Scimitars on Whitehall - a mini TL by Forcon & James G

[James G]

Dec 13, 2019 14:57:51 GMT stevep said:

   Guys

   Interesting. How long are you continuing with this? Full details on the trial and the crimes of Hawtrey and her cronies and what happens with the next election - which hopefully will still occur and soon. Notice you set this some time in the future?  Not to mention the possible international impact when Russian involvement is made clear.  [Although Moscow will be in full denial mode of course].

   I would quibble with the name of the new acting PM however.  Douglas is a famous Scots name but I don't think there is a Mc form of it.

  Anyway an interesting, if frightening story.

  Steve

We have two more updates planned. We will be addressing those issues, yes!
We set it in an alternate timeline, maybe you could say the future but if it is, only a little bit. We avoided party names and current political issues though did have the Russia thing as a key plank of the story.
I'm have no idea about the name. I'll leave that to forcon
Thank you. We have created a dystopia, though a short one.

[James G]

Five

It would be more than a year before Cecilia Hawtrey would appear in court. The wheels of justice moved at their own speed and wouldn’t be rushed. She would face many charges at the Old Bailey with multiple counts of treason, terrorism, conspiracy to murder and misconduct in a public office forming those. That time spent between her being forcibly deposed and her trial beginning saw many issues crop up with her detention and how that trial would take place. Cecilia was held for some time at that military prison in Essex. There was a wish by the new government, but also the British Armed Forces themselves, to have her transferred to civilian custody: this included too the others arrested with her. Security was an issue though should she be held in a normal prison. Several other detainees, advisers & officials, were moved to civilian custody within weeks yet there was the death of one and an accident which befell another leading to him being left in a coma. These two incidents didn’t look innocent at all. It was strongly suspected that foul play was afoot. The last thing that the government and the military wanted was to see Cecilia die before her trial. Investigations were underway into the fates which befell those two other prisoners while in the meantime, Britain’s #1 prisoner stayed in Colchester. When it came to her trial itself, the venue was easy to select but there were issues with those charges. The particulars of the legality around what she had done caused dispute in legal terms. Lawyers would argue behind closed doors while politicians would clash in public. With the latter, no one was arguing that she was innocent. The issue instead was over the desires of many to increase those charges further. In addition, there were worries among parts of the establishment of the state over the implications of Cecilia’s trial upon national security. There were things that they didn’t want to see revealed in open court. A push was made to have certain parts of her trial – but also those of others around her also being brought to trial – conducted in camera. This was a legal term meaning the opposite of what it might have seemed: ‘in secret’ would have been more apt. In the end, the desire to have the public see justice being done over rid those concerns.

When the trial started, Cecilia remained in the overall custody of the military though there was civilian involvement. Built especially for her and half a dozen other high-profile detainees was a temporary holding facility on the grounds of Wellington Barracks in the very heart of Central London. There were screened civilian personnel involved in her detention while those in uniform watched over them. Daily, she would be taken to the Old Bailey and then returned to this facility. Defending the former prime minister was a well-known campaigning KC (King’s Counsel) who acted in a pro bono fashion. He acted for Cecilia not because he believed she was innocent but in the interest of a free and fair trial. This act would bring personal animosity towards him yet in his many years as a barrister he had defended the undefendable before and faced hostility. Full cooperation was given by the Crown Prosecution Service to the defence team, as per usual, in the manner of evidence, witness lists & procedure. What wasn’t wanted by the government was for there to be allegations made that Cecilia had been denied given a fair trial. There had been comments made in certain parts of the world at the optics of Britain aiming to put its former leader in prison. Nothing could be done about that but the government was thinking more about the domestic audience. When it came to what was said overseas, much of that came from Moscow. Cecilia’s former husband was in Russia – only by luck had he been out of the country at the time his ex-wife was deposed – and he remained there. An extradition request had been made for him but the Kremlin had refused. From Britain, Russian nationals and diplomats had been deported and declared persona non grata when Cecilia’s premiership was brought to an end due to the connections between those foreigners and her regime. The diplomatic fall-out would go on for a long time with relations falling to the Chief of Mission level after each side ended up expelling ambassadors in a tit-for-tat exchange with that.

