Biden pushes for police funding, more social workers with New York City mayor Adams

REUTERS
February 4, 20222
.com

NEW YORK, Feb 3 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday called for greater investments in local police departments alongside social services in
a visit to New York City aimed at projecting a united front against gun violence with Mayor Eric Adams after a series of violent crimes that have rattled
the city. Biden and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made the trip in the wake of the funerals of two city police officers who were fatally shot last
month while responding to a 911 call.

The police killings are part of an overall surge in gun violence in U.S. cities, including Philadelphia and Chicago, since the beginning of the coronavirus
pandemic in 2020.With more guns than people, the United States is by far the most heavily armed society in the world and sales to first-time
buyers skyrocketed in 2020. "We can't expect you to do every single solitary thing that needs to be done to keep a community safe. It's time to fund
community policing to protect and serve the community," Biden said.The White House and Democrats are pushing back on Republican accusations that
the party is weak on crime before critical midterm elections in November. read more

"We're not about defunding we're about funding," Biden said, explicitly rejecting the "defund the police" idea pushed by some Democrats after the 2020
killing of George Floyd, and adding he was asking for more funding for communities and community police.

Biden touted the administration's five-part plan unveiled in June that sought to stem the flow of firearms and invest in police resources. He also announced
new efforts, such as targeting gun trafficking from southern states to the U.S. Northeast and getting repeat gun offenders off the streets.

"This doesn't violate anybody's Second Amendment right," Biden. "There's no amendment that's absolute. You couldn't buy a cannon when this
amendment was passed. There's no reason why you should be able to buy certain assault weapons."

The Justice Department also announced new efforts to crack down on so-called ghost guns, unregistered and untraceable homemade weapons that
can be made with a 3D printer.

From January of 2016 to the end of 2020, there were 23,906 suspected ghost guns reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
including 325 used in homicides, or attempted homicides, a senior administration official said.
Biden first traveled to New York police headquarters to join a meeting of the gun violence strategic partnership, which meets five days a week to share
intelligence and develop plans. He will then go to a school to meet community leaders to talk prevention.

Biden's visit to the country's biggest city will be his first since Adams was sworn in as mayor at the beginning of the year. A former police officer, Adams
centered his campaign on improving public safety, and spoke enthusiastically about working with Biden. "The president is here because he knows what
the American people want: Justice, safety and prosperity," Adams said, adding he shared the sentiment. There is a reason "they call me the Biden of
Brooklyn" Adams said, pledging to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the president.

Young, poor and vulnerable: delivery riders in France are demanding better wages and social protection

12 January 2022, THE CONVERSATION

“In their ideal world, the platforms, you should say nothing, smile politely, ‘Hello, Sir’, ‘Goodbye’, climb the stairs, deliver, never fall, never have an accident,
never complain… Before, we used to be paid €5, now it’s €2.60, you can’t say anything. Go ahead and drive! And if you’re delivering warm stuff, forget
about red lights but don’t die please!”
This quote from a young delivery rider illustrates the subordination of the labour force that lies at the heart of the platform economy: an
ecosystem governed by the tyranny of algorithms.

How are these workers cared for, when they face multiple hazards with minimal protection? What are their social protection needs?

These questions are at the heart of debates around the Social Security Financing Bill for 2022 presented last September in France.

Meanwhile, in December, the European Commission released a proposal to improve working conditions for platform workers that establishes a
presumption of employee status. The proposal seeks to promote quality jobs in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights.

Young, poor and vulnerable

As part of our ongoing research into the conditions of platform workers, we surveyed more than 200 delivery riders in France via an online questionnaire
and follow-up interviews with 15 of them.

The workers who responded to our questionnaire were young (three-quarters were under 30), and their earnings were low: less than €900/month before
deduction of taxes and charges for half of them. Half of them worked between 20 and 40 hours a week, though the time spent waiting for an order is not
paid, which prevents many from holding down another job (60% did not have another professional activity); 97% were technically self-employed.

Before becoming delivery drivers or riders, 37% were out of work, and this category was most likely to have been doing this work for more than three years.
The preferred means of transport was the bicycle (37%) or electric bicycle (26%), with these delivery workers earning less than others (22% earned less
than €900 per month), while the majority who use other modes of transport, for example scooters, earned slightly more.

The delivery workers we interviewed revealed extreme economic and physical vulnerability.

One told us:

“I was hit by a pedestrian. I broke my hand. I didn’t realise I had a fracture, so I continued to work. There are many delivery drivers… who keep working
with fractures because they cannot afford to stop, or because they do not have the social security cover to be able to stop and get treatment.”
Only 31% of the riders we surveyed had have never had health problems because of their work. We do not know the exact number of accidents and
deaths of platforms workers, but riders remain vigilant and are increasingly mobilised on that issue.

