The two other answers to this question are spot on, but I'm going to interpret this question in a different way. I'm going to answer it as if the question said "Who was the first presidential style Prime Minister of UK?"
I would argue that there have been two 'Presidents of the United Kingdom': Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
For the first eight years of her administration, Margaret Thatcher was effectively 'the President of the United Kingdom'. Her administration was able to do things most post war PMs were not able to do, possibly buoyed by the large mandates she was given by the British public in 1979 and 1983.
Given the landslide election of 1997, it became almost impossible for the Conservative party to win the 2001 election, and very unlikely that would would have much of a chance in 2005 (Michael Portillo's words, not just mine). With this sort of a political landscape and public mandate, Blair was able to govern as a de-facto president, allowing him to push through parliament decisions that didn't have, not only, the public's backing but even the backing of much of the Labour party. This can be seen in Blair's decisions regarding Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.
Answer: he should tell the judge that he kicked me out one week before i turned 18 and he also kicked my 15 year old his way younger than me and he still kicked him out and we both live with our grandma now.
Explanation:
Answer:
The difference is that Justification is a social Defense and a Excuse Defense is a mental disorder or something physical wrong with them
Explanation:
Excuse defence is when the defendant admits to committing a criminal act but believes that he or she cannot be held responsible because there was no criminal intent. Excuse defences that are used in courts today are; Age, Mental Disorder, Automatism, Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law.
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the crime as defined, claims they did no wrong, because committing the crime advanced some social interest or vindicated a right of such importance that it outweighs the wrongfulness of the crime.
Answer:
Defendant
Explanation:
A Defendant is a judiciary term used to describe the individual, firm, or organization being sued or accused by the plaintiff in court under the existing law of the place, state or region, or nation where the incident occurs.
The defendant is known to have some specific rights and obligations during the legal proceedings in a court of law. These rights and responsibilities include the following:
1. Defendants may choose to represent themselves
2. Defendant may decide to selecting or retaining counsel.
3. Defendant may choose what information to provide or withhold from the defense team.
4. Defendants may decide what to plead, if they want to testify, and if they want to file an appeal.
Answer: I think that the rule is very wrong and it is very foolish.
I think that if someone is breaking the law, we should be able to provide all the evidence we need to put this thief behind bars.
If nobody recorded, how else would the evidence get to the police?
If nobody recorded, the thief can say that he did not steal anything.
The Police and the Supreme Court need to have evidence that way there is no confusion and that way there is not anymore trouble.
Explanation:
