Britain - The Official Thread

[Robin]

I'm surprised at the speed they seemingly delivered a new car to him, literally the next day.

Not sure why it's not a new LR model (possibly familiarity) but that's some dealership service.

EDIT- He's already back behind the wheel, pictures taken today...

 

[TenEightyOne]

What's missing from that picture?

Police speak to elderly driver after he fails to wear seatbelt in brand new car.

 

[Robin]

What's missing from that picture?

Police speak to elderly driver after he fails to wear seatbelt in brand new car.

Yeah he is a wally to do something like that the day after totalling his car, guess he treats the WHOLE of Sandringham as his private grounds!

 

[Dennisch]

Windsor Davies passed away at age 88. Brilliant character.

 

[Lizard]

What's missing from that picture?

Police speak to elderly driver after he fails to wear seatbelt in brand new car.

I did laugh when the police said they will take any needed action. Like the duke could have killed 15 people yet the queen would immediately pardon him. The police have no power over him.

 

[Famine]

I did laugh when the police said they will take any needed action. Like the duke could have killed 15 people yet the queen would immediately pardon him. The police have no power over him.

Actually, she can't, and they do.

The legal waters for the monarch are exceptionally murky, but ultimately it's almost impossible for her to complete a journey through the justice system to the point of imprisonment. There's quite a few reasons for that, but a big, fat one is that all of the justice system is hers. The prosecution in criminal cases is "The Crown", after all - and the prisons are Her Majesty's... I don't believe that there is an official exemption, but since all laws in the UK are derived from the crown and by royal approval only, it's an exemption in practice...

... but this applies to the monarch only. It does not cover other members of the royal household - Princess Anne, for example, has a speeding conviction. If the police wanted to prosecute Phillip, they could. I haven't seen the photos of him driving sans belt, but was it on public roads or the Sandringham Estate?

The Queen also can't issue pardons. That role is now part of the remit of the Lord Chancellor, and pardons can only, usually, be given to those convicted of a crime (and they have no effect on the conviction itself). That would mean that in order for the Queen to pardon Phillip for 15 murders, he would have to go all the way through the justice system and be convicted of the murders, and then have the Lord Chancellor issue the pardon (which he could, technically, refuse to do) - but he'd still be a convicted murderer.

Royal pardons - or rather "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy" - are exceptionally rare, and almost exclusively issued to those wrongly convicted of a crime. Thomas Evans and Derek Bentley, both wrongly convicted of murder and executed, were later pardoned by royal decree. There are some instances where that's not been the case; famously Alan Turing was posthumously pardoned for a crime he was correctly convicted of (as in, his conviction was sound at the time) that's no longer a crime and never should have been. Two correctly convicted inmates were pardoned in 2001 for saving the life of a prison officer.

There's also statutory pardons, carried out by parliament. Following the pardoning of Turing, a pardon was enacted into law for other gay and bisexuals convicted under the same laws.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The story that just won't go away... parts of elderly man's headlights for sale on eBay, supposedly.

 

[Dennisch]

Such a friendly gesture.

 

[Liquid]

 

[Keef]

Disregard the Fox News label, but this is what congress looks like.

 

[Famine]

Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough who lied about who was driving her car when she was caught speeding and tried to pin it on a Russian man who wasn't even in the country at the time of the offence, which she still denies, is jailed for three months.



Incredibly, this is below the (12-month) threshold at which she would have to step down as an MP, and she has previously remarked that she has no intention of resigning, thus leaving the people of Peterborough without representation during this rather crucial period of British politics...

Let's quickly compare this to Chris Huhne, the Conservative (well, Lib Dem, but you know the coalition) MP who claimed his wife was driving at the time of a speeding offence - she took the points and the fine for it voluntarily - which she then backtracked on after their relationship deteriorated, leading to a prosecution for the same offence. Huhne resigned the moment he was charged, and despite pleading guilty got an eight-month sentence (as did his wife).

Charged, resigned, pleads guilty, convicted, eight-month sentence.
Charged, denies, convicted, three-month sentence, won't resign.

 

[Dotini]

Charged, resigned, pleads guilty, convicted, eight-month sentence.
Charged, denies, convicted, three-month sentence, won't resign.

