How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty’s Government as a whole and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?

Go on, how many ?

Good question that neal, it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking…

“How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty’s Government as a whole?”
very little and lots (it’s a paradox)
“and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?” circa 45 depending on how you count departments.

Good question that neal

I didn’t ask it, you did.

And what makes you think it’s a “good” question ?

Doesn’t seem particularly “good” to me, it’s just a question.

Here’s another for you……

“How many MP’s regularly wear hats ?”

… it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking…

Is it ?

Or is it just something that you don’t know.

So you are suggesting that means something secretive and “dark” is going on.

If you are actually bothered, how hard have you tried to find out the answer ?

“How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty’s Government as a whole?”
very little and lots (it’s a paradox)
“and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?” circa 45 depending on how you count departments.

Thanks crankboy, yet more paradox!!

Can you give me some sources to pursue please?

… it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking…

If anyone can point me in the direction of a complete breakdown of all departments of government, who they work for (including intelligence services and the Privy Council etc) and their public accountability, I’d be very grateful.

So you are suggesting that means something secretive and “dark” is going on.

This weeks news surrounding MI5 covering up for Cyril Smith and the wider scandal certainly raises questions…

Anyhow, the weekend approaches and you seem a bit grumpy neal…
maybe this will cheer you up:

Anyhow, the weekend approaches and you seem a bit grumpy neal

Not in the slightest, the sun is out and I’m perfectly happy.

But talking down to people or telling them they sound angry does seem to be your favourite way of avoiding what people say, so I’m not surprised you are doing it again 🙄

“The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not.”
Jive I read this at work and thought of you. Evidence of the establishment closing ranks ???

On a less ad hom note any standard text on constitutional law should answer 90% of your genuine questions . Simples point no government dept does nor should answer to the public they answer to their heads (civil service/executive) who answer to their minister (legislature/executive) who answer to cabinet who answer to parliament who sort of answer to or at least need to retain their respective constituencies.

How did you get on with the Book that was recommended about constitutional law ?

That would have answered the last burning question that you cared so much about surely.

Sorry neal, I’m a touch confused; this is my last burning question:

This weeks news surrounding MI5 covering up for Cyril Smith and the wider scandal certainly raises questions…

Would a book on constitutional law give a full breakdown of accountability of the various intelligence services and furthermore, any relation they may have to the military?

Sorry neal, I’m a touch confused;

That’s because you are pretending to not understand my question, in an attempt to avoid answering it.

You know perfectly well what I am referring to.

So. Did you buy the book that would answer your questions.

And if not, why not.

You claim to want to know the answers, but only seem keen if they are going to suit what you already believe.

Off at a tangent, but I wonder how the recent revelations tie in with the disappearance of Lord Lucan? There have always been rumours he was aided by other members of the establishment to flee either to Australia or South Africa, as well as being granted a new identity. Given what we now know took place at the time these stories seem less of a conspiracy theory. No doubt there are still plenty of worms to be found in the freshly opened can.

Resurrecting a thread with a Lord Lucan reference ?? Brilliant !! Much applause.

Wasn’t Lord Lucan something to do with today’s eclipse?

So. Did you buy the book that would answer your questions.

And if not, why not.

If it’s a book on constitutional law there may be a few problems trying to get to the bottom of my queries…

The intelligence services and to some degree certain figures within the political elite are clearly above the laws of the land, so even if there is a theoretical obligation within the constitution, the practical application of those laws is certainly questionable.

Though I suppose it may give some indication of who in the system would have sufficient authority to authorize such interventions by MI5 to prevent pursuing cases of VIP paedophile rings…

That is of course, unless there are other forces at work within the system such as Freemasonry, or non accountable elements of Her Majesty’s Government such as the Queen’s weekly meetings with the Prime Minister.

I’m still curious by whom and on whose behalf Fiona Woolf’s letters regarding her relationship to Leon Brittan were edited when she was appointed as chair of the inquiry into child abuse…

I’m sure it’s a very good book, but I’d be extremely surprised if it could answer that

Unsurprisingly, you keep changing the question.

The questions you seemed to care so much about earlier in the thread would have been answered in the book suggested (or the follow up questions to the author) a great offer, but you don’t actually want real answers apparently.

But you don’t seem to care about it enough to buy the book. When you get offered an answer, You just ignore it and change the question (as you have now done)

I don’t know why anyone bothers with you really. You aren’t interested in answers clearly.

People bother because it is entertaining to see what mad stuff comes out next.. well that is why I read these threads, the comedy value.

The questions you seemed to care so much about earlier in the thread would have been answered in the book suggested (or the follow up questions to the author) a great offer, but you don’t actually want real answers apparently.

Here are the original questions:

a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?

b) Does this mean that Tony Blair isn’t the only one to blame for the Iraq War?

Can you define real answers please, as I’m sure any adult knows, though laws attempt to give clarity to real world application, all too often, there is a wealth of legal jargon, which often strays considerably from practical realities, especially when, as I’ve noted above, the agencies and individuals involved have blatantly been acting outside the law as it is applied to the majority.

