who officially grants it to Acts of the UK Parliament. I remember reading somewhere (but I can't remember or discover where) that Royal Assent was first granted by a non-monarch (by an individual? by a committee? I can't remember) during the reign of Henry VIII, since he didn't want to sign the bill of attainder against one of his wives, and that this procedure is pretty much always followed today for Acts of the UK Parliament. I'm curious if the same type of official or same type of body grants Royal Assent to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts. The article quotes the ordinary Assent formulæ, which say "By The Queen Herself Signed with Her Own Hand", but it would seem odd for Royal Assent always to be granted in person to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts if it were rarely or never given to acts of the UK Parliament. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I just realised that there's additional information farther down in the Royal Assent article. Does the Queen personally sign all bills passed by the national and devolved parliaments? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely she doesn't. The job of officially assenting to legislation long ago passed out of the hands of the Monarch, even before the Monarch lost all of his or her real power. Even when Monarchs had power, they had a official "Keepers of the Seal", whose job it was to affix the official seal to Acts that had royal assent. The UK has both a Privy Seal and a Great Seal of the Realm. It also has people whose job it is to keep said seals, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. In the modern UK, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal is usually also the Lord Chancellor. In commonwealth realms today, royal assent is accomplished when the Governor-General personally signs the bill. In the UK itself, a bill gets royal assent when either the Monarch appears personally in parliament to grant said assent (a rare event) or, more commonly, by the Lords Commissioners, who are given the authority to grant royal assent; the most important commissioner is the aforementioned Lord Chancellor. In reality, it seems, few acts of Parliament get the full "ceremonial" treatment in Lords; the Lords Commissioners simply issue a letters patent giving the Royal Consent. I can't find who formally signs or seals the legislation, but I doubt the Queen does personally. --Jayron 32 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I found unclear in the article. It says that no monarch since Victoria has personally granted assent to Acts of the UK Parliament, and it says that the commission process only happens once per year, with all other bills being granted assent by letters patent. Since the personal-granting process involved the monarch physically going to the House of Lords and going through the various ceremonies, I figured that the "not since Victoria" statement didn't address whether the monarch personally signs bills. Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom#Sovereignty says that there are only approximately fifty Acts of Parliament annually; I figured it wouldn't be that much of a strain on the royal right (or left) hand to sign her name once per week. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would still imply that she actually participates in passage of said acts. I seriously doubt it. I suspect (but cannot find sources) that the actual official passage involves the Lord Chancellor in some way; much of the roles held by the Governors-General in other commonwealth realms are held by the Lord Chancellor in the UK. --Jayron 32 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The process is described here [4] --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William was scheduled to be next king of UK?