Patriarchy dead, white privilege ended, heaven on Earth. Job done.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Incredibly, this is below the (12-month) threshold at which she would have to step down as an MP, and she has previously remarked that she has no intention of resigning, thus leaving the people of Peterborough without representation during this rather crucial period of British politics...

This is the bit I find most astonishing. I'd thought that as a legislator the threshold would be zero or very very low conditional on some kind of Lower House appeal.

As it is it seem that the only mechanism for removing her is for Peterborough to be polled on the issue. If she continues to have their support then she remains as their representative. The law is an ass.

 

[UKMikey]

Patriarchy dead, white privilege ended, heaven on Earth. Job done.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/white-privilege.360616/page-39#post-12623355

 

[HenrySwanson]

Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough who lied about who was driving her car when she was caught speeding and tried to pin it on a Russian man who wasn't even in the country at the time of the offence, which she still denies, is jailed for three months.



Incredibly, this is below the (12-month) threshold at which she would have to step down as an MP, and she has previously remarked that she has no intention of resigning, thus leaving the people of Peterborough without representation during this rather crucial period of British politics...

Let's quickly compare this to Chris Huhne, the Conservative (well, Lib Dem, but you know the coalition) MP who claimed his wife was driving at the time of a speeding offence - she took the points and the fine for it voluntarily - which she then backtracked on after their relationship deteriorated, leading to a prosecution for the same offence. Huhne resigned the moment he was charged, and despite pleading guilty got an eight-month sentence (as did his wife).

Charged, resigned, pleads guilty, convicted, eight-month sentence.
Charged, denies, convicted, three-month sentence, won't resign.

She really is an odious woman who has no place in Parliament.

 

[UKMikey]

She really is an odious woman who has no place in Parliament.

I'm sure God will forgive her if she repents her sins. He endorses Donald Trump, after all.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So....

... since the country has demonstrated it's survival skills by hacking off a knee-cap and then running around in circles, I propose the following....

1) The United Kingdom should be dissolved.
2) The Monarchy should be dissolved.
3) You don't vote?.. no healthcare, no driving license, no benefits, no welfare, no social housing...
4) FPTP should be replaced with a PR system.
5) No party wips, no majority government required.
5.5) Terminate the house of Lords.
5.5.5) MP's held accountable via vote weighting (scoring system of promises/deliveries).
6) Increased consequence for abuse of freedom of speech for all media/media platforms.
7) Nationalisation of property development within criteria. Additional labour pool available via unemployment/welfare claimants.
8) Low impact Population control via taxation.
9) Mandatory 9-5 schooling for all children aged 4-16. Relevant subjects to be included, irrelevant subjects to be eliminated.
10) Domestic environmental responsibility off-set against council where appropriate.
11) Direct taxation contribution for NHS to increase visibility on healthcare spending.
12) Direct subsidy of local businesses via taxation of non-localised businesses in the retail sector.

...

Any takers? I might run for parliament..

... in an armoured Mythbusters cement mixer.

 

[UKMikey]

So....

... since the country has demonstrated it's survival skills by hacking off a knee-cap and then running around in circles, I propose the following....

1) The United Kingdom should be dissolved.
2) The Monarchy should be dissolved.
3) You don't vote?.. no healthcare, no driving license, no benefits, no welfare, no social housing...
4) FPTP should be replaced with a PR system.
5) No party wips, no majority government required.
5.5) Terminate the house of Lords.
5.5.5) MP's held accountable via vote weighting (scoring system of promises/deliveries).
6) Increased consequence for abuse of freedom of speech for all media/media platforms.
7) Nationalisation of property development within criteria. Additional labour pool available via unemployment/welfare claimants.
8) Low impact Population control via taxation.
9) Mandatory 9-5 schooling for all children aged 4-16. Relevant subjects to be included, irrelevant subjects to be eliminated.
10) Domestic environmental responsibility off-set against council where appropriate.
11) Direct taxation contribution for NHS to increase visibility on healthcare spending.
12) Direct subsidy of local businesses via taxation of non-localised businesses in the retail sector.

...

Any takers? I might run for parliament..

... in an armoured Mythbusters cement mixer.

Just don't put it to a referendum.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just don't put it to a referendum.

We've already had one on #4, it was a complete fudge.

