The Freeman Movement and England - Page 51

remirol · 25th March 2010, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

No, not really. Since I was in no position to answer them. Why not summarise them for us here and I will gladly reply.

Evasion noted. There's a whole thread you should be reading, starting from the time you ran away from it last time. You'll find a bunch of questions directed specifically at you. You should answer those...

Quote:

In the meantime, you have seen my last post, right ?

...before posting random Youtube fluff and unsupported, irrelevant assertions.

remirol · 25th March 2010, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

No, not evasion. Let's stick to my post.

Your post itself is evasion.

Quote:

Or, if you don't want to talk about it post some questions here from the 51 pages made in my absence.

It's your job to read those yourself. I already read them, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Get readin'.

Especially · 25th March 2010, 04:55 AM

I already have. Got any questions on what I wrote there ?

remirol · 25th March 2010, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I already have.

Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it.

Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.

VonKleist · 25th March 2010, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Sure. But first, if I may, can I ask if you saw my post above ?

Yes, I saw the post. That's why I asked for the relavant sources. I highly doubt that the youtube videos are going to reference contemporary documents, if they do, could you just tell me which ones?

Especially · 25th March 2010, 05:44 AM

Remirol,

It won't work this time.

If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you.

If you have no questions, fine.

Originally Posted by remirol

Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it.

Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.

remirol · 25th March 2010, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you.

Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?

Especially · 25th March 2010, 05:47 AM

Which questions ? I haven't been on this forum for months.

Try again.

Why not ask me some ? I will happily answer any on my posts. Or shall I just ignore you ?

Originally Posted by remirol

Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?

VonKleist · 25th March 2010, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

GarethDJB,

OK, contemporary documents. Let's try, for a start, S.I. 1997 No. 1778 (Social Security) - United States of America) Order of 1997

Made in London at Buckingham Palace.

You can see it right here at 2 minutes 36 seconds onwards.

Any comments ?

The document cited is here. This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . .

What do you think this document means?

Especially · 25th March 2010, 06:13 AM

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order.

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ? Who is actually giving the Order ? The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ? And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? It was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?

Originally Posted by garethdjb

The document cited is here. This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . .

What do you think this document means?

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

And what is the nature of the Agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order.

An Order is an Order, isn't it ? Who is giving the Order ? Since it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? And it was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ?

It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.

Especially · 25th March 2010, 06:24 AM

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.

This will be really interesting to know !

Originally Posted by Mojo

It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

As far as the document you have cited is concerned, it is set out as Schedule 1 to the document itself.

Dave Rogers · 25th March 2010, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.

This will be really interesting to know !

Again, are you really this stupid, or is it just an act?

Dave

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.

There are a number of treaties between the UK and the USA relating to social security. Two of them are actually set out as schedules to the document you have cited. Note that they are agreed to and signed by representatives of both the UK and the USA. The original agreement seems to have been concluded on 13th February 1984.

These are mutual agreements between the governments of the two countries to do certain things in relation to social security, if necessary by making legislation. Each country is expected to amend its own legislation as necessary. They cannot amend each other's legislation.

The UK Statutory Instrument you have cited amends only UK legislation, not US legislation.

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by garethdjb

What do you think this document means?

Not what Especially's Youtube video says it means.

Note to Especially - if you want to know what a document means, reading it is always a good start.

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

(Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked).

The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.

commandlinegamer · 25th March 2010, 07:01 AM

IIRC, bilateral arrangements between countries regarding social security payments exist so that workers of one nation can be employed in the other without paying two lots of tax on one set of earnings. If you feel the that foreign employees should pay tax twice, I'd like to hear your (Especially) justification.

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations.
I'm sorry, what was it that the document is being used to prove?

Mashuna · 25th March 2010, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.

(Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked).

Regards

Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document.

As an example, it looks to deal with how pensioners are entitled to benefit if they have made their contributions in the UK but are now resident in the US.

remirol · 25th March 2010, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations.

