Protesters charged

[Sapphire387]

A woman has apparently been charged for a 'breach of the peace' for holding up a sign that read 'fuck imperialism, abolish the monarchy'. A man has been charged with the same, for shouting at Andrew and calling him 'a sick old man'.

AIBU to find this deeply concerning and an attack on freedom of speech?

Whether pro or anti-monarchy, I think we should all be allowed to express our views on this.

YABU - they should have been charged.
YANBU - they should not have been charged.

The monarch holds a great deal of executive power
No they don’t. All executive power is de facto with the government. Even the old royal prerogative powers don’t belong to the monarch anymore.

It was an enormous payout, to avoid criminal charges. HtH

Did you read that in the constitution?

Joking aside, that's simply not true.

Lol. That’s the most batshit conspiracy theory I’ve heard in a long time. I know you hate the man, I’m think he’s disgusting too, but I’m not going to buy into the spawn of Satan theories about him.

Demos has published a good critique of the monarchy and how it might be usefully reformed.

Don't arrest me.

You think they just paid all that money to be nice?

I'm not the sort of stupid person to shout opposing views in the middle of thousands of people. Bit like being a man u supporter shouting I love man u at Millwalls home end. It doesn't end well usually.

Er, yes it is true.
“The term ‘executive’ refers to the government: those who make the key decisions and run the country day to day. In the UK system, the party with the most seats in the House of Commons is typically invited to form a government. The government – which is made up of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and various junior ministers – is drawn from individuals who sit in Parliament, usually from the winning party.”
“The executive also holds other powers, called Royal Prerogative powers. These are the powers that are in theory attached to the monarch, but are now in practice largely exercised by the government.”
consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-executive/#executive

Prerogative powers are powers which have belonged to the monarch since the Middle Ages, but in modern times are exercised largely by government ministers. For example, The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 removed the Queen’s prerogative power to dissolve parliament, and placed dissolution in the hands of parliament.

“The Royal Prerogative is one of the most significant elements of the UK’s constitution. The concept of prerogative powers stems from the medieval King acting as head of the kingdom, but it is by no means a medieval device. The prerogative enables Ministers, among many other things, to deploy the armed forces, make and unmake international treaties and to grant honours. In modern times, Government Ministers exercise the majority of the prerogative powers either in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow.”
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03861/

This is what's called persistence in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Criminal charges could not be brought against him because the statute of limitations had passed. The civil courts were the only recourse she had.

The litigant was determined not to accept a settlement, because she wanted to make him answerable for his actions. Had the case progressed to trial, he would have had to talk (he could have chosen to remain silent in which case he couldn't have been compelled to engage, she'd have won by default, but no judgement could have been enforced. I fully expected him to run with this option).

However, if she'd won, his guilt would have been assumed. So his lawyers went through umpteen loopholes to try to get the case flung out. Those failed. Then it moves to the deposition stage, and was set to go to trial. Had that happened, there's the possibility he could have been held liable or, worse, might have incriminated himself to the point where criminal proceedings followed. I'm not a US lawyer, and unsure as to what the real chances of that were, but there was clearly no WAY that was ever going to happen.

Giuffre was determined to hold out - I suspect her lawyers were manoeuvring him into precisely that position - and said she wanted to go to court. The only way to avoid that was to offer a settlement equal to or in excess of any she was likely to get in court - ie a large sum. In that case, she'd have been compelled to accept it on lawyers' advice, or be liable for large costs herself. The deal would have been no admission of liability, as is almost always the case in civil settlements.

This is how it's known that the payout was for no token sum. It's standard legal procedure in the US civil courts; hardly a batshit conspiracy theory.

Well no, if you read what you've quoted, including the 2009 report which cites Dicey, the extent of the retained power remains uncertain.

It’s interesting that while a few people protest against the monarchy some of the European republics are now looking with envy at the sense of unity a monarchy gives a nation.

The same people who are in legal trouble for "protesting" the monarchy probably think it's right that someone can get in legal trouble for an "offensive" tweet that men can't become women.

You've linked a something, I've already linked to, that points out we don't have a written constitution.

No. People have many reasons to settle out of court, the chief one being that the only ones making money out of these civil cases are the lawyers. If it’s spend £10m while being dragged through a foreign court for years to defend your name where you might lose or pay £5m now and everyone wins (except the lawyers). Guiffre got compensated, probably for more than she could have gotten if she won, she too could have lost. Settling out of court isn’t an admission of guilt or proof of guilt. It usually happens when both parties understand that the verdict could go either way quite easily. No one with a water tight case would agree to settle. (My £ figures are random figures, can’t be arsed to look up the exact amounts again).

I bet Amber Heard wishes she’d settled out of court now it’s all said and done.

Horrifying. It's not about the appropriateness- it's completely wrong to arrest them.

Actually it says the U.K. Constitution is both “written and unwritten”. We do in fact have a written Constitution. 🤷‍♀️

Funny we could be examined on it at school. 😀

Oh, so it’s “uncertain” now is it? When before you were asserting
The monarch holds a great deal of executive power

Which is it? Uncertain or a great deal? I look at the list of powers that the monarch does not have, and theres really nothing left of importance. Certainly not enough to be called “a great deal of executive power”.

I know I'm supposed to be impressed with such "logic" - but honestly - I know you can't argue with stupid so really need to go do something else.

Executive power should have strictly defined parameters. Because it's executive power. You're happy for an unqualified, unelected man to hold executive power to an undetermined degree? Okay. I'm not.

He was arrested for breach of the peace, probably to discourage any more outbursts during the actual funeral procession.

It seems to me another example of the establishment protecting itself, even at the cost of other people's freedoms, but there's nothing new in that

The protests aren't what I'd have chosen to do at such a time, but arresting and charging them looks a lot like overkill - surely just moving them on would have been sufficient if they had to act at all?

As a republican it works for me in a way though if it does even a tiny bit to hasten the end of all this

Please explain how King Charles III is “unqualified”? Compared to say, any Cabinet Minister who actually has the executive powers that matter? Or even Liz Truss who could if she chose declare war on Russia tonight?

Lets see, he’s an Oxbridge graduate, with a BA in History from Cambridge
Hes a HM Navy Veteran where he became a helicopter pilot and commanded a mine hunting ship.
Hes established 16 charities and is president of all of them, plus patron to dozens more so has done significant work in the nonprofit sector.
He’s campaigned for increased environmental awareness for over fifty years, even starting his own organic food company

Meanwhile, we have Liz Truss former executive for Shell whose first act on becoming PM was to lift the fracking ban. Hmmm?

We both know philanthropy is not a job. So we're left with someone who has an undergraduate degree and was in the armed forces several decades ago. Yes, please someone hand him undetermined executive power!

Not a fan of the others you mention, for similar reasons. Kind of stepping on your own point. (But, thinking point: how did they get into power?)

This.

Over 90% of civil cases in the US are settled out of court. This is partly due to juries awarding enormous damages regardless of evidence, and mostly due to juries deciding innocence/guilt based on how likeable the jury find the defendant (PA would definately have failed on that). For example, an Alabama jury awarded $581 million dollars to a family overcharged $1,200 for two satellite dishes.

The actual amount PA had to pay is confidential so the £12 million was an estimate. Jeffrey Epstein paid Virginia Andrews $500,000 so it probably wasn’t anywhere near that amount.