Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Also, the Monarch is, quite literally, above the Law.
How did that pan out for Charles I?
Also, the Monarch is, quite literally, above the Law.
How is that relevant to the Law today?How did that pan out for Charles I?
Mm, the Vatican has been rather dodgy on the whole sex thing for a while, been quite widely reported.Different societal attitudes.
In the Vatican City the age of consent was, until recently, 14.
Due to pressure they raised it to 18
For unmarrieds.
It is still 14 for girls if you are married.
To clarify, I am aware that there are bad people in the world, I am not an innocent. I was referring to people on here who I expect to be relatively educated & erudite on such matters.Funny, I thought he was spot on. Maybe, in your eyes, that sort of fits.
Yes, but Justice is supposed to go a little further than probability.
How is that relevant to the Law today?
Even in 1649 when the monarch had greater immunity than after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was passed they may still be subject to prosecution / trial despite being above the law (whatever that actually means).
The monarch is not subject to criminal prosecution, even by the Act you refer to.
Crown Proceedings Act deals with suing the Crown for in Civil Cases only. The Monarch cannot be subject to criminal prosecution.Even in 1649 when the monarch had greater immunity than after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was passed they may still be subject to prosecution / trial despite being above the law (whatever that actually means).
Correct.Thanks for the correction. To bring it back to topic though, it only applies to the monarch and so Prince Andrew would not be immune though?
Um - she had to give her signature and accord. She stood above the GG in terms of the hierarchy Frankly, she probable didn’t and doesn’t read more than5% of what she signs.Not in the UK, Downunder. Sir John Kerr, Governor-General and therefore the Queen's official representative, dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
I'm not sure that the Queen had anything to do with it. It caused quite a furore at the time, because nobody knew that Governors-General had this sort of power.
How did that pan out for Charles I?
avole said:Um - she had to give her signature and accord. She stood above the GG in terms of the hierarchy Frankly, she probable didn’t and doesn’t read more than5% of what she signs.
and stated that he asked Kerr whether he had consulted the Palace, to which Kerr replied that he did not need to
I guess he could be imprisoned at his mother’s pleasure, not very likely though. It’ll be interesting if the US requests his extradition.Thanks for the correction. To bring it back to topic though, it only applies to the monarch and so Prince Andrew would not be immune though?
Money. Just money. Offer a substantial sum of it to a decently sized group of 17 year old girls and some of them will take it. They don't all have to sign up, remember. No grooming is required, just normal human greed. It's just the same as Paul's example of the teenage prostitutes in Rome.I'm struggling to think of any realistic or likely scenarios that don't include some combination of grooming, drugs or coercion. Any ideas?
To ask a slightly different question: why might a 17 year-old girl find herself at a party for 40+ year-old men, at the home of a convicted child rapist and procurer of underage girls?
I think that is the male view of it, it is probably more complicated than that. I find the whole idea of female student hooking to be a pretty grim inditement of society & the attitudes of certain males. I am really not at all 'right on' but can see how this can have massive repurcussions for those involved.Money. Just money. Offer a substantial sum of it to a decently sized group of 17 year old girls and some of them will take it. They don't all have to sign up, remember. No grooming is required, just normal human greed. It's just the same as Paul's example of the teenage prostitutes in Rome.
I used to work with a guy who did some photography on a semi-pro basis. One or two of his models did some "escort" work on the side. One in particular, a student, used to travel up to Edinburgh to meet a man every couple of months or so. Train paid for, hotel paid for, dinner, champagne, go home on Sunday with £2k in her pocket. She knew exactly what she was doing, so did he. In the real and imperfect world in which we live, you don't have to do any grooming or drugs or coercion to get people to do stuff they otherwise wouldn't choose to, if you start waving money about. I work in food factories, remember. I look at what people endure for £8 an hour, week in week out, on shifts, freezing cold, repetitive, noisy, horrible work. Offer £2k, about 2 months of this hell, in exchange for a weekend in a hotel room with some fat businessman, and you won't have to look far, trust me. Would I prefer that it wasn't so? Yes, of course. However as I say this is the real world, I don't make the rules.
To the best of my knowledge, she didn't have to do any such thing. The GG in Commonwealth countries acts as her representative, with the same powers, and can act independently. For example, the GG gives the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament in Canberra, without reference to the Queen, thus making them law.Um - she had to give her signature and accord. She stood above the GG in terms of the hierarchy Frankly, she probable didn’t and doesn’t read more than5% of what she signs.