The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Especially said:
No, not really. Since I was in no position to answer them. Why not summarise them for us here and I will gladly reply.
Click to expand...

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...

In the meantime, you have seen my last post, right ?
Click to expand...

...before posting random Youtube fluff and unsupported, irrelevant assertions.
 
Especially said:
I already have.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Sure. But first, if I may, can I ask if you saw my post above ?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.



remirol said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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 ?


remirol said:
Yes, I have one question: Why are you evading answering all the questions posed to you earlier in this thread?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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 ?


garethdjb said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
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 ?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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 !


Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
Great. Please tell us what the Social Security system of the USA has to do with the UK Crown.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Especially said:
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).
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Especially said:
OK, and what has the Social Security of the USA got to do with the UK Crown.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Especially said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom