"Not my king!"

[Jamie123]

https://youtube.com/shorts/-kMhnf0o9OM?si=c_eScjwJyj2hCk5L

Oh yes he is your king. It doesn't matter two hoots if you're anti-monarchy, if you're British then he is your king. Or do you think you're special and different from the rest of us, and get to choose your own personal head of state?

It's no different from silly Democrats saying that Trump was not their president. Maybe Trump is an idiot and maybe he's not, but either way, during his term of office he was president.

https://youtu.be/t2c-X8HiBng?si=tfFKMlL2bCJTgrnD

Edited June 18 by Jamie123
There's nothing that can't be improved with a Monty Python reference!

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Or do you think you're special and different from the rest of us, and get to choose your own personal head of state?

 

I thought you were an autonomous collective.

[NeuroTypical]

Subjects and citizens are both beholden to their rulers.  

You can give up your US citizenship by leaving, and maybe filling out some forms.  I assume a similar process is available for subjects?

[Jamie123]

36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Subjects and citizens are both beholden to their rulers.  

You can give up your US citizenship by leaving, and maybe filling out some forms.  I assume a similar process is available for subjects?

Nobody talks about "subjects" these days. (Except notionally, and in relation to the monarch.) We are British Citizens.

Maybe I am (like Terry Jones) "fooling myself", but king or no king, I can't believe we live in more of a dictatorship than a country where the police can beat you up and steal all your money, and then hide behind "qualified immunity" and "civil asset forfeiture".

I'll get flamed for saying that I know, but I'll bet every counter argument will boil down to one thing: "Don't spank my child".

(I wish Anatess was still here. She'd give me a run for my money for saying that!)

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Nobody talks about "subjects" these days. (Except notionally, and in relation to the monarch.) We are British Citizens.

Maybe I am (like Terry Jones) "fooling myself", but king or no king, I can't believe we live in more of a dictatorship than a country where the police can beat you up and steal all your money, and then hide behind "qualified immunity" and "civil asset forfeiture".

I'll get flamed for saying that I know, but I'll bet every counter argument will boil down to one thing: "Don't spank my child".

(I wish Anatess was still here. She'd give me a run for my money for saying that!)

Is republicanism a threat down there or is it vocal and passionate minority? 

[Carborendum]

13 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Maybe I am (like Terry Jones) "fooling myself", but king or no king, I can't believe we live in more of a dictatorship than a country where the police can beat you up and steal all your money, and then hide behind "qualified immunity" and "civil asset forfeiture".

As of 2023, SCOTUS has ruled that citizens have recourse for civil asset forfeiture.  But it is taking time for the public to catch up.  In the meantime, police departments and District attorneys tell citizens that they can't do anything about it.  But they'd be lying.  But the thing in favor of the police is that there is still no requirement for a "quick" hearing.  Therefore, they can employ delay tactics to the point where the citizens are effectively forbidden from pursuing remedy.

Qualified immunity is subject to judicial review.  Most cases are ruled in a manner that allows justice to prevail.  But no system is perfect.  And some cops get away with things simply because they are ignorant of the law.  This comes from the phrase "police knew or should have known."  There are many things that police do that is in violation of the law, but because they not-necessarily "should have known" they are given a pass.  And that standard is definitely in favor of the police.

So, we're aware of it.  And we're working on it.

[Jamie123]

12 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Is republicanism a threat down there or is it vocal and passionate minority? 

 

Getting rid of the monarchy would be hideously complicated and monstrously expensive. I don't think anyone wants an elected president that badly.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

 

Getting rid of the monarchy would be hideously complicated and monstrously expensive. I don't think anyone wants an elected president that badly.

Thanks bud. 

[Jamie123]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There are many things that police do that is in violation of the law, but because they not-necessarily "should have known" they are given a pass.

The way I understand it is that no ruling can be made that a government action was unconstitutional unless a clear precedent exists that that action was unconstitutional. And since no ruling can ever be made, no precedent can ever be set. It might have come straight out of Catch 22.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Subjects and citizens are both beholden to their rulers.  

You can give up your US citizenship by leaving, and maybe filling out some forms.  I assume a similar process is available for subjects?

I just realised I didn't answer your question. Yes you can make a "declaration of renunciation".

Edited June 18 by Jamie123

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

https://youtube.com/shorts/-kMhnf0o9OM?si=c_eScjwJyj2hCk5L

Hold on just one minute! The wife of the next king gets cancer and then the current king suddenly has cancer? Is this a biological usurpation? Scandalous family relations? TABLOIDS DO YOUR JOB!!!!

[mikbone]

On average, a country celebrates independence from Britain roughly every six days. 65 countries have gained independence from the United Kingdom or British military occupation, and 48 of them celebrate a national day for it. This means that around 1.6 billion people can celebrate independence from Britain.

Hence - Not my King.

Edited June 18 by mikbone

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

The way I understand it is that no ruling can be made that a government action was unconstitutional unless a clear precedent exists that that action was unconstitutional. And since no ruling can ever be made, no precedent can ever be set. It might have come straight out of Catch 22.