A lack of social protection

The vulnerability of a delivery worker depends on the risks to which they are exposed and the social protection they may have.

According to our survey, the most vulnerable delivery workers are the least protected. This includes previously unemployed, undocumented workers and
long-term delivery riders.

These highly vulnerable delivery workers are among the 32% who said they were not covered by social security, and they know little about their rights
(25% of delivery workers who answered the questionnaire did not know whether they were covered by social security or not).

They tend not to inform their employer in case of problems (57% did not report an accident or illness to the platform). Of those who did, 61% did not
receive any help. Workers told us the benefits offered did not compensate for the loss of income during work stoppage:

“It’s no use. I knew very well that the RSI (Régime social des Indépendants) didn’t cover anything or almost nothing. I knew that the supplementary
contracts with the platforms were very low-cost, extremely low-cost contracts, and I knew that there was no point in making the request.”
The variation in the vulnerability of workers is largely due to the holes in the social protection system in France. Platforms currently benefit from a legal and
institutional vacuum over their official status, but that may be changing.

In Spain, since August 2021, every delivery worker is considered an employee. This resolution is supported in France by unions and collectives of delivery
workers, and also by the European Parliament.

A report by the Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs recently said the group “strongly believes that formal and effective coverage,
adequacy and transparency of social protection systems should apply to all workers including the self-employed.”
If the EU manages to pass legislation to this effect, it has the potential to improve the lives of millions of platform workers

The Monarchy from the Constitution Society London: founded in 2009, The Constitution Society is an independent, non-party educational
foundation. We promote public understanding of the British Constitution and work to encourage informed debate between legislators, academics and
the public about proposals for constitutional change.

Why It Matters
The Queen is sometimes thought of as merely a figurehead, but she retains personal powers which are controversial. As head of state, the Queen
represents the nation as a whole and a wide range of public servants pledge allegiance to the Queen, instead of to a politically oriented Government.
The fact that Britain is a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a Republic sets us apart from most other developed democracies and has a significant
influence on the way we think about national identity, our history and our heritage.
The Essentials
1.
The Monarch – sometimes called the Sovereign – is the United Kingdom’s non-executive head of state.
The Important Debates

Should the monarchy be abolished?

Arguments in favour of abolition of the monarchy:
• The Monarchy is anachronistic and not in keeping with a modern society – the concept of monarchy is inherently class-ridden, encapsulating the
now unacceptable idea that some persons are of a higher social rank than others by right of their birth.
• The hereditary principle is abhorrent
• The Monarchy is a waste of money
• The privileges accorded to the Royal Family are incompatible with a modern democratic society
Arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy:
• The Monarch is able to be a non-political head of state
• The Monarchy is cost-effective since any alternative would be just as expensive, if not more expensive
• The longevity and collective memory of the Monarchy is invaluable in terms of international relations and relations between Parliament and the
people at large
• The Monarch is not just head of state in the UK but is also head of the Commonwealth
• The powers of the monarch are more symbolic than real. Those public servants who swear allegiance to the monarch are in effect swearing
allegiance to the state, i.e. the community of the people of the UK.
Citizens have to owe allegiance to someone or something – either to a constitutional abstract (as in Germany), or to a symbol (as in the United States) or
to a legal person. So it would seem to follow that in the United Kingdom we can either have a written constitution, or a monarch or some other sort of a-
political head of state. When the Australian people were offered a referendum on their head of state in 1999, they preferred to keep the Queen in place
rather than creating a new role of President.
Should the roles of certain members of the royal family be reduced?
Even some of those who agree in principle with the constitutional monarchy believe that the roles played in public life by members of the extended royal
family should be curtailed. HM the Queen and HRH Prince Philip perform numerous public engagements and arguably play an important role in our
relations with foreign nations and other heads of state, many of whom hold the estate of the monarchy in high esteem.
However, the involvement of other members of the royal family in public engagements is not always welcomed by the general public. Some regard the
extended royal family as a spoilt elite, taking advantage of the taxpayer. It is not clear to what extent those feelings are based on an assumption that
the public purse is maintaining the entire extended family. The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires the consent of all members of the Commonwealth to
any change in the laws relating to succession to the throne, since change to the British head of state necessarily affects them as well.

Is the Monarchy accountable to the public for the public funds it receives?
The Queen publishes annually an account of how the money which comprises the Civil List has been spent. The Civil List is the amount of money provided
by Parliament to meet the official expenses of The Queen’s Household, so that The Queen can carry out her role as Head of State and Head of the
Commonwealth.
The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh are the only members of the Royal Family to receive a direct annual parliamentary allowance. The Queen makes
allowances out of the Civil List for certain members of the extended royal family in recompense for public engagements which they attend. So although
technically only the Queen and Prince Phillip are in receipt of public funds, in fact other members of the royal family can be seen to benefit from this
money, which some people regard as less than satisfactory in terms of value for the taxpayer.

