Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
10 years of austerity. Most of those years under a Conservative government. Cutbacks everywhere. Local councils constantly getting less money each year from central government, ensuring they can do less and less for their local people.
Benefits frozen for years, or even cut back. Austerity piled on top of more austerity for about 10 years now.
An EU membership vote given to the people in 2016, with over three years of refusal to carry out the result of that vote. Marchers in the hundreds of thousands filling the streets of London, demanding another vote, or even revoking article 50, ensuring we remain in the EU.
The government in disarray, looking like fools. Three Prime Ministers since the 2016 EU vote. A ruling political party a laughing stock in Europe, and around the world.
The opposition should be ready to take over the reigns of government. An election is called, and the opposition Labour party roll out their manifesto. Nationalisation of the Post Office, Water supply, and the Railways. Freebies scattered all around. More money for the NHS, free dental checkups, free college education, 30 hours of free nursery care for 2, 3, and 4 year olds. Free broadband for all, higher minimum wage......
Yet, the ruling Conservative government is far ahead in the polls. The Labour party is trying to rearrange it's campaign, a sure sign of unease within their ranks. Why is this? Why aren't the Labour party not heading for a landslide victory?
That is the question.
That about sums it up.
I've been trying to make sense of what's going on in the UK. A decade of austerity under primarily conservative leadership, followed by voting for a referendum that assures a "rough patch" ahead.
Control of immigration seems to be a primary issue, but as I understand it, the EU agreements allows for UK to control immigration. As I recall, Ireland is not part of the Schengen Agreement which opens borders between participating countries. Not sure why the entire UK could not go this route.
Not that politics in the U.S. makes any better sense. Voters consistently vote against their own economic interests here, apparently due to believing that others should follow their religious practices.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,188 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Of course none of this applies to the US Courts since they are beholding ONLY to the US Constitution. Anyone can sue the Queen or anyone else in the "royal" family in ANY US court of law. They are not immune to ANY such matter. On the other hand, delivering the judgment might prove difficult. If the member of the Royal family were not physically in the USA, then little can happen with the UK government involved.
IF Prince Andrew came to the USA, and he was subpoenaed and or arrested by the FBI, there would be little the UK could do about it because it's not clear that he would be extended diplomatic immunity. This is especially true now since ironically the Queen has removed him from his governmental duties.
The last thing Buckingham palace wants, absolutely, is to have to deal with a FBI subpoena. And there's nothing stopping them from issuing it should they think it necessary. The only question is how much "privilege" the throne will exercise to give special favors to someone who might have committed rape of an underage girl. If Andrew were a commoner, he'd be on the plane to the USA.
And we all know the answer to that.
US Courts have no juristiction in the UK, and an FBI subpeona would be worthless in such a situation, as it would be up to the British Judicial System based on British Law as to whether someone is extradited and not up to the FBI or US Courts, and there have been cases in recent years where the UK refused extradition.
The FBI wanted to extradite British citizen Lauri Love for hacking into FBI, US Central Bank and Nasa computer systems. The extradition was denied by the High Court.
Gary McKinnon was wanted by the FBI fo causing $800,000 (£487,000) worth of damage to US military computer systems through hacking. The extradition was denied by the then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Julian Assanges extradition will be herd by the High Court in London in February, and it's up to the British courts to decide on extradition and not the FBI or US Courts.
The UK can if course stop all extradition to the US is it so wishes, and the FBI have no law enforcement powers in the UK.
Whilst already explained the Monarch and members of the Royal Household are afforded further legal protection, and this also applies to Royal Palaces.
As for being on a plane is Anne Sacoolas getting on a plane soon and coming back to Britain, after killing 19 year old Harry Dunn through reckless driving. Although a review is now taking place which may see diplomatic immunity taken away from those Americans who don't directly work at the US Embassy.
As for Prince Andrew, other than a photo that isn't an original and the word of one girl there is no evidence.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-29-2019 at 06:19 AM..
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,188 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
That about sums it up.
I've been trying to make sense of what's going on in the UK. A decade of austerity under primarily conservative leadership, followed by voting for a referendum that assures a "rough patch" ahead.
Control of immigration seems to be a primary issue, but as I understand it, the EU agreements allows for UK to control immigration. As I recall, Ireland is not part of the Schengen Agreement which opens borders between participating countries. Not sure why the entire UK could not go this route.