The first day of Cecilia’s trial saw the litany of charges laid against her read out in open court. At an earlier hearing, she had entered a plea of not guilty to all of these and there had been adverse comments made from her about the legality of the proceedings. There was no outburst from the defendant this time. Everything was in the hands of her KC. For several weeks the trail went on. There was media access given though a push for a televised trial by some had gotten nowhere. Yet there were few reporting restrictions on the case. It wholly dominated the news coverage for the time it was ongoing. The outcome was never in doubt. Cecilia Hawtrey was found guilty of the majority of the charges laid against her. The jury declared her innocent of one of the charges of treason – defying the instructions of the King to step down because they found this to be legally dubious – but the other treason charge, of working for Russia, was one which they found to be upheld. The terrorism and conspiracy to murder charges had each guilty verdicts delivered and so did almost all of the misconduct in public office charges apart from one of them where there was some dispute over the particulars of actual bribery. Regardless, Cecilia was guilty. After a weekend where the judge reviewed evidence, come the following Monday, the sentencing was read out. A life sentence was imposed with a whole life tariff issued due to the gravity of her crimes. An outburst came from Cecilia where she declared her innocence and called the judge, the prosecution and the new government corrupt with this trial being politically motivated: she added some nasty remarks about the members of the jury too. The judge found her in contempt of court, which became an additional charge against her. Cecilia was escorted from the dock and the judge finished the last of the proceedings without her present. There would be other trials of those who’d been with her in Downing Street and many more guilty verdicts though a few of those prosecuted would be declared not guilty, each time on technical grounds. It was Cecilia’s trial which history would remember though. Her verbal tirades would be mocked for the silliness that they contained. The judge’s words at the end, where he summed up her actions against the British people, were certain to be remembered as well.

[forcon]

Six

The aftermath of the military coup that Britain had undergone was a return to democracy. However, the sudden intervention of the Monarchy into British politics was a major event, and one that saw both of the two main parties collapsing in on themselves as the country went to the polls. A wave of new blood emerged in the House of Commons, with the Social Democrats on the left and the United Party on the right. With Hawtrey imprisoned there was a desire for politics to return to more moderate positions to prevent another descent into dictatorship for Britain. The preceding series of events had been something of a wakeup call to the government and the people of Britain alike, and the desire for moderation was prevalent. Furthermore, once a new government was elected, there was a desire within both parties to rekindle Britain’s status as a major player on the international stage. The new government wished to reaffirm Britain’s membership to NATO. This was the first and most important of the new leadership’s goals. Success was met here after a meeting with the US Secretary of State and the NATO Secretary-General. It was felt by both that the United Kingdom was entering a new, more stable period following the brief flirtation with dictatorship.

NATO membership was a useful tool in preserving this and so such a thing was once again granted. Furthermore, several members of the European Community followed America and Britain in issuing trade sanctions against Russia for its espionage activities in Britain and its refusal to hand Mr Neville over for prosecution.

Additionally, members of the Commonwealth reignited their alliances with Britain. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and also smaller commonwealth members too took part in the period of healing which came after the coup, offering some diplomatic words of praise to the King and the new government as a means of preserving stability throughout Britain and their own lands as well. It was shown that the Monarchy was a major figure in British politics. With the intervention of the King, there were calls for the Monarchy to be dissolved.

This came not because people supported Hawtrey by any means, but rather because they were unnerved at the prospect of the unelected figure again involving himself in politics now that a precedent had been set. The issue was resolved with the abdication of the King and the handing of power over to a younger figure within the line of succession. This left the country largely appeased and calls for the dissolution of the Monarchy gradually silenced. This didn’t take place for nearly two years following the coup, but eventually it did silence the arguments of those in opposition.