Originally Posted by Especially

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Your question has been answered. Please stop further evasions.

Mashuna · 25th March 2010, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Your inability to understand answers does not mean that they have not been provided.

But please carry on with the comedy goodness!

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document.

Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

cwalner · 25th March 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

And I have to repeat my question.

What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Just explain it to us please.

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

Especially, I have not read your links but have read the responses and they are very clear.

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations. I am fairly certain that if one looked there are similar laws on the US books ensuring that we uphold our end of the treaty as well.

This is not one country imposing its will on another, but two countries deciding that coordinatiing thier systems is in both of thier best interests, and each passing laws in its own country to accomplish that.

Mashuna · 25th March 2010, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.

I really should keep up to date with these things. I only just found out that YouTube had recently replaced Hansard.

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders !

If you had bothered to actually READ the document, you would see that this is done under the authority of the legislators, not outside of it:

Quote:

And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:

In other words, Her Majesty doesn't just get to amend legislation willy-nilly. The UK legislators provided for Her to be allowed to make reciprocity agreements. Perfectly sensible, perfectly above-board, and nothing conspiracyish anywhere here.

Dave Rogers · 25th March 2010, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by cwalner

The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations.

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Dave

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ?

Dave

Apart from that? Bollocks.

Paul · 25th March 2010, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:

Originally Posted by Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.

Quote:

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?

No

Quote:

Who is actually giving the Order?

It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.

Quote:

The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?

The text says it's an agreement:

Quote:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.

DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)

Quote:

And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?

So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.

Quote:

An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?

A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

Mashuna · 25th March 2010, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Paul

Originally Posted by Especially

And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ?

So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002:

Originally Posted by Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained.

Quote:

An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ?

No

Quote:

Who is actually giving the Order?

It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument.

Quote:

The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ?

The text says it's an agreement:

Quote:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement.

DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND:

William Marsden,
(Americas Director, FCO)

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Timothy E. Deal,
(Minister, Embassy of the United States of America)

Quote:

And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ?

So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign.

Quote:

An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ?

A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

I'm sorry, but until you produce all this information as a YouTube clip, it is not valid as evidence. Probably.

Dave Rogers · 25th March 2010, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Apart from that? Bollocks.

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?

Not disagreeing, just asking.

Dave

Mojo · 25th March 2010, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks?

Have you seen the extradition treaty?

Dave Rogers · 25th March 2010, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Have you seen the extradition treaty?

Like I said, not disagreeing.

Dave

Especially · 25th March 2010, 08:08 AM

You ask me to 'remember' ?

I wonder if you remember that the Rule of Law in this country is superior to the monarchy and to parliamentary statutes. Didn't know that, right ? Statutes are statutes and are ALL subject to the Law of this land.

So too is the Monarchy. Ever read the oath of the Queen ?

Parliaments make STATUTES. Acts of Parliament. These are all subject to THE LAW OF THIS LAND. They are NOT the law of this land.

There is a big difference.

Statutes go on the 'Statute Book'. Acts of Parliament are NOT laws.

Originally Posted by Mojo

Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.

Especially · 25th March 2010, 08:10 AM

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !

drkitten · 25th March 2010, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.

Quote:

Still no answer !

Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

Especially · 25th March 2010, 08:19 AM

A treaty to do what, exactly ?

Originally Posted by drkitten

Because treaties between the elected parliament of the UK and other states are negotiated in the name of the unelected monarchy.

Because a treaty exists on the subject of retirement planning between the United States and the UK.

Still no content. No exclamation point, because it's not surprising. FOTL never has content, just ignorance and outrage.

cwalner · 25th March 2010, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

So, why are matters related to the Social Security System of the USA an issue for the UNELECTED monarchy of the UK ?

Still no answer !

Fine, your persistance paid off and I can't evade any further. The TRUTH is that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth. Therefore President Obama was, and still is, a subject of the British Crown and is 100% loyal to the monarchy. Therefore, all US legislation is must pass royal approval before the president signs it into law.

