HumanPenguin

Or just refusing to run servers in California. Much like the US DRM encryption restrictions of the 90s. Where the whole Linux community just had distributions required parts of the download to happen in non US servers.

A single, (although big and very active in Linux) state, will always have more limitations then a nation. The issue comes if it becomes US national. And then the US starts pushing other nations to sign agreements.

Given at some point trumps harm to all international treaties will likely be repaired. Their may come a huge opportunity for US politicians to renegotiate international treaties.

Assuming trust is ever returned.

He depends on his Maga supporters believing universal healthcare is a failure.

Actually needing US aid has less importance then convincing his voters of the need.

Let's face it. Nearly all left wing hosts and talk shows. Have made a point that Greenland will not give up universal healthcare to join the US.

So it's important he has some indication that the US needed to provide services to Greenland to continue to counter that political argument.

Just like bombing Venezuela and kidnapping it's leader. It's nothing to do with drugs. But is instead about making the lies about drugs more believable to the idiots that vote for him.

Because school head teachers think it makes the students look well managed.

Think for a moment about UK history. Very little to non of it was implemented to ensure poor people were treated equally. And the introduction of uniforms was no more so.

Back in the day it was about wealthy schools looking like they were preparing students for work life. iE uniforms tried to match the idea that successful students would have to wear suits.

And as such uniforms were mainly used in city schools as more rural schools tought for farming or mining communities. Not office jobs,

In the 70s as less farming or mining jobs were expected.more schools tried to introduce dress codes to force dress standards for children expected to have to do so once working.

That the point isn't it.

I'm fairly suree you just declared him histories best at puns.

That assumes those with money. Will not go separately to buy clothing. While those without telly on the school.

Sorry but that is not the way it will work. Just because schools are required to provide the uniforms. Dose not mean their will not be a market for uniforms outside the schools supply.

A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.

Except the concept has not. At no point in that history. Has any UK king or queen ever been tried by anything other then parliament itself.

And the one time parliament did it. It was done in parliament exactly because the constituency of the crown being different from the current monarch is not well defined. It's only separation definition is in the right for ownership and duty to be passed.

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.

They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.

Actually no that is not how the sovereignty of parliament in defined.

Yes actions are only free of judicial jurisdiction when acting in parlimentry session. But those actions are in no way related to speech alone.

While no an MP could not murder someone during parliamentary session.

The normal justice system would not be responsible for protecting that person. Parliament will. This is exactly why the tower of London was originally considered the be the kings and then parliaments prison. And not the judiciary.

This is why parliament has a chief Marshall to enforce it's authority. And why the tower of London has it's own guards independent of the UK police and military.

While this all seems to be just of historic interest. And honestly the orders (people involved) are no longer armed or trained in a way that would be official to actually enforce the law. Not to mention the tower is no longer in a position to provide a reasonable or effective prison.

The legal structure has very much not been replaced in any way.

And if (cos I am biased after all.)

N Farrrage was to suddenly jump up and strangle J corbyn during PMs questions.

It would be an odd situation. Likely in 2026 it would involve parliament and the Chief marshall asking the met to actually help out. And quickly passing laws to support it. It would not be automatic.

You may want to look at school funding and the attitude of the last 1t years of government to such.

Before considering that the future of school provided uniforms will be any newer or in any better condition.

Makes you wonder.

A) We're the economists that predicted a £11.5bn in December. Incompetent.

B) are the economists predicting £30.rbn surplus now incompetent

Or

C) is the lose of Peter Mandelsons corrupt influence. Changing the lies the government want to convince voters of.

Will be pretty pissed. If they do not do some serious looking into his motives while collecting evidence.

Those motive likely being convincing sex traffickers to provide for him.

While Cromwell's far from a great example of democracy.

He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.

Hence why the example was made.

You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.

IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)

Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.

But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.

The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.

If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.

But that dose not apply to other royal family members. Other then the purely technical idea that the kings name used against a relative is sorta rude without authority.

But parliament has the full Auth to ignore his opinion. And as we saw under Cromwell. If the king was accused of a crime high enough. Parliament itself can try him. But it's far from uncomplicated,

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself. This is done purely to prevent a majority party making opposition illegal. And even then it only applies to in parliament actions.

IE up till a few days ago. MPs could support PA in the house of commons. But doing so in public would have still be a crime. As dumb as that sounds.

That said. Legal and technical Vs the actual actions of people in a position with the prejudices involved. Are hardly equal.

Yep it's about giving secret gov data to Epstein. So while the peado accusations will likely be investigated as a result. Based on motive gathering.

ATM no new evidence of actual SA with minors has been shown in the files.

Just pics of him kneeling over a fully clothed shortish female of indeterminate age.