Posted on 01/04/2025 3:40:18 PM PST by Eleutheria5
Douglas Murray, Spectator columnist, joins Americano host and Spectator deputy editor Freddy Gray. This week, Home Office Minister Jess Phillips rejected Oldham Council’s request for a government-led inquiry into the horrific scandal of grooming gangs in dozens of UK cities. Her decision has led to real backlash – with X owner Elon Musk calling for safeguarding minister Jess Phillips to be jailed, and for the King to dissolve parliament. Have politicians underestimated the strength of public feeling in the UK and the US? They also discuss the Southport riots, and ask why some politicians are unwilling to confront societal problems in the name of political correctness.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I hope the native Brit does not give up.
They can win this, because they are still the majority of the population and it’s unlikely the government will do mass culls of the people yet.
If the Government doesn’t order an independent audit, and King doesn’t dissolve Parliament as a result, it’ll be time for another uprising. Been a while since the Gordon Riots, and even longer since Cromwell.
The problem is Perfidious Albion!
That is my question. WTF is Charles Windsor? Doesn't he care a fig for his country, his people and his crowm? And WTF are Harry Windsor and Mrs. Me-Again Windsor. They could register moral indignation, be on the right side of history and take on the tree-hugging king.
if you read the transcripts of the trials that took place
you will want to vomit
it is beyond rape
it is torture
it calls for a general strike until starmer resigns
and the rapists are tried
along with any official who covered it up
Douglas Murray Takes down Piers Morgan after calling for a Ceasefire in the Middle East.Anti Israel Host CALLS For Israel Ceasefire, Douglas Murray's Response was FLAWLESS | 5:24
Aryeh Weinstein | 54.3K subscribers | 70,772 views | December 31, 2024
The King doesn’t have the power, constitutionally, to dissolve Parliament without prior permission or specific action of of the government.
If a law is not bulldozed in via the Parliament Act, or the Prime Minister asks for permission to call a general election at a really bad time, the monarch retains the Royal Prerogative and in theory can refuse assent. But that’d be like pressing the nuclear button on the monarchy, which is why it has never happened in significant circumstances over the last 150 years. So the monarch is acting no further than as a ceremonial stamp to confirm that government business has been through all necessary levels of scrutiny and oversight.
What the king cannot do is exercise the Prerogative in the absence of any preceding action from the Houses. If government doesn’t propose a bill legitimising or outlawing the gangs, the monarch can’t refuse assent on that bill.
Unlike the Presidency of the USA, our head of state is not an executive branch. The USA can be held hostage by a rogue head of state issuing executive orders while acting unconditionally; the UK can’t.
Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the Royals have no power here. The Queen made it abundantly clear that the monarchy does not get to even comment on, let alone interfere with, the business of the elected government.
I’ll believe you and pass on reading the transcripts. The only reason it’s characterized as “grooming” is because these monsters pretend to be the poor girls’ boyfriend, and introduce them to cigarettes, booze, then drugs, and then gang bang them. They keep coming back for the drugs, because they’re addictive, and putting out to get the drugs. What they do once they’ve reeled in a new fish, I’d rather not know. Evil f@#$$s.
While your point is valid, we are where we are precisely because, for centuries, reformers have insisted that we shouldn’t have an ungainsayable family or individual totally overriding the expressed will of the elected government.
The USA fighting for independence, and then limiting the powers of the federal executive, is a reflection of the limitation of powers we imposed on the monarchy.
Having Charles and family overturn the principle would in effect be like admitting that leaders for life + aristocracy / technocracy/ plutarchy / oligarchy doing the Dear Leader’s bidding is crucial to sound moral leadership.
Benign, benevolent dictatorship is better than democracy... Unless the Dear Leader becomes more like a Kim or Ivan than a Trump or a Rockefeller.
This is a save your government and your people moment. That, in theory, is what the crown is for, to prevent the suicide of the civil order.
Democrats/liberals and their UK counterparts always over-reach.
Here’s to hoping there’s enough proper voting to overcome any parliamentory conspiring to hold down Reform.
I did see where some UK pol suggested how if elections didn’t yield a “proper” outcome, the results could be annuled.
Unfortunately, Charles is a dozy idiot who is more interested in talking to plants.
The Queen had much better judgement.
However, the King and Queen Camilla are apparently personal friends and pen pals of Milania Trump. Donald should probably have a word.
This is the latest idea of the left:
That’s just illegal, seems like. But, they see Democrats getting away with it, so...
.....................
“Labour’s plot to ‘rig’ the next election by meddling with voting laws was last night described as ‘deeply concerning’.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s government is proposing to allow millions of foreign nationals to vote and abolish measures to prevent voter fraud.”
Parliament is dissolved by the King on the Prime Minister’s request.
King Charles cannot dissolve parliament on his own volition.
That changed with the Victorian era
Damn!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.