Because they are also both part of the NWO and time travelling reptilians, this also applies to all legislation passed even prior to Obama's appointment as president.

remirol · 25th March 2010, 08:38 AM

If you have a point to make, please just state it. I'm not watching any Youtube crap bolted together by a bunch of barking nutters and spammed repeatedly by an FOTLer who spends all his time evading questions; I have better things to do with my time, such as alphabetize my socks.

25th March 2010, 04:41 AM	#2001
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	Originally Posted by Especially No, not really. Since I was in no position to answer them. Why not summarise them for us here and I will gladly reply. Evasion noted. There's a whole thread you should be reading, starting from the time you ran away from it last time. You'll find a bunch of questions directed specifically at you. You should answer those... Quote: In the meantime, you have seen my last post, right ? ...before posting random Youtube fluff and unsupported, irrelevant assertions.
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

25th March 2010, 04:54 AM	#2002
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	Originally Posted by Especially No, not evasion. Let's stick to my post. Your post itself is evasion. Quote: Or, if you don't want to talk about it post some questions here from the 51 pages made in my absence. It's your job to read those yourself. I already read them, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you. Get readin'.
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

25th March 2010, 04:55 AM	#2003
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	I already have. Got any questions on what I wrote there ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669

25th March 2010, 04:57 AM	#2004
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	Originally Posted by Especially I already have. Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it. Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

25th March 2010, 05:03 AM	#2005
VonKleist Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 684	Originally Posted by Especially Sure. But first, if I may, can I ask if you saw my post above ? Yes, I saw the post. That's why I asked for the relavant sources. I highly doubt that the youtube videos are going to reference contemporary documents, if they do, could you just tell me which ones?
VonKleist Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 684	__________________ "It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army" - Josef Stalin (attrib.)

25th March 2010, 05:44 AM	#2006
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Remirol, It won't work this time. If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you. If you have no questions, fine. Originally Posted by remirol Now you should respond to some of them. I will not be responding to any of your evasion attempts; you ran away from this thread long ago in an effort to avoid the points being made, and I am calling you out on it. Further posts from you that do not contain responses to those questions will be left unread by me and/or called out for the evasions they are.
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669

25th March 2010, 05:45 AM	#2007
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	Originally Posted by Especially If you have questions to ask me about this thread and my posts here I will happily answer you. Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

25th March 2010, 05:47 AM	#2008
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Which questions ? I haven't been on this forum for months. Try again. Why not ask me some ? I will happily answer any on my posts. Or shall I just ignore you ? Originally Posted by remirol Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 25th March 2010 at 05:49 AM.

25th March 2010, 06:09 AM	#2009
VonKleist Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 684	Originally Posted by Especially GarethDJB, OK, contemporary documents. Let's try, for a start, S.I. 1997 No. 1778 (Social Security) - United States of America) Order of 1997 Made in London at Buckingham Palace. You can see it right here at 2 minutes 36 seconds onwards. Any comments ? The document cited is here. This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . . What do you think this document means?
VonKleist Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 684	__________________ "It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army" - Josef Stalin (attrib.)

25th March 2010, 06:13 AM	#2010
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order. An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ? Who is actually giving the Order ? The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ? And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? It was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ? Originally Posted by garethdjb The document cited is here. This refers to an agreement on Social Security as far as I can tell. The USA has such agreements with numerous countries, as can be seen here. It seems that Italy got their agreement 10 years before the UK. . . . What do you think this document means?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 25th March 2010 at 06:19 AM.

25th March 2010, 06:21 AM	#2011
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Especially And what is the nature of the Agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? Since this document (as you see) is an Order. An Order is an Order, isn't it ? Who is giving the Order ? Since it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? And it was issued from Buckingham Palace. Last time I checked Buckingham Palace is in London, England. Right ? An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 06:24 AM	#2012
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown. This will be really interesting to know ! Originally Posted by Mojo It is an order amending a number of pieces of UK legislation so as to take into account a treaty between the USA and the UK. Last time I checked, the UK and the USA were different countries.
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 25th March 2010 at 06:25 AM.