Additionally, the role of the British Armed Forces had been forever changed. There was no question that Sir Norrington and his comrades had acted in the best interests of Britain and her people and had in doing so saved democracy. This did not, however, negate the fact the British Army had mounted a blatant coup which had removed a sitting Prime Minister from power. It had been a necessary act against evil, but the coup itself still left the Armed Forces wondering what would follow. Sir Norrington and the Chiefs of Staff resigned their commissions when the new government was elected, following new generals and admirals to lead Britain’s armed forces into the future. Britain looked outwards with the new government, returning to NATO and its overseas alliances, something which gave the military something else to focus on; troops went to Iraq and Belize in training and advisory roles and the garrisons in Bahrain, Brunei, and Singapore were expanded as well.

There were no ‘real’ wars currently being fought though and so the defining moment of the military within that decade was, of course, the coup in London.


The End

[James G]

Well done. Good ending to tidy matters up!
The transition with the monarchy to fresh blood was a smart move.

[lordroel]

Dec 16, 2019 18:54:56 GMT forcon said:

Six

The aftermath of the military coup that Britain had undergone was a return to democracy. However, the sudden intervention of the Monarchy into British politics was a major event, and one that saw both of the two main parties collapsing in on themselves as the country went to the polls. A wave of new blood emerged in the House of Commons, with the Social Democrats on the left and the United Party on the right. With Hawtrey imprisoned there was a desire for politics to return to more moderate positions to prevent another descent into dictatorship for Britain. The preceding series of events had been something of a wakeup call to the government and the people of Britain alike, and the desire for moderation was prevalent. Furthermore, once a new government was elected, there was a desire within both parties to rekindle Britain’s status as a major player on the international stage. The new government wished to reaffirm Britain’s membership to NATO. This was the first and most important of the new leadership’s goals. Success was met here after a meeting with the US Secretary of State and the NATO Secretary-General. It was felt by both that the United Kingdom was entering a new, more stable period following the brief flirtation with dictatorship.

NATO membership was a useful tool in preserving this and so such a thing was once again granted. Furthermore, several members of the European Community followed America and Britain in issuing trade sanctions against Russia for its espionage activities in Britain and its refusal to hand Mr Neville over for prosecution.

Additionally, members of the Commonwealth reignited their alliances with Britain. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and also smaller commonwealth members too took part in the period of healing which came after the coup, offering some diplomatic words of praise to the King and the new government as a means of preserving stability throughout Britain and their own lands as well. It was shown that the Monarchy was a major figure in British politics. With the intervention of the King, there were calls for the Monarchy to be dissolved.

This came not because people supported Hawtrey by any means, but rather because they were unnerved at the prospect of the unelected figure again involving himself in politics now that a precedent had been set. The issue was resolved with the abdication of the King and the handing of power over to a younger figure within the line of succession. This left the country largely appeased and calls for the dissolution of the Monarchy gradually silenced. This didn’t take place for nearly two years following the coup, but eventually it did silence the arguments of those in opposition.

Additionally, the role of the British Armed Forces had been forever changed. There was no question that Sir Norrington and his comrades had acted in the best interests of Britain and her people and had in doing so saved democracy. This did not, however, negate the fact the British Army had mounted a blatant coup which had removed a sitting Prime Minister from power. It had been a necessary act against evil, but the coup itself still left the Armed Forces wondering what would follow. Sir Norrington and the Chiefs of Staff resigned their commissions when the new government was elected, following new generals and admirals to lead Britain’s armed forces into the future. Britain looked outwards with the new government, returning to NATO and its overseas alliances, something which gave the military something else to focus on; troops went to Iraq and Belize in training and advisory roles and the garrisons in Bahrain, Brunei, and Singapore were expanded as well.

There were no ‘real’ wars currently being fought though and so the defining moment of the military within that decade was, of course, the coup in London.


The End

Good ending and a nice Tl James G and forcon.

It is rare to see Generals and Admirals do the right thing and give up power before they are consumed by it.