For example, would the author be able to give me full details of how Freemasonry affects the legal system, the military, the intelligence services and/or Her Majesty’s Government?

People bother because it is entertaining to see what mad stuff comes out next.. well that is why I read these threads, the comedy value.

it’s proper genius stuff isn’t it 😆

Thanks 😆

For example, would the author be able to give me full details of how Freemasonry affects the legal system, the military, the intelligence services or Her Majesty’s Government?

That wasn’t the question you wanted an answer to.

Obviously it is now, because (what a shocker!) you’ve changed the question again.

ffs, you quoted your own questions, and changed them, within the same post!

Sorry if you can’t keep up with real responses neal…

Quite a dynamic so and so me 😉

Quite a dynamic so and so me

So just as I said earlier then.

Just interested in asking questions and making insinuations.

Not in the slightest bit interested in answers.

Thanks for finally admitting it at least 🙄

If absolute answers were available, I would be very grateful, however, due to the nature of the legal system and the constitution, it would appear that answers are open to interpretation, which is doubtless why there is such continued debate without any definitive progress.

If there was ample transparency, there would be an accessible constitution we could consult, without having to resort to books designed to train lawyers to comply with the system (the same system that evidently several members of unaccountable elements within the government and judiciary can bypass, protected by the official secrets act)

Are you suggesting the book would provide answers which the official secrets act obscures?

Or perhaps there a simple, transparent and accessible source to answer these questions, with no grey areas?

a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?

b) Does this mean that Tony Blair isn’t the only one to blame for the Iraq War?

Or perhaps there a simple, transparent and accessible source to answer these questions, with no grey areas?
a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?
b) Does this mean that Tony Blair isn’t the only one to blame for the Iraq War?

I’m going to go out on limb and make a suggestion.

Read the book on constitutional law.

If that doesn’t answer those two questions, then you’ve been offered access to a professional to put your questions to.

you keep saying that the book won’t contain the answers you seem to need.

But basically you got a clue because you refuse to read it.

I’ve often wondered what the phrase “you can’t educate pork” meant.

It’s becoming clearer though.

I’ve often wondered what the phrase “you can’t educate pork” meant.

That being the case, there wouldn’t be much point in shelling out £25 for a book that is wholly unlikely to give any real answers…

Whatsmore, it’s really not accessible or transparent if you have to go to that effort to glean what information is available in these matters~ after all, the system is taxpayer funded, so we should have some means of assessing where that money is going, the nature of activities it’s being used for and in who’s interests it’s being spent.

With simple statements relating to real world facts such as this:

The intelligence services and to some degree certain figures within the political elite are clearly above the laws of the land, so even if there is a theoretical obligation within the constitution, the practical application of those laws is certainly questionable.

And questions such as these:

How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

And even little snippets of legal jargon such as:

Her Majesty’s Government

It’s fairly easy to surmise that the Monarch is a bit more than an extremely well paid mascot.

And that’s before you factor in the info that brought me to resurrect this thread:

So we’ve already mentioned Prince Charles’ Black Spider Memos and the Crown/Her Majesty’s Government’s continued blocking of their publication as the attorney general has said releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being neutral.

The Supreme Court is to publicize it’s verdict next week

What strikes me is this (from link above):

For 10 years, the government, with the support of Charles, has been resisting a freedom of information request by the Guardian to see the letters sent by the prince to ministers in which he sought to change policies.

If Her Majesty’s Government has been resisting the FOI request for 10 years, that would mean that there has been 3 Prime Ministers in that time and 2 elected administrations in the House of Commons (though it is arguable whether the current coalition was elected by the populace)[/quote]

So yes, this may be one of the rare times we can agree… educating pork is a tricky prospect, not matter how tangy your apple sauce

That being the case, there wouldn’t be much point in shelling out £25 for a book that is wholly

unlikely to give any real answers.

..[/quote]

You keep saying that 🙄

How do people educate themselves normally ?

A really good way, is to read lots of things written by experts and professionals in the field of interest, then form ideas based on what you read.

A really bad way, is to make your mind up based on Internet twaddle, then ignore anything else that doesn’t agree with your pre existing ideas, And even avoid reading things that may ruin them.

I actually thought you were interested in learning about stuff. Clearly you aren’t.

Answer to question a is none
Answer to question b is no the fact that the queen does not have authority over any armies or intelgence agencies does not mean Blair is the only one to blame for the Iraq war.
We do need to define our terms in regard to “authority over” though.
Try Mathew 8:9

Thing is JHJ, even if the answers don’t convince you, you will have the chance to see how the State defines itself. It’s clear you currently have no real idea what the legal limits of the “HM” bit of (say) “HMS Victory” actually means. If you actually read the book about the British constitution you’d be in a much better position to see where the elite are overstepping their authority, and where they’re actually acting within closely defined legal (or otherwise) limits. Without that knowledge it’s easy to dismiss your concerns, you owe it to yourself and those you seek to defend to educate yourself.

