[Closed] who would arrest the queen?

Dangermouse

Or maybe Bananaman

It probably won't make front page news anytime soon though

Only one super hero is capable of this....Seaman. Not to be confused with Aquaman.

Tin foil is the new black

It'd be pretty frickin tricky to enforce...

the Queen is basically Gangster no.1,

what with effectively owning The Army, The Secret Services, The Police, The Government, The Crown Prosecution Service, HMRC, The Church of England etc etc, along with ruling the commonwealth and a fair few bountiful [url= http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/17/jersey-taxes.html ]offshore tax havens[/url], not to mention a wealth of shares in other business concerns... she even owns all UK citizens from birth, hence the birth certificate.

Behind her frail exterior hides a pretty convincing case for all out global badass, bling n all.

But aye, if Chuck Norris is mumbling excuses, I'm up for a challenge

No one can arrest the queen particualy not the we made it up as therapy Brussells Common Law Courts.

Ironically enough i was just reading up on this sort of Freeman madness really nice case where one gets sloted with 9 months for contempt of court .

she even owns all UK citizens from birth, hence the birth certificate.

she even owns all UK citizens from birth, hence the birth certificate.

You really will believe literally any old bollocks you get told won't you 🙄

of all the utter balls in this thread you pick up on that bit 🙂 Picking on this one is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ding ding ding ding freeman of the land nonsense alert!

I want to go beyond that and be a free animal, frolicking about the countryside in the buff, foraging for natures bounty n that

Anyhow, don't blame me when you wake up in the middle of the night and your pancreas is missing, cos Lizzzzz felt a bit peckish 😀

she even owns all UK citizens from birth, hence the birth certificate.

Yeah, plus she owns all the stamps. Licking a stamp is technically treason, you know. And she owns all the money, cos it's got her picture on it.

She only owns half of me, though - I'm dual national.

of all the utter balls in this thread you pick up on that bit Picking on this one is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I ignored all of the "arrest warrant" crap. Not even worth bothering with that.

But the "freeman" shit some people actually believe.

[img] [/img]this one?

I think I heard this one at primary school. Is it Inspector Boobs?

Yeah, plus she owns all the stamps. Licking a stamp is technically treason, you know

Monarchs have been arrested a few times in history haven't they?

Some people really are mental. The same international court bollocks recently convicted the entire canadian government of something enabling other nutters to declare a new country inside Canada. Batshit

Molgrips not really .Charles the first was defeated detained and executed but Parliament really fudged the what " is our authority to arrest point ." The French threw over their entire legal system to kill their king.

I cannot think of an occasion where a monarch has been arrested. By definition an arrest is either within the law or it is not an arrest. I suppose the International Criminal Court could issue a warent for Liz but at that level it is really starting to blur the boundaries between law and diplomacy and would require an agent external to the UK to execute it.

(Don't make the mistake of thinking I have any special clue about this)

Plus, did you know you can tell which way is South by seeing what side of her the moss grows on?

iirc UK law does not apply to the queen, all powers are granted by the monarch and cascade down from there.

It is just the way the law is written and developed centuries ago, and hasn't been updated to take into account modern principles like "no one is above the law".

There was some case a few years ago, where a member of her staff who was fired had no access to the normal legal procedures due to the monarchs status in law.

what with effectively owning The Army, The Secret Services, The Police, The Government, The Crown Prosecution Service, HMRC, The Church of England etc etc

By definition an arrest is either within the law or it is not an arrest.

I'm assuming the article is by David Compan, right?

I reckon arresting the surviving members of Queen would be fairly straightforward.

Flash Gordon says no

Only Jonny English could get away with arresting her 😉

The truth is out there, and this is definitely out there

Is this written by a taxi driver? I'm pretty sure I've heard this level of insight and analysis from the intellectual elite of the highways.

Maybe they're all sleeper agents ready to overthrow the state.

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant, Police squad.

Konabunny no it's false imprisonment.

I cannot think of an occasion where a monarch has been arrested.

I was thinking of 'arrest' in the more general sense not the modern legal sense. Simon De Montfort perhaps?

I cannot think of an occasion where a monarch has been arrested

Its unlikely to ever happen and even if guilty it would be abdication etc to protect the nation

I am reasonably sure that the Queen is quite effectively protected from being arrested on the basis of a warrant issued by an imaginary court convened by conspiracy theorists, fantasists and psychiatric patients.

I'm no monarchist, but I'd trip one of these loons over to stop him grabbing her. Heavens, I might even do it to stop Cameron being hauled away in chains.

🙂

I'm assuming the article is by David Compan, right?

Last Thursday Activist David Compan was released from the London Park Royal Mental Health Centre.

[i]Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the 'Fount of Justice', civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen's name).

In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom's national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity.

However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.

As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.[/i]

https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/HowUKandEUlawaffectTheQueen.aspx

So the law does not apply to the queen, even EU law as they would be applied through UK courts.

If Queeny and Phil wandered off with a bunch of kids, what were the huge crowd of people who usually surround them doing at the time?

If the laws don't apply to the Queen, is that also the case with Prince Charles?

I was wondering why he hadn't been questioned regarding his close relationship with Jimmy Savile...

Damn, I seem to have lost the narrative - since when did reptilians start displaying paedophile tendencies?

what were the huge crowd of people who usually surround them doing at the time?

Probably too busy murdering David Kelly to notice.

is that also the case with Prince Charles?

No it only applies to the monarch

[Prince Charles?]....
I was wondering why he hadn't been questioned regarding his close relationship with Jimmy Savile...

Possibly because most people, have a lot more common sense than you ?

Almost everybody in fact, judging by your posts on here.

Possibly because most people, have a lot more common sense than you ?

Phillip, I feel a tingling in my common sense; release the corgi's and ready the blunderbus!! Filthy paupers, wearing down our pavements!!
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/29/jimmy-savile-behaviour-prince-charles ]
Anyhoo, let not forget[/url]:

Perhaps Savile's most unlikely role was that of personal counsel to Prince Charles in the late 1980s at a time when the royal family was in deep trouble. The marriages of Charles and Diana and Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were disintegrating. Around new year 1990 Charles asked Savile to help the Duchess of York with what Savile later said was keeping her profile down.

Princess Diana was recorded telling James Gilbey on the so-called "squidgygate tape": "Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said: 'I'm just ringing up, my girl, to tell you that His Nibs [Prince Charles] has asked me to come and help out the redhead [the Duchess of York], and I'm just letting you know, so that you don't find out through her or him; and I hope it's all right by you.'"

Given the restrictions the media are under as to what they can publish, my common sense is saying there is reason for further investigation...