Head of State expenditure is the official expenditure relating to The Queen’s duties as Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth.
Head of State expenditure has reduced significantly over the past decade, from £87.3 million in 1991-92 (expressed in current pounds) to £38.2 million in
2009-10. In the year 2009-10 The Queen cost the taxpayer just 62 pence per person. Since 1993 the Queen has paid income tax and capital gains tax
on her income and gains in the same way as every other citizen.

Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial
year to 31 March 2010 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £210.7 million.
Whilst the Queen has considerable personal wealth, the royal palaces are not part of her private property, but instead are held by her on behalf of the
nation. Whilst many of the facilities within the palaces are used for events such as state banquets and the entertainment (at the request of the
Government) of dignitaries, the royal family may nevertheless be considered to have exclusive use of the private facilities within the palaces. For this
reason controversy can accompany funding from the public purse for the upkeep of the palaces.

If Britain was to remove the Monarchy, what would replace it?

If Britain were not a constituitonal Monarchy, it would be a republic. A republic is a country in which all the key public offices—and in particular, the head
of state—are elected by the people. The principle difficulty which appeared to confront the republicans in the Australian campaign for a republic was
who would make a suitable candidate to take over the role of head of state from the Queen. A unique blend of diplomatic skills, political knowledge
and impartiality are required. A president would require at least the same level of staff and support as the Monarch requires in the performance of her
state duties. The question would also arise as to whether abolition of the monarchy would also lead to the abolition of state pomp (such as the Trooping
of the Colour) which is part of Britain’s national tradition.

Should the royal prerogative and the conventions surrounding the Monarchy be codified?
All of the prerogative powers noted above, both ‘general’ and those personal to the Monarch, remain part of the royal prerogative. As noted, many are
now by convention exercised by ‘responsible ministers’—that is, our elected representatives. But almost none of these powers are regulated by law: they
are not defined, confined or constrained by statute; and the courts have been very unwilling to examine the exercise of these powers. Some scholars
argue these rules ought to be ‘codified’—written down – to prevent misunderstandings. Against this, others argue that writing these rules down may
prohibit natural evolution of the rules.

1215
Magna Carta, King John accepts that he could be bound by the law.
1534
Henry VIII breaks from Rome and establishes the Church of England
1536-42
The Union of England and Wales.
1642
Outbreak of the English Civil War.
1646
Charles I surrenders to the parliamentarians.
1649
Charles I executed. Parliament abolishes the monarchy. Oliver Cromwell chairs the New English Commonwealth.
1658
Oliver Cromwell dies and appoints his son Richard as his successor.
1659
Richard Cromwell resigns.
1660
General Monck marches to London, dissolves Parliament and Charles II is invited to resume the throne (‘the Restoration’).
1685
Charles II dies and is succeeded by his brother, James II, a Catholic
1689
James II overthrown in the ‘Glorious Revolution’. William and Mary invited to become joint sovereigns. William and Mary accept the Bill of Rights, which
includes a prohibition on the Monarch suspending laws or levying taxes without the consent of Parliament.
1701
The Act of Settlement sets out the conditions by which the Crown can be held: no Catholic and no one married to a Catholic may become the Monarch.
1707
Queen Anne is the last Monarch to reject a bill.
1707
The Union of England and Scotland.
1772
Royal Marriages Act specified that no royal descendant could marry into foreign families without the consent of the reigning Monarch.
1800
The Union of England and Ireland.
1854
Queen Victoria becomes the last Monarch to give royal assent in person.
1931
Statute of Westminster enacted, suggests that any change to the royal succession requires the consent of the Commonwealth.
1936
The Abdication Crisis – King Edward VIII abdicates in response to opposition to his proposed marriage to a divorcee.
1951
Queen Elizabeth II crowned.
1953
Queen Elizabeth formally becomes Head of the Commonwealth.
1957
(Also 1963) Queen Elizabeth chooses the leader of the Conservatives (as they had no formal electoral machinery themselves) and thus who would take
the office of the Prime Minister.
2011
Female heirs given succession rights equal to their male counterparts

Official site of the monarchy

https://www.royal.uk/platinum-jubilee-central-weekend

Prince Andrew: Ruthless royals move to limit the damage BBC15 January

Prince Andrew now faces the civil court case as a "private citizen"