I don’t suppose you’ll bother, it’s probably too much effort compared to watching another YouTube video, but you should be aware that not doing so is seriously compromising your position. Know your enemy.

You may have a point mogrim, but as actions such as the 10 year legal battle mentioned above show, they don’t always operate within the rules:

Grieve said it was crucial that, under the British constitution, the monarch was not seen to be biased towards any political party, or to become entangled in political controversies. He maintained that the prince’s ability to carry out his duties as monarch would be undermined if the letters were made public because he would not be able to recover his position of political neutrality.

That is before you factor in the secrecy of the Privy Council, or the Queen’s meeting’s with the Prime Minister.

Everyone seems to be hypnotized by the mysteries of the constitution, when the practical facts are pretty plain to see

I’m sorry to say crankboy’s answers don’t tally with what is written in the constitutions of the various Monarchies for which the Queen is head of state, furthermore, instances such as Charles’ letters draw more questions about just how closely the Royals follow the rules, though no doubt their secrecy law comes in handy.

they don’t always operate within the rules:

Possibly, but as you refuse to actually learn what the rules are.

You will never know.

Go on jive one of my answers one of the constitutional rules show how they don’t tally in your own words…..

If we have to go in circles, so be it:

The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is a position vested in the British monarch,[1][2] currently Queen Elizabeth II, who as Sovereign and head of state is the “Head of the Armed Forces”.[3] Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the “ultimate authority” of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch

Australia’s constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General.

It is generally accepted that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, comprised of all ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

This applies to decision making “for the execution and maintenance” of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, otherwise known as the “executive power” provision.

The extent to which the executive government can legally exercise its powers independent of Parliament continues to be the subject of significant debate.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

The Crown also sits at the pinnacle of the New Zealand Defence Force. The governor-general is Commander-in-Chief and under the Defence Act 1990 is authorised to “raise and maintain armed forces”,[39] consisting of the New Zealand Army, Royal New Zealand Navy, and Royal New Zealand Air Force. The sovereign’s position as Head of the Armed Forces [40] is reflected in New Zealand’s naval vessels bearing the prefix Her Majesty’s New Zealand Ship (His Majesty’s New Zealand Ship in the reign of a male monarch), and in the requirement that all members of the armed forces swear their allegiance to the sovereign and his or her heirs and successors.[41] The Governor-General commissions officers to command the forces;[33] Saluting of these individuals by soldiers is, besides a sign of personal respect, an indirect salute to the monarch and her authority.

The simple answer to ‘How many armies does the Queen have?’

or

‘How many armies does the Queen have authority over?’

is:

LOTS

It’s when you start looking into who the Queen delegates the dirty work to that things start getting complicated…

So basically you can’t answer in your own words and the answer is that none of my responses fail to tally with the written constitutions you refer to . I just made the mistake of reading your comment on the other thread re the two children killed by the IRA alongside Mountbatten I am sorry but you are a tragedy exploiting scum bag and I will seek never to respond to you again.

‘There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not.”

That’s quite a strong reaction…

I prefer Orwell:

‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act’

or perhaps more relevant given your stance:

‘The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it’

telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act

Although you prefer posting pictures and innuendos.

That’s because the Official Secrets Act holds many of the relevant truths back.

Who decides what should be kept hidden by the Official Secrets Act?

On whose behalf and in who’s interests do they make those decisions?

I’m sorry, you are posting pictures and innuendos because you don’t want to risk prosecution under the Official Secrets Act ?

Tell you what you are right the Queen owns it all, runs it all, they are covering it all up Iraq was really about hussain not liking corgis and saying Charles was dim.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barbados-plans-to-remove-the-queen-as-head-of-state-almost-400-years-after-british-colonisation-10128601.html

When can we expect one of the Queens numerous armed forces to invade and sort these upstarts out?

Have they not got the script?

Dear jhj, so now we’re on page 16 and you are still regurgitating the same rubbish that you started with despite many responses detailing what is wrong with your basic premise and worldview.

Some have been sarcastic, others purely matter-of-fact but all pertinent and to the point. So much so, that even a child could understand.

Nothing has changed. Nobody takes you seriously. You are wilfully persisting in ignoring all the responses.

Why do you persist?

A definition of insanity is to repeat the same action but each time expect a different result. You are a champion in this, at least.

Speaking of people ignoring responses, it’s odd how time and again I’m attacked, yet time and again I’m on the money:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/14

I appreciate it’s frustrating that there is no real transparency on the issues I’ve raised, but that isn’t my doing~ no one has come up with satisfactory answers as to in whose interests the intelligence services work~ as an example, lets look into the case of MI5 involvement in procuring children from care homes to be raped by MPs… on whose behalf was this done?

Surely these issues require some degree of accountability, or do you think taxpayers money is well spent on such endeavors?