 

[Liquid]

This is the bit I find most astonishing. I'd thought that as a legislator the threshold would be zero or very very low conditional on some kind of Lower House appeal.

As it is it seem that the only mechanism for removing her is for Peterborough to be polled on the issue. If she continues to have their support then she remains as their representative. The law is an ass.

Or she could force accept an offer to work directly under the crown for-profit. The old Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or Crown Steward of Northstead Manor routine. Interestingly, since the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 it has not been permissible for an MP to simply resign and it dates back to a legal fiction first established in 1624. An MP is only obliged to leave their post if they take a profit-making office of the crown in which their independence is compromised by taking the monarch's pay. Obviously.

Even until 1926 new members to the Cabinet had to stand in a by-election as being appointed a government minister still counted as a crown office.

As for a prison sentence resulting in a disqualification I don't know the history of that. But as you say, you would think any sort of custodial sentence would result in a disqualification, as in principle a lawbreaker cannot represent the people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's a campaign that will do terribly in Britain. Or really really well.

 

[Touring Mars]

Let's not even think about the advert for Chocolate Pop Tarts.

 

[Liquid]

Even translating it to "right in my bum" is pretty hilarious.

Does it not carry the same level of cringe in the States when using the word fanny?

 

[UKMikey]

Were this a British campaign I'd peg the tarts as a new contender for the now-vacated title of "slag of all snacks".

 

[Robin]

Reminds me of this one,

 

[HenrySwanson]

Dozens to be deported to Jamaica on a charter flight, the first since the Windrush scandal:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ce-immigration-caribbean-remove-a8759916.html

 

[Lizard]

9) Mandatory 9-5 schooling for all children aged 4-16. Relevant subjects to be included, irrelevant subjects to be eliminated.

What do you consider relevant and irrelevant and why? And who do you propose makes that choice and why?

 

[MatskiMonk]

What do you consider relevant and irrelevant and why? And who do you propose makes that choice and why?

Subjects that require an understanding to grasp need to take precedence over those that either teach worthless information or simply require memorising things for the sake of passing exams. Without context some subjects are wasted on kids that have no experience of life. Some subjects should be abandoned, such as any form of religious studies, some should merged into other subjects, like History, for example. Art, Geography, Language.. they all need a total rethink in the way they are taught... some things have no value without context, and in life, it can often be that the you don't get the context of what you learned until 20 years later - by which time, you've forgotten it and wish you'd studied harder. I'm nearly 40, I still can't remember which is a Verb, Noun or Adjective, yet I've seen, read, read, and experienced Shakespeare's Twelfth Night a number of times over. I had to study Physics at college to understand why Maths I'd learned 10 years prior was relevant. Subjects should be taught with context, not pigeon holed under a curriculum heading.

Understanding should always be more important than remembering.. I believe that's fundamental... but, on top of that, we need to start teaching kids important life stuff. PARENTS need to be encouraging and taking responsibilty for some of the creative developmental stuff, not schools... it takes a teacher to impart the finer points of science into children... it doesn't need a teacher to give a kid a selection of paints and pencils. Why the **** did I have to learned about the repealing of the corn laws at high school... yet I wasn't taught how our democracy came about. Why did I read Chaucer instead of learning critical thinking? Why aren't you taught about interest rates in maths, yet you're expected to sign on the dotted line for nearly all major life purchases as though you've read and understand the small print.

Trying to employ young people for semi-skilled jobs has been one of the most depressing, and yet eye-opening, tasks of my adult life.

I'm ranting a bit now, I probably haven't answered your question, sorry.... I'm really tired.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Subjects that require an understanding to grasp need to take precedence over those that either teach worthless information or simply require memorising things for the sake of passing exams. Without context some subjects are wasted on kids that have no experience of life.

For any given person that could be any subject... and you don't have to spend long in a modern school to see that all subjects are distilled to performance indicators now, regardless of any merit they'd hold otherwise. That's the real problem, alongside the time required to manage the performance data which sucks time out of the day. Not a profession I'd go back to now.

 

[Liquid]

I would think that teaching about things such as taxation and financial services in some capacity would go a long way to preparing children for adult life. I equally feel there would be some resistance to do so due to the "keep 'em stupid" hypothesis that cynical people like to believe.