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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)?
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.