GSM Encryption
in [Cryptography]
|
From: Jens Stuckelberger on 1 Jan 2010 17:39 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:53:27 +0000, Juergen Nieveler wrote: > Ohm <Ohm(a)no.no> wrote: > >> Sure there are countries much worse than the UK, all of them happen to >> be ruled by a dictatorship, which is where the UK is heading to. > > Technically they already ARE - they're a monarchy, after all. It's just > that the Queen rarely ever uses her powers. Boy, you really know nothing much about the British monarchy in particular, and parliamentary monarchy in general. Do you really think that kings and queens in Europe have the right to start telling people what to do, just as they did in centuries past? What are you, like 10 years old? It would do you good to read a few history books.
From: Frank Merlott on 1 Jan 2010 22:09 > ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly > disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. > The monarch is not a dictator. >> That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers. -- Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com
From: Peter Fairbrother on 2 Jan 2010 02:18 Frank Merlott wrote: > >> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly >> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. >> The monarch is not a dictator. >>> > > That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the > taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers. She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?), but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an election, despite any earlier sillinesses. The Police and Armed Forces still report, in theory at least, directly to her. She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last happened in 1928 or so, iirc. She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently. As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc. So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... -- Peter Fairbrother
From: Peter Fairbrother on 2 Jan 2010 02:31 Peter Fairbrother wrote: > Frank Merlott wrote: >> >>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly >>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. >>> The monarch is not a dictator. >>>> >> >> That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the >> taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers. > > She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?), > but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an > election, despite any earlier sillinesses. > > The Police and Armed Forces still report, in theory at least, directly > to her. > > She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve > Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last > happened in 1928 or so, iirc. > > She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by > Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently. > > > > As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament > there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. > > > > The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc. > > > > So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... oh, BTW, she also has the power to refuse assent to any legislation - and it isn't legal without her assent - kind of a non-lawmaking or law-refusing power. > > -- Peter Fairbrother
From: unruh on 2 Jan 2010 12:46
On 2010-01-02, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: > Frank Merlott wrote: >> >>> ??? The queen has no legislative powers. The King tried to forcibly >>> disolve parialment 400 years ago. He lost his head in the process. >>> The monarch is not a dictator. >>>> >> >> That is actually right, the Queen is only a scrounger living off the >> taxpayer's back, but she has no legislative powers. > > She doesn't have any legislative powers as such (how did we get here?), > but she does still have the power to dissolve Parliament and call an > election, despite any earlier sillinesses. Yes, she has some very limited powers. Mainly for use in a political emergency. That is hardly dictatorial power. > > The Police and Armed Forces still report, in theory at least, directly > to her.o Everything is the gov't is in her name. Good. It stops the politicians especially the prime minister, from thinking they are god. > > She can also refuse a request from the Prime Minister to dissolve > Parliament, and appoint another Prime Minister instead. That last > happened in 1928 or so, iirc. > > She could also, I think, refuse to appoint a Prime Minister suggested by > Parliament, although this hasn't happened recently. > > > > As Queen of Australia, her representative did dissolve the Parliament > there, and fired the Prime Minister, in 1975. In both Canada and Australia, the powers are in name only. The Governor General actually has the powers, and does not have to ask her permission to use those powers. Ie, the Governor General is the "representative" in name only. Again, that name only is important as it stops the Governor General from thinking they are god. > > > > The situation is similar in Canada, and elsewhere, iirc. > > > > So while she doesn't have any law-making powers ... In Canada and Australia, she has no powers. In England she has "tie breaking" powers (like the referee at a hockey match, one can hardly say it is the referee that plays the game or scores the goals, but they are an important aspect of the game.) Again, hardly dictatorial powers. > > -- Peter Fairbrother |