[5] This is news to me, they were going to skip over Prince Charles? Is that for real? Does it refer to some kind of rumor or joke that was making the rounds in the UK? I couldn't find anything about it in the Wikipedia articles about Charles or William. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was some idle speculation (by people who get paid to do nothing except idly speculate) that Charles would be skipped over, especially around the time of his split with Diana and his much-publicized relationship with Camila. See here for but one example. However, there has never been any official word on this in any sense. Officially, Charles is in line to succeed Elizabeth. There has never been any word otherwise from anyone except people who like to suppose about such possibilities. --Jayron 32 05:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wondered if the article might even be satire. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article itself acknowledges, the law says that Charles will succeed Elizabeth unless he predeceases her. That is an almost insuperable obstacle to bypassing Charles. Sure, people have speculated that an alternative plan will be engineered and the throne will go direct to William. But they never talk about what the mechanics of that plan would be. The law would need to be changed, and that would require the support of the government, and a majority of MPs and a majority of voting peers to agree. Then it would require the Queen's assent. She has never shown the slightest indication that she favours altering the current succession arrangements. She has lived her whole life doing her constitutional duty, and long ago she vowed that she would serve as queen till death. So with a record of continuity like that, it's hardly likely she'd support ditching her son and heir after having groomed him assiduously for 65 years. Then the Statute of Westminster would come into play. The governments of all the other 15 Commonwealth realms would need to agree. That's hardly likely given that Charles has been showered with honours by all of them. But before such a process ever got anywhere near that stage, there would need to be very, very, very, very good reasons advanced for going down that path. "Charles is a bit eccentric", or "Charles was not loyal to Diana", or "We don't like him" are most certainly not such reasons. Apart from the acknowledgment about the legal situation, the article is complete rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a provision that if, for some reason, an heir is disabled somehow and cannot perform the duties of the Monarch, that the next in line would take it instead? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. If a monarch is unable to carry out their duties, there would be a regency in theory; for instance when the Prince Regent took over the role of George III. However, it's much more likely that the role would be unofficially delegated to other members of the Royal Family, as happens when a monarch gets too old and frail to do the job. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is absolute bollocks, and can be safely ignored. There has been absolutely no discussion of this in Parliament, and without a change in the law it cannot happen. When the Queen dies, Charles will become King at exactly that instant. I have to say, when I read it I almost thought it was satire too. RomanSpa (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, at the moment Charles becomes King, Camilla will become Queen. It has been indicated by Buckingham Palace that she will not use the title, but that won't in any way change the fact that she will legally be Queen Consort. I have the strong impression that neither Charles nor Camilla is particularly popular, with Charles being particularly unpopular amongst educated people, but we've had stupid and unpopular monarchs in the past, and have gradually evolved ways of keeping them in their (gilded) cages, so we'll survive. RomanSpa (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Camilla does not get the title "Queen Consort." "consort" will be a description of her position (as opposed to "regnant") but that is it. "lower case." Collect (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing, but on further checking I suspect you're right! My apologies to the questioner for my incorrect use of upper case, and thanks to Collect for his kind correction. RomanSpa (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I figured the succession couldn't be altered unless Charles went along with it, but if the rest of the family convinced him to do so, he could step aside in favor of William, something like Edward VIII did in the movie about the speech coach. Anyway it all sounds unlikely. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of this talk could be fuelled by the terminological inexactitude favoured by some members of the fourth estate and other lower orders. People often refer to William, and now also George, as "heirs" to the throne. Well, the fact is that there is only ever one heir, and that is the person who would succeed on the current monarch's death. Charles is the sole heir, and has been for the entirety of the Queen's reign. The fact that his progeny are in the line of succession does not make them heirs. They are, at best, probable future heirs. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some insist an heir is strictly one who has inherited: nemo heres viventis. Charles is heir apparent, meaning that he will certainly be king if he lives long enough (and the creek don't rise). The same is true of William and George, and not of Anne or Andrew; so I reckon it makes sense to describe William as the second heir apparent (though that usage may be unique to me). —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mutineer John Adams

The article John Adams (mutineer) and the sources are in contradiction whether his real name was John Adams or Alexander Smith. Does anyone know for sure when he had assumed which name, and maybe even the reason? And another question: As the British got to know the community in 1814, William Bligh should have got to know it before he died in 1817. But there is no indication this happened. Why, possibly? --KnightMove (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WAG alert. There's no indication he wasn't notified. By this time, I imagine he would rather not have brought attention to this particular part of his career. What could he have done about it anyway? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "got to know it" you mean "became aware of what happened to the mutineers"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and most notably, that one of them is still alive - and his living conditions. --KnightMove (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decoration in a Buddhist temple

Recently I visited a Buddhist temple in Margaret Street, central London. It seems to be mainly used by the local Chinese community. On the walls of the main hall are very large numbers of plaques with images of the Buddha, all in the same style, but with differences in colour and posture, and each with a different number. In another room the decoration comprises paper wall coverings each with very large numbers of small rectangular panels, each numbered, and some containing Chinese characters.

Can anyone explain what all this signifies? To forestall the obvious answer, I intended to ask the attendant on the spot, but she was engaged with another visitor and I wasn't able to wait until she was free. --rossb (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be just Buddhist iconography. A picture sure would be helpful. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK population by age and sex in early 20th century

I'd like to have UK population estimates by age and sex for 1900-1950 or so. I thought it would be relatively easy to find, since surely it has been calculated before, but it's not popping up on google. Close to yearly data would be ideal. Wikipedia's article Demographics of UK is not really helpful for this. --86.50.42.2 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK law re ejaculating during rape

I was reading the news when I came across this article, which states:

Delivering the sentence, Judge Peter Lodder QC, said: "The starting point for an offence of this nature is eight years but...this was aggravated, it was a group attack and you ejaculated.

This is the first time I have seen a sentence for rape extended because the man ejaculated. Is this common? Is there a specific law against ejaculating during rape? I thought rape was defined as penile insertion into an orifice without consent; whether he ejaculated or not is besides the point because the act of rape has already been committed. I'm also struggling to think of a scenario where a man would commit rape but NOT ejaculate, as that would seem to be the main goal of the act.

