Leading Spotify exec brands Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘grifters’ after podcast deal ends

HAYSIE

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/judge-gives-us-government-week-201753893.html

Essexphil

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

You are assuming the papers are presenting true facts. When, of course, they are not.

Drug use, particularly outside the US, is not a ground for automatic exclusion. Hasn't been for many years.

Canada has legalised personal use of Marijuana. Think Canadians are routinely prevented from crossing the Border?

Like most things in life, it is a balancing act. The minus would have been admitted drug use. The pluses would include that he is minted, has his own means of support, and has a Wife who is a US citizen.

Finally, it is not impossible to be allowed to remain if found to have lied on the form. But that is far, far, rarer.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

You are assuming the papers are presenting true facts. When, of course, they are not.

Drug use, particularly outside the US, is not a ground for automatic exclusion. Hasn't been for many years.

Canada has legalised personal use of Marijuana. Think Canadians are routinely prevented from crossing the Border?

Like most things in life, it is a balancing act. The minus would have been admitted drug use. The pluses would include that he is minted, has his own means of support, and has a Wife who is a US citizen.

Finally, it is not impossible to be allowed to remain if found to have lied on the form. But that is far, far, rarer.

Prince Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his memoir Spare prompted a conservative Washington DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.

The Heritage Foundation brought the lawsuit against the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) after a Freedom of Information Act request was rejected – claiming it was of “immense public interest”.

The think tank is to argue the “widespread and continuous media coverage” has brought into question whether the duke was properly vetted by the US government.

The Heritage Foundation’s lawsuit argues that US law “generally renders such a person inadmissible for entry” to the country.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/harry-s-us-visa-challenged-in-court-after-prince-admits-drug-abuse-in-book/ar-AA1cb4mz

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

You are assuming the papers are presenting true facts. When, of course, they are not.

Drug use, particularly outside the US, is not a ground for automatic exclusion. Hasn't been for many years.

Canada has legalised personal use of Marijuana. Think Canadians are routinely prevented from crossing the Border?

Like most things in life, it is a balancing act. The minus would have been admitted drug use. The pluses would include that he is minted, has his own means of support, and has a Wife who is a US citizen.

Finally, it is not impossible to be allowed to remain if found to have lied on the form. But that is far, far, rarer.

Prince Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his memoir Spare prompted a conservative Washington DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.

The Heritage Foundation brought the lawsuit against the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) after a Freedom of Information Act request was rejected – claiming it was of “immense public interest”.

The think tank is to argue the “widespread and continuous media coverage” has brought into question whether the duke was properly vetted by the US government.

The Heritage Foundation’s lawsuit argues that US law “generally renders such a person inadmissible for entry” to the country.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/harry-s-us-visa-challenged-in-court-after-prince-admits-drug-abuse-in-book/ar-AA1cb4mz

The key word there is "generally". As in, often, but not always.

There would in practice need to be grounds for a waiver. Which are given. And clearly was given if the Govt is telling the truth. And it is not for disinterested (unless you count political interest) parties to attack decisions, and try and bring sensitive personal info into the public domain.

Meanwhile, feel free to support the Heritage Foundation.

I had no idea you were a Trump supporter. A climate change denier. They have a whole host of "internal" scientific studies that claim all other scientists are wrong on a whole host of issues. You name it, they have the Far Right solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

You are assuming the papers are presenting true facts. When, of course, they are not.

Drug use, particularly outside the US, is not a ground for automatic exclusion. Hasn't been for many years.

Canada has legalised personal use of Marijuana. Think Canadians are routinely prevented from crossing the Border?

Like most things in life, it is a balancing act. The minus would have been admitted drug use. The pluses would include that he is minted, has his own means of support, and has a Wife who is a US citizen.

Finally, it is not impossible to be allowed to remain if found to have lied on the form. But that is far, far, rarer.

Prince Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his memoir Spare prompted a conservative Washington DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.

The Heritage Foundation brought the lawsuit against the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) after a Freedom of Information Act request was rejected – claiming it was of “immense public interest”.

The think tank is to argue the “widespread and continuous media coverage” has brought into question whether the duke was properly vetted by the US government.

The Heritage Foundation’s lawsuit argues that US law “generally renders such a person inadmissible for entry” to the country.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/harry-s-us-visa-challenged-in-court-after-prince-admits-drug-abuse-in-book/ar-AA1cb4mz

The key word there is "generally". As in, often, but not always.

