London again, terrorist...boom?

[GT98]

I guess the UK doesn't have law separating the armed forces from engaging in police activities, like the US does?

[Sasq]

personally nfi, but if its similar to Oz, which most of Oz law is, yes they do.

[GNEP]

I've no idea either - but probably in all cases apart from terrorism (think military presence in N. Ireland). RedRed might know.

[RedRed]

my understanding is that there is no law which specifically precludes it - its a constitutional issue more than anything else....

In Northern Ireland, the police patrol on their own in most (not all) areas now - but this was not the case even 5 years ago.

There was unnoficial regulations which came in perhaps 10 years ago which meant that the army could not stop civillians without police presence- this was after a number of people were killed by soldiers on patrol - however they still did what they wanted - how are you going to complain about a squad setting up sand bags and a trench in your front garden? by the time its investigated by the authourities, they have gone....

RedRed

[GNEP]

Having chatted to a couple of people tonight, I think my understanding is the same - we don't actually have the complete separation of army/police that constitutionally happens elsewhere (don't forget - we don't really have a constitution!)

[KvHagedorn]

So actually, if there is no real constitution, and the queen decides enough of this and decides to take charge, and the people like her and let her, then that's that, eh?

[RichL]

So actually, if there is no real constitution, and the queen decides enough of this and decides to take charge, and the people like her and let her, then that's that, eh?

I think so actually. After an election the Prime minister has to approach Her Maj to ask if he/she can form a government. It's pretty much a traditional formality but I'm not sure what would happen if she said No.

I vaugely recall HM the Queen kicking one of the Aussie PMs out of office in the early-mid 70s or something like that.

[GNEP]

Yeah, if she said "no" it's what would be called a "constitutional crisis." No one knows exactly what would happen after one of those. Adds a nice bit of spice to things

[Sasq]

I think so actually. After an election the Prime minister has to approach Her Maj to ask if he/she can form a government. It's pretty much a traditional formality but I'm not sure what would happen if she said No.

I vaugely recall HM the Queen kicking one of the Aussie PMs out of office in the early-mid 70s or something like that.

That little part of history was an anomoly. also the Queen has more power in oz under our constitution then she does over there - go figure.

It was caused by Labor being in the lower and the Tori's in the upper blocking the money bills to keep the govt running. Basically they were pissy they didn't have nice govt paid for cars.

The Gov General via the Queen called a double dissolution of parlament and forced a full Govt election.

[Gurm]

We're getting into one of my favorite topics - essentially entitled "what if the old bag decides to actually exercise her royal powers?"

It'd be interesting. To my knowledge the queen hasn't actually exercised ANY royal authority on any matter of any importance in decades.

[GNEP]

Well the old Charles marrying a horse issue caused a few laughs as they struggled around the web...