4 ms·

pity the british, whose king is already so old that they don't undrestand the smartphone... no wonder the entire government institution, from that famous hist

pity the british, whose king is already so old that they don't undrestand the smartphone... no wonder the entire government institution, from that famous historical island, is so woefully unprepared to deal with a world where the smartphone is on.

cjs_ac 3y ago
The King doesn't have all that much to do with this. He reads the speech, but he doesn't write it, and he reads it in a flat monotone so that no one knows whether he personally agrees with the government's legislative agenda. It's just one of his duties, along with welcoming foreign heads of state and opening hospitals. The UK doesn't have a fixed constitution stating who may and may not do what, it has a set of documents and conventions that vaguely add up to a constitution. This has been evolving for the best part of a thousand years, mostly peacefully, and will continue to evolve for the foreseeable future.
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  The King has a lot to do with human rights issues - it is, after all, in his name that war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed by the state are kept in confidence, away from the publics' prying eyes. It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Sovereign at his whim, and thus rarely if ever actually given. >mostly peacefully I beg to differ. Millions of human beings have suffered immense repression from this regime. You may not be one of them, and thus disinclined to observe it, but for those outside the empires citizenship boundaries, this has not been a peaceful situation by any stretch of the imagination. What The King and his flunkies want to do to the people of the UK, they have been doing to the rest of their Empire for centuries...
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    > It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Sovereign at his whim, and thus rarely if ever actually given. That is blatantly untrue. It's not because of the monarch themself - the position has little power over that kind of thing. The Aussie govt will be "advising" the crown on what decision to make (i.e. telling), and they could investigate if they wished to, and/or change the law in a heartbeat to allow it. I'm no royalist, I think it should be abolished. However, it is squarely at the whim of the British and Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility.
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      The Australian government can 'advise' the sovereign all they want - but the sovereign still has the right to ignore that advice. And, it frequently does ignore that advise - see for example the cases of Witnesses J, K, L, M .. whose trials in a Secret Star Court received no civilian oversight on the basis of the national security regime .. Convention and legality are two entirely different things. Australians cannot call for an investigation into their own military - they can only ask that Parliament advise the sovereign to allow it. > Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility. .. use the 'cover' of the Sovereign to do so.
  - sgift 3y ago
    > I beg to differ. Millions of human beings have suffered immense repression from this regime. Who exactly has "suffered immense repression from this regime"? Can you give at least a few examples for recent times? Or did you mean historical (e.g. until the abolishment of colonies)?
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      The 4.561 billion human beings in Asia whose human rights are violated every single day by the NSA and GCHQ: just one set. (Pine Gap, yo.) The millions of Iraqi citizens who perished during the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq by a criminal coalition guilty of immense war crimes and crimes against humanity: another set. The Syrian people, whose sovereign resources are being intentionally denied by an invading, imperial force, such that they cannot rebuild their nation. The children of Yemen, being genocided on behalf of a totalitarian-authoritarian fascist dictatorship by the repressive Western military apparatus controlled out of Westminster and Washington, DC. The continent of Africa and the extant interference and meddling that still occur in their democracies by 'our' intelligence agencies, protected by the legal machinations of UK's sovereignty and its operation of a regime of repression in the form of immense denial of human rights at scale. See also: the UK's own local and immensely repressive surveillance state.
    - NoGravitas 3y ago
      If we want to talk about relatively recent times, there's the forced removal of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territories in the late 60s and early 70s, certainly within my lifetime. And in 2010 the British government took further measures to prevent their return despite a High Court judgement saying they should be allowed. The .io TLD should be the national domain for the BIOT residents, but was operated for profit by a British tech company until sold off to an American company.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Oh yes. The US with it’s recent youthful presidents.

cjs_ac 3y ago

The King doesn't have all that much to do with this. He reads the speech, but he doesn't write it, and he reads it in a flat monotone so that no one knows whether he personally agrees with the government's legislative agenda. It's just one of his duties, along with welcoming foreign heads of state and opening hospitals. The UK doesn't have a fixed constitution stating who may and may not do what, it has a set of documents and conventions that vaguely add up to a constitution. This has been evolving for the best part of a thousand years, mostly peacefully, and will continue to evolve for the foreseeable future.

boffinAudio 3y ago
The King has a lot to do with human rights issues - it is, after all, in his name that war crimes and other crimes against humanity committed by the state are kept in confidence, away from the publics' prying eyes. It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Sovereign at his whim, and thus rarely if ever actually given. >mostly peacefully I beg to differ. Millions of human beings have suffered immense repression from this regime. You may not be one of them, and thus disinclined to observe it, but for those outside the empires citizenship boundaries, this has not been a peaceful situation by any stretch of the imagination. What The King and his flunkies want to do to the people of the UK, they have been doing to the rest of their Empire for centuries...
- jemmyw 3y ago
  > It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Sovereign at his whim, and thus rarely if ever actually given. That is blatantly untrue. It's not because of the monarch themself - the position has little power over that kind of thing. The Aussie govt will be "advising" the crown on what decision to make (i.e. telling), and they could investigate if they wished to, and/or change the law in a heartbeat to allow it. I'm no royalist, I think it should be abolished. However, it is squarely at the whim of the British and Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility.
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    The Australian government can 'advise' the sovereign all they want - but the sovereign still has the right to ignore that advice. And, it frequently does ignore that advise - see for example the cases of Witnesses J, K, L, M .. whose trials in a Secret Star Court received no civilian oversight on the basis of the national security regime .. Convention and legality are two entirely different things. Australians cannot call for an investigation into their own military - they can only ask that Parliament advise the sovereign to allow it. > Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility. .. use the 'cover' of the Sovereign to do so.
- sgift 3y ago
  > I beg to differ. Millions of human beings have suffered immense repression from this regime. Who exactly has "suffered immense repression from this regime"? Can you give at least a few examples for recent times? Or did you mean historical (e.g. until the abolishment of colonies)?
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    The 4.561 billion human beings in Asia whose human rights are violated every single day by the NSA and GCHQ: just one set. (Pine Gap, yo.) The millions of Iraqi citizens who perished during the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq by a criminal coalition guilty of immense war crimes and crimes against humanity: another set. The Syrian people, whose sovereign resources are being intentionally denied by an invading, imperial force, such that they cannot rebuild their nation. The children of Yemen, being genocided on behalf of a totalitarian-authoritarian fascist dictatorship by the repressive Western military apparatus controlled out of Westminster and Washington, DC. The continent of Africa and the extant interference and meddling that still occur in their democracies by 'our' intelligence agencies, protected by the legal machinations of UK's sovereignty and its operation of a regime of repression in the form of immense denial of human rights at scale. See also: the UK's own local and immensely repressive surveillance state.
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    If we want to talk about relatively recent times, there's the forced removal of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territories in the late 60s and early 70s, certainly within my lifetime. And in 2010 the British government took further measures to prevent their return despite a High Court judgement saying they should be allowed. The .io TLD should be the national domain for the BIOT residents, but was operated for profit by a British tech company until sold off to an American company.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Oh yes. The US with it’s recent youthful presidents.