Not that politics in the U.S. makes any better sense. Voters consistently vote against their own economic interests here, apparently due to believing that others should follow their religious practices.
But that doesn't seem to be the case in the UK.
The Tories didn't invesnt Austerity, the Labour Party under Brown left the country facing virtual backruptcy due to taking responsibility away from the Bank of England and gving such powers to a weak finacial watchdog known as the Financial Services Autority (FSA). A decision which was later criticised in an official report and which later helped lead to the lack of oversight and financial crisis. After the financial crisis, Gordon Brown bailed out the baks costing the country a fortune and leaving a vast amount of debt, whilst Labour's Private Finance Initiative borrowing also didn't help.
Gordon Brown was such an economic genius that he sold much of Britain's gold reserves when the gold prices were at a record low, losing the countries billions and then put taxes on pension, which caused further haship for those trying to save for retirement.
I've been trying to make sense of what's going on in the UK. A decade of austerity under primarily conservative leadership, followed by voting for a referendum that assures a "rough patch" ahead.
Control of immigration seems to be a primary issue, but as I understand it, the EU agreements allows for UK to control immigration. As I recall, Ireland is not part of the Schengen Agreement which opens borders between participating countries. Not sure why the entire UK could not go this route.
Not that politics in the U.S. makes any better sense. Voters consistently vote against their own economic interests here, apparently due to believing that others should follow their religious practices.
But that doesn't seem to be the case in the UK.
This sort of thing is part of the reason for the Labour party struggling in the polls. Plans to brainwash, and shame the native white English children of Britain..........
No doubt 'special' teachers brought in to teach the kids how ashamed they should feel for events of many, many decades ago.
US Courts have no juristiction in the UK, and an FBI subpeona would be worthless in such a situation, as it would be up to the British Judicial System based on British Law as to whether someone is extradited and not up to the FBI or US Courts, and there have been cases in recent years where the UK refused extradition........
As for being on a plane is Anne Sacoolas getting on a plane soon and coming back to Britain, after killing 19 year old Harry Dunn through reckless driving. Although a review is now taking place which may see diplomatic immunity taken away from those Americans who don't directly work at the US Embassy.
As for Prince Andrew, other than a photo that isn't an original and the word of one girl there is no evidence.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,188 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
You simply restated my post. Not sure why.
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases, whilst members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.
No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.
The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.
The Royal Lodge in Windsor that Prince Andrew lives in, belongs to the Crown Estate, he also can not be touched in relation to civil action, and any monies received by the Prince will in future most likely come directyl come from the Monarch or his military pensions. Prince Andrew served over 20 years in the Royal Navy and holds the rank of Vice Admiral among numerous other roles in the armed services.
There is no way Prince Andrew will ever be extradited by a the Courts in the UK and there is no much evidence in relation to any criminal case, which must be beyond any reasonable doubt and has a threshold of over 99% certainty.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-29-2019 at 02:03 PM..
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases, whilst members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.
No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.
The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.
The Royal Lodge in Windsor that Prince Andrew lives in belongs to the Crown Esate, he also can not be touched in related to civil action, and any monies will in future either come from the Monarch or his military pensions. Prince Andrew served over 20 years in the Royal Navy and holds the rank of Vice Admiral.
There is no way Prince Andrew will ever be extradited by a the Courts in the UK and there is no much evidence in relation to any criminal case which must be beyond any reasonable doubt and has a threshold of over 99% certainty.
What sort of accountability might the people of the UK expect to see if King Charles was presented with hard evidence that Andrew was involved in sexually abusing a child? Assuming that neither King Charles or Queen Elizabeth will allow Andrew to be held accountable under the law, what sort of accountability would you expect that the King should and hopefully would be willing to impose?
On Thursday, voters will go in their many millions to cast their vote, for whichever political party they want to take us forward into 2020.
If Boris Johnson wins we will go forward to the long awaited leaving of the EU. It is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. Trade talks will then begin for whatever future we will have outside the EU.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins, he says talks will begin again with the EU on a new Brexit deal. He will want much closer alignment with the EU, and free movement would continue. We would become a vassal of the EU. This deal would be offered to the British people in a vote. The other option would be to remain in the EU, as we are now. Not much of a deal. All this would take about nine months, amid anger from a large part of the population as it slowly dragged it's feet to conclusion.
Most British people know little About Jeremy Corbyn, and his background. This link should be read by every voter, before they decide where to cast their ballot........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