This was a ruthless piece of palace politics, distancing the Royal Family from one of its own.
There was no waiting to see if Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, could clear his name in court. He's already lost the use of his HRH, and his military links
have been severed.
"Brutal," tweeted royal commentator Peter Hunt. "The Windsors have shown that when the institution is under threat, dynastic preservation trumps flesh
and blood."
It could also be seen as inevitable. Rather than facing endless awkward questions about Prince Andrew's future, Buckingham Palace has made a pre-
emptive strike, effectively announcing that he will never return to an official royal role.
The royal statement, in two short sentences, moves him from 61 years as a public figure to a "private citizen".
Separate to the merits of the civil court case, from a reputational perspective this story has been like a leaking supertanker gushing out bad news, and
the Royal Family want to stop any more from washing up on its shores.
Royal historian Robert Lacey described it as Prince Andrew being "de-royalled".
Damaging the 'brand'
But will it be enough to protect the royals from the toxic fallout, in a year in which they want to focus on Platinum Jubilee celebrations?
"There is quite a lot of potential for it to taint the Royal Family overall," says Prof Pauline Maclaran, author and expert on the royal "brand".

IMAGE SOURCE, PA

The royals have faced damaging headlines at the start of a jubilee year
"From a branding perspective, the 'Andrew question' has been hanging over them for a while and it's only going to get worse," says Prof Maclaran, an
academic at Royal Holloway, University of London.
But she says the Queen's great personal popularity will allow her to stay above this - and that, if anything, it will add to public sympathy for her.
Prof Maclaran predicts the royal strategy will be to loudly emphasise the positive to drown out the negative - such as using the front-page appeal of the
Duchess of Cambridge.
Jubilee plans
"They'll try and maximise the young royals - William, Kate and their family. They'll try and maximise the jubilee celebrations," says Prof Maclaran.

The Platinum Jubilee, marking the Queen's 70-year reign, could be used to tap into a summer feelgood factor if the pandemic has begun to abate, she
says.
In terms of what happens next, Prof Maclaran says the royals will want a settlement in the case as soon as possible, rather than the "slow torture" of months
of negative headlines if it is contested and fought out in court.
Virginia Giuffre could be offered a deal to end the case, suggests a reputation lawyer
The royals have weathered many storms before, she says, and they will survive this too, not least because people can make a distinction between the
institution of monarchy and individuals who are part of it.
But the impact of negative public opinion shouldn't be underestimated, suggests royal commentator Victoria Murphy.
"Remember that it was public opinion that led to him stepping back from his royal role after that disastrous TV interview on Newsnight, which was way
before Virginia Giuffre had even filed this civil case," says Ms Murphy.
Regular opinion polls from analytics firm YouGov have shown the public being hostile to any return to a royal role for Prince Andrew, suggesting the
palace's move matches the public mood.
'Passing of time'
Gideon Benaim, a lawyer specialising in "reputation protection" for high-profile people, says: "The fact that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles is
very damaging to him, but is ultimately a good move by the Royal Family, to try to ring-fence the damage."
He also holds out a glimmer of hope for Prince Andrew.
Is it last orders for the public life of the Duke of York?
The duke has strongly maintained his innocence and Mr Benaim says it's not impossible for Prince Andrew to begin to repair his reputation one day.
The first move is to try to settle the case as soon as possible, says Mr Benaim, of the Simkins law firm in London.
"The last thing that the duke needs, and indeed the Royal Family will want, is protracted litigation where private and embarrassing details are aired in
public," he says.
A court case would mean hearing much more about Ms Giuffre's claims of abuse and links to the sexual exploitation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
Maxwell.
A settlement would depend upon Ms Giuffre being willing to negotiate a deal rather than demand her day in court, with sufficient money and a form of
words that both sides could accept. The question of an apology could be a sticking point.
Disappearing from view
For Prince Andrew, there are downsides to a settlement too, because the allegations would remain unresolved.
"Certainly it's not going to prevent some from believing that something happened, and there's no smoke without fire," says Mr Benaim.
If a settlement is agreed, the reputation expert says Prince Andrew should then "disappear for a lengthy period of time" before "very gradually testing the
waters".
"But it's much more difficult than 20 years ago," he says.
The rapid spread of information online, the polarised and extreme views on social media, make it much harder for people to move on, says Mr Benaim.
There are still constitutional roles for Prince Andrew, including as "counsellor of state". He remains one of four royals who can perform the official duties of
the monarch, if she were unable to carry out tasks herself.
He is still a "royal knight" of the Order of the Garter, the highest order of chivalry.
But Prince Andrew, unlikely to want to spend the rest of his life being seen in grainy photos in Range Rovers in Windsor, faces big decisions with few good
options.

Video X/ENS

What Happens When The Queen Dies | Vanity Fair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61JI6h423E&app=desktop