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.
It's more correct to say Parliament has been dissolved. There is no Parliament until a new majority can be formed after December 12. There is still a government, and Johnson is the head of it until then.
Of course technically Queen Elizabeth remains the head of state, but given the daily new revelations of Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein, there are some who are beginning to question the purpose of the monarchy and the tax dollars that supports it.
People have been questioning the purpose of the monarchy for centuries - the latest scandal involving a Royal,and there have been many over the years,will not make an iota of difference.
The tax " dollars " the Monarchy receives are considerably outweighed by the tourist dollars they bring in.
And I speak as someone who is not a fan of the Royal Family in any way.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
He is not going to be extradited to the US. That is my prediction. And realizing that, it seems highly unlikely that Prince Andrew will be subpoenaed, either. But I guess we will see.
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; 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.
There is no way that the UK will extradite Prince Andrew, indeed the US won't extradie Anne Sacoolas, who left a 19 year old dead through reckless driving, whilst the US is still trying to extradite Assange.
As for the evidence in relation to Pribce Andrew it's basically one girl who was 17 at the time making allegations that go back many years and a photo that isn''t even an original photo and could therefore have been doctored.
The Prince has a 75 year lease on Royal Lodge in Windsor which belongs to the Crown Esatate and any monies come from the Crown Estate, the Queen's Sovereign Grant and from his work in relation to charities and the military including a pension related to 20 years in the Royal Navy.
So in other words it's pointless tryng to sue him in the Civil Courts in the UK or US and members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.
Whilst there is a total lack of evidence in relation to a Criminal Case which must be beyond any reasonable doubt and above the bar of over 99% certainty, and I am afraid one persons word and a dodgy photo do not constitute enough evidence of anything. Furthermore the legal age of consent is 16 in the UK, so a consensual sex act with a 17 year old would be deemed legal.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-25-2019 at 06:19 AM..
Boris Johnson on course for 68-seat majority in the U.K. general election, according to a major new poll.
The YouGov seat prediction survey — which accurately predicted that Theresa May would lose her majority in 2017 — said the Tories would win 359 seats (up 42) with Labour dropping to 211 (down 51) if the election were held tomorrow.
Of course the only poll that matters is the one on December 12. But if this projection is anywhere close to right, this will be a decisive victory, not only for the Tories and Boris Johnson, but for the completion of Brexit as well.
It shows the Tories trending upwards, now to 43%, with Labour also trending upwards, now at 30%.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems, who were looking pretty strong back at the beginning of September, are down to 15%, while the Brexit party has fallen to 4%, and appears to be on the verge of vanishing altogether.
The Greens, who were the surprise performers in the May EU Parliamentary elections, are down to 3% and it does not look like they will be a factor in these elections.
It shows the Tories trending upwards, now to 43%, with Labour also trending upwards, now at 30%.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems, who were looking pretty strong back at the beginning of September, are down to 15%, while the Brexit party has fallen to 4%, and appears to be on the verge of vanishing altogether.
The Greens, who were the surprise performers in the May EU Parliamentary elections, are down to 3% and it does not look like they will be a factor in these elections.
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?
The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; 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.
There is no way that the UK will extradite Prince Andrew, indeed the US won't extradie Anne Sacoolas, who left a 19 year old dead through reckless driving, whilst the US is still trying to extradite Assange.
As for the evidence in relation to Pribce Andrew it's basically one girl who was 17 at the time making allegations that go back many years and a photo that isn''t even an original photo and could therefore have been doctored.
The Prince has a 75 year lease on Royal Lodge in Windsor which belongs to the Crown Esatate and any monies come from the Crown Estate, the Queen's Sovereign Grant and from his work in relation to charities and the military including a pension related to 20 years in the Royal Navy.
So in other words it's pointless tryng to sue him in the Civil Courts in the UK or US and members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.
Whilst there is a total lack of evidence in relation to a Criminal Case which must be beyond any reasonable doubt and above the bar of over 99% certainty, and I am afraid one persons word and a dodgy photo do not constitute enough evidence of anything. Furthermore the legal age of consent is 16 in the UK, so a consensual sex act with a 17 year old would be deemed legal.
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.
A subpoena and an arrest warrant are two different things. I repeat - why issue a subpoena? It accomplishes nothing as he could just refuse to answer questions, pleading the Fifth.
A subpoena and an arrest warrant are two different things. I repeat - why issue a subpoena? It accomplishes nothing as he could just refuse to answer questions, pleading the Fifth.
Because an arrest warrant can only be issued when one is actually charged with a crime. I subpoena compels one to give testimony in such an investigation.
The Prince is being advised NOT to travel to the USA because of fears that he would indeed be arrested and there would be little the Palace could do about it.
A subpoena and an arrest warrant are two different things. I repeat - why issue a subpoena? It accomplishes nothing as he could just refuse to answer questions, pleading the Fifth.
That is a terrible reason to issue a subpoena. Would that not be a good reason to stop issuing subpoenas altogether using that logic?
If Prince Andrew is determined to have committed chargeable offenses here in the US regarding pedophilia, it will be the duty of the DOJ/FBI to charge him. If that happens, I expect they will charge him. But I would be surprised if they try to extradite him from England, although of course they could.
If they only need his testimony, a deposition could be requested without requiring him to come here. A subpoena would normally be required for that, but he could perhaps be persuaded to provide one voluntarily. Whether he and the British government would cooperate is another matter.
Supposedly Prince Charles, Andrew's brother, is planning to 'confront' Andrew when he returns from his 'Royal tour'.
The Prince of Wales is expected to have “a heated showdown” with his younger brother Prince Andrew over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight that followed, The Telegraph recently reported.
Sources told out the outlet Charles, 71, is “furious” that his 12-day tour of the South Pacific, which aimed to raise awareness on environmental issues such as climate change and how it's rising ocean levels, has been completely overshadowed by the 59-year-old’s scandal impacting the British royal family.
And in other news, it appears that Prince Charles is preparing to take over for the Queen in the role of "Prince Regent," as she is apparently planning to step down from her official duties on her 95th birthday in April 2021.
British media are reporting that Queen Elizabeth is set to “retire” from her royal duties, passing the role as head of state to her son Prince Charles.
Sources told Britain’s The Sun that there is talk behind closed doors that the Queen, who has cut down on her royal duties and appearances in recent years, cannot continue forever and that she will “retire” in April 2021 when she turns 95. Her 95th birthday appears to be an appropriate time as her husband, Prince Philip, retired from public life in August 2017 at age 96.
According to The Sun, Prince Charles will become “Prince Regent,” the heir to the throne who will deal with day-to-day royal affairs while his mother remains monarch. “Planning for Charles to become king has been going on for some time,” the source said. “A transition is plainly already underway. Her Majesty is in her 90s and can understandably only do so much.”
So having Charles handle this matter with Andrew might make a lot of sense, if he is gearing up to take over the throne anyway.
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.