That doesn't even come close to reality.  Where did you get this information?

[Jamie123]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That doesn't even come close to reality.  Where did you get this information?

https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/#:~:text=As one federal judge summarized,one has answered them before.

Quote

In recent years, judges have often ignored altogether the question of whether an officer acted unlawfully. That way, courts avoid setting a precedent for future cases, which allows the same conduct to repeatedly go unpunished. As one federal judge summarized, this is a “Catch-22”

 

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

In recent years, judges have often ignored altogether the question of whether an officer acted unlawfully. That way, courts avoid setting a precedent for future cases, which allows the same conduct to repeatedly go unpunished. As one federal judge summarized, this is a “Catch-22”

This quote is closer to accurate.  But your verbiage in the previous post is something quite different.  You may profit from learning a bit more about our judicial system and the precedents for qualified immunity.

What I'd really like to see is an end to "absolute immunity" which certain government attorneys enjoy.

Edited June 18 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This quote is accurate.  But your verbiage in the previous post is something quite different.  You may profit from learning a bit more about our judicial system and the precedents for qualified immunity.

Perhaps mine was an exaggeration. But I've seen the same (or similar) in enough places to think it must have some element of truth. I've even seen it on Lehto's Law.

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What I'd really like to see is an end to "absolute immunity" which certain government attorneys enjoy.

Very senior judges have something similar over here. In extreme circumstances they can be impeached, but they cannot be prosecuted the same way you or I could.

Absolute immunity does apply to the monarch, but I'm pretty sure a misbehaving monarch would be forced out one way or another.

Edited June 18 by Jamie123
Added link to Steve Lehto video where he notes this problem

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Perhaps mine was an exaggeration. But I've seen the same (or similar) in enough places to think it must have some element of truth. I've even seen it on Leto's Law.

Very senior judges have something similar over here. In extreme circumstances they can be impeached, but they cannot be prosecuted the same way you or I could.

Absolute immunity does apply to the monarch, but I'm pretty sure a misbehaving monarch would be forced out one way or another.

To be clear, "absolute immunity" simply means that the public prosecutor cannot be sued for any actions performed in his official capacity.  But they can still be held criminally responsible for their actions.  And he may be fired for a variety of reasons.

Similarly, "qualified immunity" for police officers have the same conditions.  But there is judicial review regarding whether the actions were within a police officer's official duty and if any "maltreatment" was "necessary and proper" in order to execute the officer's official duties.

Lehto is usually pretty good.  But I've seen him make some mistakes that other youtube lawyers explain things differently.  As a non-lawyer, myself, I can't claim to be able to judge who's right and who's wrong.  But my reading of actual statutes will lead me to believe one way or the other.  But I could be wrong.

Edited June 18 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

My son who loves coins convinced me to invest in a couple of these silver 1 kilo coins.  Already doubled in value.

I bet they are having trouble giving away the King Charles coins.

I don’t know much about him other than the his questionable preference of Camilla over Dianna.  I hear the term ‘wanker’ associated with this Royal.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

On average, a country celebrates independence from Britain roughly every six days. 65 countries have gained independence from the United Kingdom or British military occupation, and 48 of them celebrate a national day for it. This means that around 1.6 billion people can celebrate independence from Britain.

Hence - Not my King.

Fourteen of the countries you're referring to still have the British monarch as their head of state. Don't ask me to name them all, but there's Canada, Australia and New Zealand to start with

[Jamie123]

2 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I hear the term ‘wanker’ associated with this Royal.

Ooooooo Mikbone said a naughty word!

I'm not a Cockney but I prefer "merchant banker" 😉

[mikbone]

7 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Fourteen of the countries you're referring to still have the British monarch as their head of state. Don't ask me to name them all, but there's Canada, Australia and New Zealand to start with

Well then, who is this wan<€r, sorry, dude?

Edited June 18 by mikbone

[Jamie123]

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

Well then, who is this wan<€r, dude?

Ummm...the Prime Minister of Canada?

We have one too...

[NeuroTypical]

Kind of like how we have a President, and also Taylor Swift?

[zil2]

@Jamie123, many Americans may not be aware that a country can have different people as "head of government" (e.g. your Prime Minister) vs "head of state" (e.g. your monarch).  In the US, they're the same person: the President.  (At least, that's how I understand it.)

[Jamie123]

15 minutes ago, zil2 said:

@Jamie123, many Americans may not be aware that a country can have different people as "head of government" (e.g. your Prime Minister) vs "head of state" (e.g. your monarch).  In the US, they're the same person: the President.  (At least, that's how I understand it.)

That's how I understand it too. Some countries (France or Ireland for example) have a nonexecutive president, who is kind of like an elected monarch, and a Prime Minister who is head of government.

This is probably the least-fuss route we would take if we ever abolished the monarchy. Some great wise fatherly (or motherly) scholar or writer or musician - someone who could inspire everyone - would be perfect. But think who we could get!

Edited June 18 by Jamie123