25th March 2010, 06:29 AM	#2013
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Especially And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? As far as the document you have cited is concerned, it is set out as Schedule 1 to the document itself.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 06:31 AM	#2014
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 21,799	Originally Posted by Especially Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown. This will be really interesting to know ! Again, are you really this stupid, or is it just an act? Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

25th March 2010, 06:37 AM	#2015
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Especially Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown. There are a number of treaties between the UK and the USA relating to social security. Two of them are actually set out as schedules to the document you have cited. Note that they are agreed to and signed by representatives of both the UK and the USA. The original agreement seems to have been concluded on 13th February 1984. These are mutual agreements between the governments of the two countries to do certain things in relation to social security, if necessary by making legislation. Each country is expected to amend its own legislation as necessary. They cannot amend each other's legislation. The UK Statutory Instrument you have cited amends only UK legislation, not US legislation.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 06:50 AM	#2016
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by garethdjb What do you think this document means? Not what Especially's Youtube video says it means. Note to Especially - if you want to know what a document means, reading it is always a good start.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 07:01 AM	#2017
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Especially OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown. (Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked). The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 07:01 AM	#2018
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 8,218	IIRC, bilateral arrangements between countries regarding social security payments exist so that workers of one nation can be employed in the other without paying two lots of tax on one set of earnings. If you feel the that foreign employees should pay tax twice, I'd like to hear your (Especially) justification.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house. Last edited by commandlinegamer; 25th March 2010 at 07:02 AM. Reason: clarity

25th March 2010, 07:02 AM	#2019
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831	Originally Posted by Especially OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown. As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations. I'm sorry, what was it that the document is being used to prove?
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831

25th March 2010, 07:03 AM	#2020
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Especially OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown. (Sorry to repeat the question but you don't seem to have answered it when I first asked). Regards Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document. As an example, it looks to deal with how pensioners are entitled to benefit if they have made their contributions in the UK but are now resident in the US.
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	__________________ I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

25th March 2010, 07:06 AM	#2021
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	Originally Posted by Mojo The fact that you can't understand the answer does not mean it hasn't been answered. I suggest that you find out what a treaty is. Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As the document itself says, the US and the UK entered into a treaty of reciprocity which required an amendment of certain UK social security regulations. Originally Posted by Especially And I have to repeat my question. What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ? Your question has been answered. Please stop further evasions.
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 8,091	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

25th March 2010, 07:06 AM	#2022
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Especially And I have to repeat my question. What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ? Just explain it to us please. They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders ! Your inability to understand answers does not mean that they have not been provided. But please carry on with the comedy goodness!
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	__________________ I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

25th March 2010, 07:08 AM	#2023
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Especially Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders ! Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 07:10 AM	#2024
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Mashuna Well, I know it's a stretch, but you could try reading the document. Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 07:12 AM	#2025
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,104	Originally Posted by Especially And I have to repeat my question. What has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ? Just explain it to us please. They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders ! Especially, I have not read your links but have read the responses and they are very clear. The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations. I am fairly certain that if one looked there are similar laws on the US books ensuring that we uphold our end of the treaty as well. This is not one country imposing its will on another, but two countries deciding that coordinatiing thier systems is in both of thier best interests, and each passing laws in its own country to accomplish that.
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 6,104	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

25th March 2010, 07:15 AM	#2026
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Mojo Why should he bother reading the document for himself when a video posted on YouTube has told him what it means? He needs to maintain his "sheeple" status. I really should keep up to date with these things. I only just found out that YouTube had recently replaced Hansard.
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	__________________ I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

25th March 2010, 07:17 AM	#2027
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831	Originally Posted by Especially They are two separate nations. Each with their own governments. Are you saying that leglislation on Social Security is not in the hands of elected politicians on this subject but is somehow coming from the UNELECTED monarchy issuing orders ! If you had bothered to actually READ the document, you would see that this is done under the authority of the legislators, not outside of it: Quote: And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section: In other words, Her Majesty doesn't just get to amend legislation willy-nilly. The UK legislators provided for Her to be allowed to make reciprocity agreements. Perfectly sensible, perfectly above-board, and nothing conspiracyish anywhere here.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 25th March 2010 at 07:19 AM.