Thank you for your help TepidLaw (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the last bit. Some rapists have been known to use condoms, or ejaculate on their victims' body. Also, whilst rape may be motivated by sexual desire, this is far from a given. A significant proportion of rapes would qualify as hate crimes, in the sense that the rapist has a burning hatred against the female half of humanity. Sex being simply the weapon to hurt the woman, rather than lust. A classical example of this sort of rapist would be Peter Dupas, but no doubt wikipedians can point out dozens of others. Such rapists may well not care whether they ejaculate101.160.63.123 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Rape in English law and this official guideline from the Crown Prosecution Service. The actus reus of rape involves any degree of penetration (of any orifice, but with the penis), and ejaculation is explicitly listed as an aggravating factor. Tevildo (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to Sentencing in England and Wales, the Court has the discretion to issue sentences within ranges determined by the guidelines laid out by the Sentencing Council. Whether the Court issues a sentence along the lower or upper edges of the range is due to aggravating factors which may not necessarily be outlined by statute (indeed, it may be impossible for the statutes to forsee every potential aggravating factor). In this case, statute DOES explicitly list ejaculation as aggravating enough to give a sentence on the harsher end of the guidelines. It doesn't necessarily mean that penalties for ejaculating during rape are specifically laid out by statute; that is ejaculation gets X number of years tacked on. But it does mean that Judges are supposed to consider it when deciding sentences. UK law is based on common law, which gives judges in courts a lot of leeway in making determinations of this nature outside of statute. --Jayron 32 17:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without ejaculation, there is minimal chance the woman can become pregnant. Ejaculation has the potential to change the event from something horrific to something horrific + having a child she never wanted and whose very presence would be a perpetual reminder of the rape, regardless of how much the woman was able to love the child. That is an entirely new ball game. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy is an additional aggravating factor under English law, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swords and Prostitutes Myths

Does anyone know any story/myth about the ‘sword’? A ‘female’ used as a ‘sword’? Prostituting woman/women for personal benefits…? Anything relative? -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The only thing related I can think of is that vagina (not safe for work) is from the Latin for (sword) sheath. See Vagina#Etymology_and_definition (still not safe for work). However, that says nothing about prostitution. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks; I've not found anything either... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Was the constitution of 1787 was a conservative document?

In reference to the original United States constitution and before any of the amendments, was this a conservative document? --Samghatski (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was just asked. Were you the one who asked last time ? StuRat (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no. --Samghatski (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is the same as it was a few days ago.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also some answers here [7] Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just answer the fucking question. --Samghatski (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the fucking link; it's not a one-word answer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People help around here; everyone will help to the best of their knowledge. A friendly advice, "Don't swear at these people/Don't bite the hand that feeds you". You are the one who is in need of help, and you are using provoking words... Please don't anymore, cause someone will reply back e.g., Jpgordon. Treat people the way you wish to be treated... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Okay.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoadamah and Fathi al-Ka'en

Who are Ahoadamah and Fathi al-Ka'en actually? Google returns only news about destroyed buildings named after them, but both guys seem to be some kind of saints (with Fathi al-Ka'en being probably a Sheikh). The only source about Ahoadamah I've spotted briefly says he was the Patriarch who was killed by the Persian King Khosrow I. Maybe there an alternative, more common spelling of these names? Brandmeister^talk 20:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ahoadamah" is probably Ahudemmeh. Still searching for al-Ka'en. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No joy so far, I'm afraid. He doesn't appear to have come to the attention of the wider historical community until his shrine was destroyed. The shrine doesn't appear in Mosques and shrines of Mosul. See Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL for context. Tevildo (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway, I've redirected Ahoadamah to Ahudemmeh (the Destruction article was created by me). Brandmeister^talk 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on that! Incidentally, although most of the post-ISIL sources state that the Green Church (Mar Hudeni) was 7th-century, sources from a few years ago (here, for example) state that it was (first) destroyed in 1089, ~~and this site states that it was "reconstructed" in 1970~~. Not that this makes ISIL's activities any less barbaric, of course, but accuracy is always important. Tevildo (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that second link is about a church dedicated to Ahudemmeh in Mosul, not the one in Tikrit that ISIL destroyed. Tevildo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]