[James G]

Dec 16, 2019 19:55:45 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 16, 2019 18:54:56 GMT forcon said:

Six

The aftermath of the military coup that Britain had undergone was a return to democracy. However, the sudden intervention of the Monarchy into British politics was a major event, and one that saw both of the two main parties collapsing in on themselves as the country went to the polls. A wave of new blood emerged in the House of Commons, with the Social Democrats on the left and the United Party on the right. With Hawtrey imprisoned there was a desire for politics to return to more moderate positions to prevent another descent into dictatorship for Britain. The preceding series of events had been something of a wakeup call to the government and the people of Britain alike, and the desire for moderation was prevalent. Furthermore, once a new government was elected, there was a desire within both parties to rekindle Britain’s status as a major player on the international stage. The new government wished to reaffirm Britain’s membership to NATO. This was the first and most important of the new leadership’s goals. Success was met here after a meeting with the US Secretary of State and the NATO Secretary-General. It was felt by both that the United Kingdom was entering a new, more stable period following the brief flirtation with dictatorship.

NATO membership was a useful tool in preserving this and so such a thing was once again granted. Furthermore, several members of the European Community followed America and Britain in issuing trade sanctions against Russia for its espionage activities in Britain and its refusal to hand Mr Neville over for prosecution.

Additionally, members of the Commonwealth reignited their alliances with Britain. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and also smaller commonwealth members too took part in the period of healing which came after the coup, offering some diplomatic words of praise to the King and the new government as a means of preserving stability throughout Britain and their own lands as well. It was shown that the Monarchy was a major figure in British politics. With the intervention of the King, there were calls for the Monarchy to be dissolved.

This came not because people supported Hawtrey by any means, but rather because they were unnerved at the prospect of the unelected figure again involving himself in politics now that a precedent had been set. The issue was resolved with the abdication of the King and the handing of power over to a younger figure within the line of succession. This left the country largely appeased and calls for the dissolution of the Monarchy gradually silenced. This didn’t take place for nearly two years following the coup, but eventually it did silence the arguments of those in opposition.

Additionally, the role of the British Armed Forces had been forever changed. There was no question that Sir Norrington and his comrades had acted in the best interests of Britain and her people and had in doing so saved democracy. This did not, however, negate the fact the British Army had mounted a blatant coup which had removed a sitting Prime Minister from power. It had been a necessary act against evil, but the coup itself still left the Armed Forces wondering what would follow. Sir Norrington and the Chiefs of Staff resigned their commissions when the new government was elected, following new generals and admirals to lead Britain’s armed forces into the future. Britain looked outwards with the new government, returning to NATO and its overseas alliances, something which gave the military something else to focus on; troops went to Iraq and Belize in training and advisory roles and the garrisons in Bahrain, Brunei, and Singapore were expanded as well.

There were no ‘real’ wars currently being fought though and so the defining moment of the military within that decade was, of course, the coup in London.


The End

Good ending and a nice Tl James G and forcon .

It is rare to see Generals and Admirals do the right thing and give up power before they are consumed by it.

They really, really didn't want to launch their coup. So afterwards, the best thing to do was to stay away gracefully.
No matter the circumstances, there still would be many people enraged that military force was used though.

[stevep]

Dec 16, 2019 19:20:50 GMT James G said:

Well done. Good ending to tidy matters up!
The transition with the monarchy to fresh blood was a smart move.

  Not sure about that last bit?  While Charles - and its obviously him - has some oddities in his behaviour what the monarch did was both morally right and within his powers in such an emergency.  He didn't order the coup to overthrow an elected government but supported such action against a government that while initially elected had descended into a murderous dictatorship.  The likelihood of a future monarch abusing such power is low as if the government still have real public support its likely that the military would refuse to support such a move. 

  Some drastic political reform after such a close call with disaster is almost certain.  However rather than basically changing the names of parties, which is likely to be what happens in reality as underlying issues will be the same it really needs constitutional changes.  I'm dubious about a written constitution as it can be too restrictive and also abused in turn but some check on executive power would be very likely and also one way - but not the only way I see as beneficial - would be serious voting reform so that a good system of PR was in place to reduce the chance of elected dictatorships and hence also motivate people to get more involved.