25th March 2010, 07:19 AM	#2028
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 21,799	Originally Posted by cwalner The laws regarding Social Security are entirely in the hands of the elected goverment in the US. However, some time after they were passed, the US and UK voluntarily entered into a treaty pertaining to how each country withholds from workers from the other country. The UK therefore had to ammend UK law in order to comply with its treaty obligations. Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ? Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

25th March 2010, 07:23 AM	#2029
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Yes, but apart from that, what has the Social Security System of the USA got to do with the UK Crown ? Dave Apart from that? Bollocks.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,831

25th March 2010, 07:26 AM	#2030
Paul Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Location: UK Posts: 3,070	Originally Posted by Especially And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002: Originally Posted by Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour) The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained. Quote: An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ? No Quote: Who is actually giving the Order? It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument. Quote: The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ? The text says it's an agreement: Quote: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement. DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996. FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND: William Marsden, (Americas Director, FCO) FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Timothy E. Deal, (Minister, Embassy of the United States of America) Quote: And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign. Quote: An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ? A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require.

25th March 2010, 07:32 AM	#2031
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	Originally Posted by Paul Originally Posted by Especially And what is the nature of the agreement on Social Security between the UK and the USA ? So that you can't claim any further ignorance, here is part of a relevant parliamentary answer from 2002: Originally Posted by Mr Malcolm Wicks (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour) The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained. Quote: An Order is an 'Order', isn't it ? No Quote: Who is actually giving the Order? It's not that kind of order, it's a Statutory Instrument. Quote: The text says it's an Order made by the UK Crown, doesn't it ? The text says it's an agreement: Quote: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Supplementary Agreement. DONE in duplicate at London on 6th June 1996. FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND: William Marsden, (Americas Director, FCO) FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Timothy E. Deal, (Minister, Embassy of the United States of America) Quote: And it's Crown Copyright, isn't it ? So? All works produced by the British government are crown copyright, it refers to the office and not the specific sovereign. Quote: An order is not an agreement. It's an Order. Isn't it ? There IS a difference between an agreement and an order, isn't there ? And what is the UK Crown doing issuing Orders on US Social Security ? A little reading before ranting would provide all the information you require. I'm sorry, but until you produce all this information as a YouTube clip, it is not valid as evidence. Probably.
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,856	__________________ I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

25th March 2010, 07:42 AM	#2032
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 21,799	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Apart from that? Bollocks. So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks? Not disagreeing, just asking. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

25th March 2010, 07:48 AM	#2033
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers So you're saying that the USA has the UK by the bollocks? Have you seen the extradition treaty?
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 27,671	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th March 2010, 07:53 AM	#2034
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 21,799	Originally Posted by Mojo Have you seen the extradition treaty? Like I said, not disagreeing. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

25th March 2010, 08:08 AM	#2035
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	You ask me to 'remember' ? I wonder if you remember that the Rule of Law in this country is superior to the monarchy and to parliamentary statutes. Didn't know that, right ? Statutes are statutes and are ALL subject to the Law of this land. So too is the Monarchy. Ever read the oath of the Queen ? Parliaments make STATUTES. Acts of Parliament. These are all subject to THE LAW OF THIS LAND. They are NOT the law of this land. There is a big difference. Statutes go on the 'Statute Book'. Acts of Parliament are NOT laws. Originally Posted by Mojo Nope. Check out the signatories to the agreements. And remember that "The Crown" effectively only enacts the legislation made by Parliament these days.
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669