Chomper Higgot

I don’t see anything in the article that substantiates that he has been ‘welcomed into the UK’,

Who knew?!

He’s conducting business in the UK therefore he is subject to UK law on that portion of the business he conducts in the UK. The Clauses within the Acts you cite facilitate the requests of UK (and other jurisdiction) requests.

It’s not a ‘first amendment’/ freedom of speech issue. It’s a matter of a business complying with the law by providing the details of accounts on its servers. If there is a freedom of speech issue that is a matter for litigation by the individuals who believe their freedom of speech is being denied. Musk’s duty is obey the law.

There is no ‘Party structure’. Reform UK is registered as a private limited company and run as a private limited company by its owners for its owners. People who join Reform UK are not members, they are subscribers, with zero say in how the party is run or in any Reform Policies. An added irony is the party attracts ‘rebels’, people who think the ‘system’ is rigged against them. A squabbling rabble who would have you believe they are a Government in waiting.

He doesn’t, he just needs to obey the law.

A more pragmatic approach would have been to simply change the name of the JCPOA to the ‘Trump Deal’ and leave it in place. But that would have denied the dullard the opportunity to demonstrate everything he touches dies.

A squabbling rabble, removing the whip and thereby losing 20% of their MPs in the wake of Lowe challenging ‘messiah’ Farage. And they would have you believe they are a Government in waiting.

Don’t worry, payback is coming.

You do understand the difference between the Constitution and Laws? I think most who attended Civics class do.

It’ll wind up in court.

Nevertheless, once in the U.S. the individual has rights protected by the Constitution, amongst which are those under the 1st Amendment and the right to justice. Much hangs on the term ‘possible illegal behavior’.

Putin agrees.

I think you’ll find the main reason is UK law with the ECHR ruling on a very small number of cases. Even if the UK were to leave the ECHR, which is highly unlikely, the UK would still be bound by other international treaties to which it is a signatory, example the UN Conventions on human rights and specifically that relating to refugees and asylum.

All actions by Government age vies are subject to the Constitution, the law and may be challenged in court. The U.S. is not yet a dictatorship.

Greenland’s resources, not America’s, not Trump’s not those of any of the billionaires he works for.

It would look a lot like a green light to empire building.

Seems entirely reasonable.

There is no clause in the Constitution denying rights on the basis of legality or otherwise of residence.

Patently false: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/297/

The Constitution only withholds two rights from non citizens, the right to vote and the right to hold Federal Government Office, all other rights under the constitution are held by all person within the U.S. and its jurisdiction. There are historical examples of these rights being withheld from certain groups, usually on the basis of race. Those being some of the most shameful episodes in the abuse of Government power So yes, foreign students do have the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association under the Constitution, but also infringement of constitutional rights is and always has been part of the abuse of Government power. Court cases will undoubtedly follow.

Come back and tell us if you ever find any evidence to support your loaded curiosity.

It seems Rishi is full of things he never did when he had the chance.

AKA inflation.

Or, there’s a bunch of parents who fear their children can’t compete unless they receive privileged access to small class sizes, and all those other ‘special needs students’ often used as examples of those who will suffer due to the closure of already financially struggling schools.