  I might also suspect that rather than an expanded military more resources is likely to go into Britain itself.  To repair the damage done during the dictatorship period and also preceding declines in investment.

  However a very good short story and glad it ended well after a very dark [but fortunately short] period for Britain.

[sandyman]

Do we still have the death penalty for treason?

[lordroel]

Dec 18, 2019 12:59:19 GMT sandyman said:

Do we still have the death penalty for treason?

No, just life in prison in the Tower of London.

[James G]

Dec 18, 2019 12:59:19 GMT sandyman said:

Do we still have the death penalty for treason?

Nope, not in this universe. The treason took place for political & financial gain in peacetime; if it had been wartime, then, if there was a death penalty, it would likely have been enforced.

Dec 18, 2019 15:55:39 GMT lordroel said:

No, just life in prison in the Tower of London.

No Tower of London for traitors: its for the tourists.
There are plenty of civilian prisons nationwide, at least one I believe with high security conditions for female prisoners.

[stevep]

Dec 18, 2019 17:32:16 GMT James G said:

Dec 18, 2019 12:59:19 GMT sandyman said:

Do we still have the death penalty for treason?

Nope, not in this universe. The treason took place for political & financial gain in peacetime; if it had been wartime, then, if there was a death penalty, it would likely have been enforced.

Dec 18, 2019 15:55:39 GMT lordroel said:

No, just life in prison in the Tower of London.

No Tower of London for traitors: its for the tourists.
There are plenty of civilian prisons nationwide, at least one I believe with high security conditions for female prisoners.

  I made a reference to this a little while back but think we gave up the death penalty for treason, piracy and possibly a couple of other crimes in the 1990's I believe.  Which is a pity in this case.

  Given what she got up to and the fact as well some people may wish to hide connections I wonder about Hawtrey's survival prospects once she gets to jail.

[James G]

Dec 18, 2019 18:45:35 GMT stevep said:

Dec 18, 2019 17:32:16 GMT James G said:

Nope, not in this universe. The treason took place for political & financial gain in peacetime; if it had been wartime, then, if there was a death penalty, it would likely have been enforced.

No Tower of London for traitors: its for the tourists.
There are plenty of civilian prisons nationwide, at least one I believe with high security conditions for female prisoners.

  I made a reference to this a little while back but think we gave up the death penalty for treason, piracy and possibly a couple of other crimes in the 1990's I believe.  Which is a pity in this case.

  Given what she got up to and the fact as well some people may wish to hide connections I wonder about Hawtrey's survival prospects once she gets to jail.

One of her co-conspirators did meet a fatal accident and another nearly suffered the same fate. There will be some people out there wishing to silence those who might talk.
She'll be watched and well guarded but that won't always be perfect.

[usnvet]

Dec 19, 2019 9:37:33 GMT James G said:

Dec 18, 2019 18:45:35 GMT stevep said:

  I made a reference to this a little while back but think we gave up the death penalty for treason, piracy and possibly a couple of other crimes in the 1990's I believe.  Which is a pity in this case.

  Given what she got up to and the fact as well some people may wish to hide connections I wonder about Hawtrey's survival prospects once she gets to jail.

One of her co-conspirators did meet a fatal accident and another nearly suffered the same fate. There will be some people out there wishing to silence those who might talk.
She'll be watched and well guarded but that won't always be perfect.

Well, Epstein didn’t kill himself, so.....

[lordroel]

Dec 26, 2019 0:41:17 GMT usnvet said:

Dec 19, 2019 9:37:33 GMT James G said:

One of her co-conspirators did meet a fatal accident and another nearly suffered the same fate. There will be some people out there wishing to silence those who might talk.
She'll be watched and well guarded but that won't always be perfect.

Well, Epstein didn’t kill himself, so.....

Well we do not know that, but not to derail the thread, if somebody wants to, bad things can happen.