Many Royal Wedding Security Measures Would 'Never Fly' in the U.S., Experts Say

[nate895]

Americans impressed by security preparations for the upcoming royal wedding may be surprised to know it would be difficult to implement many of those precautions here in the U.S.

“There’s a more mature acceptance in the U.K. of the tradeoff between civil liberties and security,” former CIA agent Mike Baker told FoxNews.com. “They went through homegrown terror issues with the IRA and they were bombed in WWII , and it developed an attitude that you don’t find here.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/21/royal-wedding-security-measures-fly-experts-say/#ixzz1KD2LXqBD

A "more mature acceptance" of stealing our natural rights? Whatever happened to "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land"?

Oh, and this is from the second to last paragraph:


But the men agreed that the law enforcement community in the United States still need more authority to keep the country safe.

[eduardo89]

UK is a police state. I lived in London for two years, and while I was there they passed a law making it illegal to take pictures of policemen...And they can hold you for, I believe, 42 days without charges. Oh and you can be searched pretty much for anything. And CCTV covers 100% of central London.

[nate895]

UK is a police state. I lived in London for two years, and while I was there they passed a law making it illegal to take pictures of policemen...And they can hold you for, I believe, 42 days without charges. Oh and you can be searched pretty much for anything. And CCTV covers 100% of central London.

All of this from where "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" came from?

The UK is going down the tubes. The only thing that can save Britain from total slavery is a Revival. I really pray that it happens.

[eduardo89]

All of this from where "No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land" came from?

The UK is going down the tubes. The only thing that can save Britain from total slavery is a Revival. I really pray that it happens.

Slowly Brits are waking up. UKIP has done really well in the EU elections, and their support in national elections is growing, although they do seem to lose the vast majority of their voters to the (sadly non-Thatcher) Conservative Party. The Tories, are however, very euroskeptic, and since their in coalition with the Lib Dems, they're getting better on civil liberties.

I love Nigel Farage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTs

and Daniel Hannan, obviously

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnnBBCC7kqg

[acptulsa]

They once took 'a more mature view' of children having their hands chopped off for pilfering oranges, too.

I think the 'more mature view' was the one taken by the revolutionary colonists, myself.

[nate895]

Slowly Brits are waking up. UKIP has done really well in the EU elections, and their support in national elections is growing, although they do seem to lose the vast majority of their voters to the (sadly non-Thatcher) Conservative Party.

I love Nigel Farage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gm9q8uabTs

One cool thing about the British is that they aren't afraid to say some of the things we are here in the States. They have the aristocratic class that doesn't sling mud, but I always enjoyed watching the House of Commons yelling at each other. As for here, I joked at the WA State GOP convention that if I had the guts, I'd have booed Romney's speech. An RSC staff member told me all seriously that he'd kick me out if I did that. I joked that the opposition is allowed to boo the PM in the House of Commons, so why couldn't I boo a fmr. Governor. His response: "We are more civilized than the English."

[eduardo89]

They have the aristocratic class that doesn't sling mud, but I always enjoyed watching the House of Commons yelling at each other.

I'd say it's quite the opposite. It's the aristocratic and highly educated (Eton/Harrow/Oxbridge boys) who are the ones who are BEST at "parliamentary" insults. It's not necessarily what they say, but how they say it that makes it sting so much. You also see that sort of behaviour (although much less eloquent) in the House of Common of Canada. I definitely prefer that system of "open" dialogue to the procedure in Congress.


Just for fun here's a video of the House of Commons:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ

And here's a funny video from the Canadian House of Commons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pebkqK5LFw4

[nate895]

I'd say it's quite the opposite. It's the aristocratic and highly educated (Eton/Harrow/Oxbridge boys) who are the ones who are BEST at "parliamentary" insults. It's not necessarily what they say, but how they say it that makes it sting so much. You also see that sort of behaviour (although much less eloquent) in the House of Common of Canada. I definitely prefer that system of "open" dialogue to the procedure in Congress.


Yes, the aristocrats (the actual, titled ones) know how to offer veiled, stinging insults very well, but they don't yell like the House of Commons.

And that reminds me, Brown has the worst smile:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2971/gbsmile.png

[eduardo89]

Yes, the aristocrats (the actual, titled ones) know how to offer veiled, stinging insults very well, but they don't yell like the House of Commons.


That's because the titled ones aren't allowed to sit in the House of Commons.

[nate895]

That's because the titled ones aren't allowed to sit in the House of Commons.

Some do sit in the House of Lords. And, actually, they are now allowed to sit in the House of Commons since they got rid of most of the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords, but I don't think any aristocrat has actually been elected as of yet.

[eduardo89]

Some do sit in the House of Lords. And, actually, they are now allowed to sit in the House of Commons since they got rid of most of the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords, but I don't think any aristocrat has actually been elected as of yet.

They have to renounce their titles to run for the House of Commons. It's happened quite a few times. For example, Alec Douglas-Home, formerly Earl of Home, renounced his title to sit in the House of Commons and be Prime Minister in 1963.


He was automatically disqualified from the Commons in 1951, and stepped down as MP, when he inherited his father's seat in the House of Lords, becoming the 14th Earl of Home.

[nate895]

They have to renounce their titles to run for the House of Commons. It's happened quite a few times.

The House of Lords Act 1999 changed that.

[eduardo89]

The House of Lords Act 1999 changed that.

Ah yes, you're right. I stand corrected.

[KramerDSP]

Wow. The British way of doing things is fascinating. Especially "Question Time". But there's no way we could have "Question Time" in the American Media. Boehner questioning Obama with various members cracking up after every jab is not something I can picture.

[eduardo89]

Wow. The British way of doing things is fascinating. Especially "Question Time". But there's no way we could have "Question Time" in the American Media. Boehner questioning Obama with various members cracking up after every jab is not something I can picture.

I wish there was at least a monthly debate/panel with the President, Senate Leaders and House Leaders...