Is it still treason to suggest abolition of monarchy in the UK?

Question

Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter) can hardly be said to have "walked away" from his crime. He served time here before going to Vietnam, so that matter is closed. He served time in Vietnam for what he did there and was deported. But now it follows him forever. We can't jail him for what he has already paid for, or for crimes committed abroad he has already paid for, but the nature of his crimes mean he can no longer have a normal life and will always be in danger.

Answer 1

It never was.

Answer 2

it is not treason and there is a growing UK republican monement.

I can't quite see what that has to do with Gary Glitter

Answer 3

Suggesting abolition of the monarchy has never actually constituted treason, unless it was accompanied by suggesting killing the monarch.  The lesser offence of treason felony includes incitement to change the constitution by illegal means, but it is very doubtful whether anyone in modern times, who suggested that Parliament could pass legislation without royal consent to establish a republic, would actually have been charged.

Answer 4

on paper maybe , but opinions have changed within the masses and freedom of speech is all powerfull .

anyhow ,how would they punish us if we did suggest it ?

they abolished national service and capital punishment ( the fools )

and you only go to prison for minor crimes,

even paul gadd gets to walk away from his crime .

in time , if the royals do fade away , then so be it , but for now i`m happy to let them stay as they are .

Answer 5

I don't know what mr GG has to do with your question, but as a Republican, I would love to be tried for treason for my beliefs. I keep sticking postage stamps upside down, but i haven't received a summons yet.

Answer 6

In 2003, the Guardian newspaper challenged the 1848 Treason Felony Act, which makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means. The House of Lords dismissed the case, stating that although the law was still in force, it now contravened the Human Rights Act and would not be enforced in law. The Freedom of Expression provision of the Human Rights Act outweigh any provision in the 1848 Act.

"It could only have been to accept that, at least since October 2 2000 when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, no one who advocates the abolition of the monarchy by peaceful and constitutional means has been at any risk of prosecution (other than a private prosecution) or of conviction"

Answer 7

only if your name is Ken Livingstone :)

Answer 8

Nah freedom of speech and all that!

But DO NOT have s*x with the Queen!

Answer 9

I would think so.

Answer 10

Not sure. But seriously, I don't care about the monarchy, other than the fact their faces and personal life news gets posted on the papers everywhere. I wouldn't bother even suggesting abolition of the monarchy; let's leave it be as it is.