There would in practice need to be grounds for a waiver. Which are given. And clearly was given if the Govt is telling the truth. And it is not for disinterested (unless you count political interest) parties to attack decisions, and try and bring sensitive personal info into the public domain.

Meanwhile, feel free to support the Heritage Foundation.

I had no idea you were a Trump supporter. A climate change denier. They have a whole host of "internal" scientific studies that claim all other scientists are wrong on a whole host of issues. You name it, they have the Far Right solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

I dont have to support anyone, although I might think it is a valid question.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It is important to recognise that the American approach to this sort of thing is very different to the UK/EU. America is far stronger on "freedom of information" and far weaker on "data protection".

In the UK/Europe, our balance tends to be that people are entitled to receive info about themselves, and to a lesser extent Government, but not to allow other individual's information, particularly sensitive info, to be disclosed.

I can see the merit in forcing the US Government to state that Harry did not lie on his application form. But, other than that, it is outrageous that people's applications should be subject to public scrutiny in this way.

Were the US Courts ever to force this info to be disclosed, then every worldwide business would be forced to take steps not to store any information relating to UK/EU individuals in the USA.

Which is never going to happen.

I suppose that the majority of US visa applicants dont write best selling books.
The difficulty in this case is obvious.
He either completed his visa application honestly, in which case his application should have failed.
Or he completed the application dishonestly, and the visa should be revoked.

It doesn't work like that, at least in this country.

If someone's claim is refused, that individual has an appeals process.

But if he is accepted, some random outfit in no way involved in the process does not have the right to poke around.

A decision, rightly or wrongly, was made. And, with the possible exception of fraud by Harry, that's that.

He has no convictions for drug use. It would most certainly not be automatic that his application would be refused.

The point they are making that the visa application has a question on drug taking.
Admitting to drug use should exclude the applicant.
Subsequent to completing his application his book was published, and his Netflix series aired, as well as a number of live interviews.
He has admitted to the drug use on a number of occasions, in the book, as well as in some of the interviews.

Therefore, the obvious questions that follow are, did he complete his application honestly, in which case why was his application successful, or if he was dishonest on his application, why hasnt it been revoked.

I suppose the point is whether there is one rule for us, and another for them.

Harry seems to be proving that he is not very good at joined up thinking.

You are assuming the papers are presenting true facts. When, of course, they are not.

Drug use, particularly outside the US, is not a ground for automatic exclusion. Hasn't been for many years.

Canada has legalised personal use of Marijuana. Think Canadians are routinely prevented from crossing the Border?

Like most things in life, it is a balancing act. The minus would have been admitted drug use. The pluses would include that he is minted, has his own means of support, and has a Wife who is a US citizen.

Finally, it is not impossible to be allowed to remain if found to have lied on the form. But that is far, far, rarer.

Prince Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his memoir Spare prompted a conservative Washington DC think tank to question why he was allowed into the US in 2020.

The Heritage Foundation brought the lawsuit against the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) after a Freedom of Information Act request was rejected – claiming it was of “immense public interest”.

The think tank is to argue the “widespread and continuous media coverage” has brought into question whether the duke was properly vetted by the US government.

The Heritage Foundation’s lawsuit argues that US law “generally renders such a person inadmissible for entry” to the country.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/harry-s-us-visa-challenged-in-court-after-prince-admits-drug-abuse-in-book/ar-AA1cb4mz

The key word there is "generally". As in, often, but not always.

There would in practice need to be grounds for a waiver. Which are given. And clearly was given if the Govt is telling the truth. And it is not for disinterested (unless you count political interest) parties to attack decisions, and try and bring sensitive personal info into the public domain.

Meanwhile, feel free to support the Heritage Foundation.

I had no idea you were a Trump supporter. A climate change denier. They have a whole host of "internal" scientific studies that claim all other scientists are wrong on a whole host of issues. You name it, they have the Far Right solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

US government blocks release of Prince Harry’s visa records


Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, said the response “shows an appalling lack of transparency by the Biden Administration” and vowed to battle on.

He added: “The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to stonewall the Heritage Foundation’s Freedom of Information request are unacceptable, and we will be contesting their position.”

The Heritage Foundation brought the legal case after the Duke of Sussex detailed his use of cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his memoir, Spare.

In court last week, the Heritage Foundation’s lawyers questioned “whether DHS properly admitted the Duke of Sussex in light of the fact that he has publicly admitted to the essential elements of a number of drug offences in both the United States and abroad.”

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/us-government-blocks-release-prince-032909455.html

Essexphil

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

It doesnt appear to be over yet.
I didnt realise that he had admitted to drug taking in the US.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

It doesnt appear to be over yet.
I didnt realise that he had admitted to drug taking in the US.

He hasn't.

All that is required is to admit illegal drug-taking, anywhere.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

It doesnt appear to be over yet.
I didnt realise that he had admitted to drug taking in the US.

He hasn't.

All that is required is to admit illegal drug-taking, anywhere.

He apparently mentioned it in his book.



In court last week, the Heritage Foundation’s lawyers questioned “whether DHS properly admitted the Duke of Sussex in light of the fact that he has publicly admitted to the essential elements of a number of drug offences in both the United States and abroad.”

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

It doesnt appear to be over yet.
I didnt realise that he had admitted to drug taking in the US.

He hasn't.

All that is required is to admit illegal drug-taking, anywhere.

He apparently mentioned it in his book.



In court last week, the Heritage Foundation’s lawyers questioned “whether DHS properly admitted the Duke of Sussex in light of the fact that he has publicly admitted to the essential elements of a number of drug offences in both the United States and abroad.”

That does not necessarily mean that.

They are primarily arguing that his admissions would amount to an offence if they had happened in the US, and would also be an offence in the country they actually took place (the UK).

It's not just the USA where sophistry takes place...

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

It was always going to end that way.

People need to be able to disclose stuff to the Authorities, safe in the knowledge that that info will only be disclosed in tightly-controlled circumstances, such as criminal prosecutions.

Nothing to do with Biden. Everything to do with mischief-making

It doesnt appear to be over yet.
I didnt realise that he had admitted to drug taking in the US.

He hasn't.

All that is required is to admit illegal drug-taking, anywhere.

He apparently mentioned it in his book.



In court last week, the Heritage Foundation’s lawyers questioned “whether DHS properly admitted the Duke of Sussex in light of the fact that he has publicly admitted to the essential elements of a number of drug offences in both the United States and abroad.”

That does not necessarily mean that.

They are primarily arguing that his admissions would amount to an offence if they had happened in the US, and would also be an offence in the country they actually took place (the UK).

It's not just the USA where sophistry takes place...

This does.

Prince Harry is facing a 'serious problem' after confessing he took drugs on US soil
Prince Harry described taking drugs in the US in his tell-all memoir Spare, prompting headlines but also questions about the Duke's visa, which an expert has addressed.



https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1750425/prince-harry-took-drugs-US-visa-dxus

Essexphil

The Express does not understand how the US legal systems (plural) work.

It is necessary to split federal & state law. Because they are very different.

At Federal level, various drug taking are regarded as criminal offences. And, when it comes to Immigration, Federal Law trumps State Law. Consequently, the correct answer to "have you taken illegal drugs" in this case would be "Yes". If Harry had said otherwise, he is in big trouble.

However, that does not mean that Harry has committed criminal offences, provided he said "yes" above. Courtney Cox lives in California. As I understand it (and I may be wrong-this is not legal advice), personal consumption within defined limits of both marijuana and psilocybin (the active ingredient in shrooms) is currently perfectly legal in the State of California.

It should also be noted that Harry lives in California.

There are lots of people who quote stuff from decades ago and try and pretend the law doesn't change. But it does.

The differing approaches between the different States makes the question of drug taking a far more nuanced question than it was in the 1970s.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

The Express does not understand how the US legal systems (plural) work.

It is necessary to split federal & state law. Because they are very different.

At Federal level, various drug taking are regarded as criminal offences. And, when it comes to Immigration, Federal Law trumps State Law. Consequently, the correct answer to "have you taken illegal drugs" in this case would be "Yes". If Harry had said otherwise, he is in big trouble.

However, that does not mean that Harry has committed criminal offences, provided he said "yes" above. Courtney Cox lives in California. As I understand it (and I may be wrong-this is not legal advice), personal consumption within defined limits of both marijuana and psilocybin (the active ingredient in shrooms) is currently perfectly legal in the State of California.

It should also be noted that Harry lives in California.

There are lots of people who quote stuff from decades ago and try and pretend the law doesn't change. But it does.

The differing approaches between the different States makes the question of drug taking a far more nuanced question than it was in the 1970s.

I am sure things are more complicated over there.
Although the point they seem to be trying to establish is whether he lied on the form, and if not, why he was treated as a special case.

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

The Express does not understand how the US legal systems (plural) work.

It is necessary to split federal & state law. Because they are very different.

At Federal level, various drug taking are regarded as criminal offences. And, when it comes to Immigration, Federal Law trumps State Law. Consequently, the correct answer to "have you taken illegal drugs" in this case would be "Yes". If Harry had said otherwise, he is in big trouble.

However, that does not mean that Harry has committed criminal offences, provided he said "yes" above. Courtney Cox lives in California. As I understand it (and I may be wrong-this is not legal advice), personal consumption within defined limits of both marijuana and psilocybin (the active ingredient in shrooms) is currently perfectly legal in the State of California.

It should also be noted that Harry lives in California.

There are lots of people who quote stuff from decades ago and try and pretend the law doesn't change. But it does.

The differing approaches between the different States makes the question of drug taking a far more nuanced question than it was in the 1970s.

I am sure things are more complicated over there.
Although the point they seem to be trying to establish is whether he lied on the form, and if not, why he was treated as a special case.

I believe the first part is a valid question. The second is nobody else's business.

Essexphil

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

The Express does not understand how the US legal systems (plural) work.

It is necessary to split federal & state law. Because they are very different.

At Federal level, various drug taking are regarded as criminal offences. And, when it comes to Immigration, Federal Law trumps State Law. Consequently, the correct answer to "have you taken illegal drugs" in this case would be "Yes". If Harry had said otherwise, he is in big trouble.

However, that does not mean that Harry has committed criminal offences, provided he said "yes" above. Courtney Cox lives in California. As I understand it (and I may be wrong-this is not legal advice), personal consumption within defined limits of both marijuana and psilocybin (the active ingredient in shrooms) is currently perfectly legal in the State of California.

It should also be noted that Harry lives in California.

There are lots of people who quote stuff from decades ago and try and pretend the law doesn't change. But it does.

The differing approaches between the different States makes the question of drug taking a far more nuanced question than it was in the 1970s.

I am sure things are more complicated over there.
Although the point they seem to be trying to establish is whether he lied on the form, and if not, why he was treated as a special case.

I believe the first part is a valid question. The second is nobody else's business.

To expand upon that, there has to be a balance between the rights of an individual, the rights of the state, and the rights of anyone else.

Let me use an English immigration example.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, once certain time periods have elapsed, for the vast majority of sentences, the person is to be treated as though they had never committed a crime. More than that, it is a Criminal Offence to refer to someone's "spent" convictions.

There are exceptions to that. 1 of which is Immigration. Where, for that purpose, the offence is never "spent". But it would still be a Criminal Offence to divulge that to people outside the immigration system

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

Essexphil said:

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

The Express does not understand how the US legal systems (plural) work.

It is necessary to split federal & state law. Because they are very different.

At Federal level, various drug taking are regarded as criminal offences. And, when it comes to Immigration, Federal Law trumps State Law. Consequently, the correct answer to "have you taken illegal drugs" in this case would be "Yes". If Harry had said otherwise, he is in big trouble.

However, that does not mean that Harry has committed criminal offences, provided he said "yes" above. Courtney Cox lives in California. As I understand it (and I may be wrong-this is not legal advice), personal consumption within defined limits of both marijuana and psilocybin (the active ingredient in shrooms) is currently perfectly legal in the State of California.

It should also be noted that Harry lives in California.

There are lots of people who quote stuff from decades ago and try and pretend the law doesn't change. But it does.

The differing approaches between the different States makes the question of drug taking a far more nuanced question than it was in the 1970s.

I am sure things are more complicated over there.
Although the point they seem to be trying to establish is whether he lied on the form, and if not, why he was treated as a special case.

I believe the first part is a valid question. The second is nobody else's business.

To expand upon that, there has to be a balance between the rights of an individual, the rights of the state, and the rights of anyone else.

Let me use an English immigration example.

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, once certain time periods have elapsed, for the vast majority of sentences, the person is to be treated as though they had never committed a crime. More than that, it is a Criminal Offence to refer to someone's "spent" convictions.

There are exceptions to that. 1 of which is Immigration. Where, for that purpose, the offence is never "spent". But it would still be a Criminal Offence to divulge that to people outside the immigration system

I believe in fairness.
I think it a reasonable question for the authorities.
Did he lie on his application form, or was an exception made of him.