Which Member Of Royalty Can't Be Prosecuted? | QI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- You can now watch every full episode of QI, including this one, on iPlayer! ▶ qi.com/iplayer
Follow QI on Twitter ▶ / qikipedia
Follow QI on TikTok ▶ / theqielves
Follow QI on Facebook ▶ / officialqi
Follow QI on Instagram ▶ / theqielves
Subscribe on RUclips ▶ / theqielves
For more visit ▶ qi.com
This clip is from QI Series O, Episode 12, 'The Occult' with Sandi Toksvig, Alan Davies, Aisling Bea, Russell Brand and Noel Fielding.
It’s hilarious that the judge actually went through the process of establishing law in this ridiculous lawsuit! 😂
May be the judge knows he has to put a stop to this right then and there, and had to do it properly to stop it, or this kind of farce would simply keep repeating itself.
@@berniethekiwidragon4382 Exactly. He wanted to give an actual reason for dismissing the suit. Besides, it's the sort of thing law students like to argue about.
@@MegaFortinbras Yep. Setting a precedent for future references. Seeing all the frivolous law suits in the US today, I can see he was right, even believe that he saw it coming.
@@MegaFortinbrasWhat's wrong with "Satan either doesn't exist, or if he does his address is unknown."
@@berniethekiwidragon4382 The idea of mass frivolous lawsuits is so far as I can tell mostly myth due to propaganda.
Typically from politicians who want to make it harder for poorer people to protect themselves or get compensation via the law. They have consistently exaggerated the extent of these lawsuits, as well as specific cases that in reality weren't frivolous.
They exist of course, but not on a meaningful scale.
So the answer “Prince Andrew” was right!
To be fair, there has never been a criminal case against him.
@@atri-us Throwing millions and millions of £ at someone 'whom I have never met' stops a lot of cases from proceeding.
@@Tao_Tology that was a civil case.
Diplomatic immunity he went toi the state's he would be arrested. Only thing I know nobody can be arrested in the presence of a serving queen of king
Isn't it quite the opposite? I thought sexual abuse was rather common amongst saints and priests.
Why I find interesting about the concept of "devil's advocate" as a job, is that was probably one of the earliest forms of accountability in a democratised system.
Like when you think about it, a lot of honours and promotions and titles were bestowed either on relation to those in power or based on the weakest of merit.
So having someone to argue against your gain means that whoever is arguing for has to make a stronger case.
Hitches was one of the last to do it against Mother Theresa.
It may be why they did away with the practice.
He was too convincing.
@yt.personal.identification Hitchens never worked for the Vatican. Pope John Paul dismissed what he wrote as slander.
No, the canonizations JPII did that I don't like are what's-his-name, the founder of Opus Dei. Also Edith Stein and Maximillion Kolbe, both of whom the pope called martyrs. Stein (whose writing was the background to JPII's own doctoral dissertation) was sent to Auschwitz as a Jew. Kolbe's death was an act of self-sacrifice, but he wasn't a martyr either.
@@MegaFortinbras Don't take my word for it.
There is video evidence.
@@MegaFortinbras He didn't get paid. That's why he called himself "the only person who represented the Devil pro bono”
There was also pushback within the church for sainting a kid who died a few years ago after all the charity work he'd done
Dubbed "the first saint of the 21st century", the saint of the internet and goodwill
“I often feel like I’m on magic mushrooms trapped in the world of leather armchairs.” - Noel Fielding, “The Mighty Boosh Live: Future Sailors Tour” (2008-09)
This was a great panel. Must have been a great episode. Aisling is dressed like a fast food worker from the 80's. At least an 80's fast food worker here in the States. I'm not sure how they looked in the UK.
EDIT: No joke, Google image search 80's fast food worker.
Lmao. The red and white stripes are almost identical!
I Googled it, you weren't joking.
'google search' ?
How plebian.
@@Tao_Tology Let me guess, patricians use Bing?
Yes! 😂
This is true. I am a lawyer in the U.S., and this was in our textbook in regards to the need for personal service before asking a court to take personal jurisdiction over an individual.
I'd think lucifer couldn't be charged, as he's just following orders of the christian god, so really it's the chrstiain god that would need to be tried, not satan.
In other words there is no money in it you are paid on percentages of the award which can be sold to debt collection agency for. Penny in the pound buy Devil no pay up.
I've also seen an argument that it would be impossible to prosecute the Devil, because even if you could serve His Infernal Majesty with a subpoena, who would you have for the jury? He either has no peers, or any such peers would be obviously be on his side.
Thus, by extension, it's impossible to try witches for being an accessory to the Devil, because an accessory can't be convicted without convicting the principal.
As a fallen angel, perhaps the other angels could serve as finders of fact. Small point: I believe it would be His Infernal Highness, as he is a prince, not a monarch. And I do not believe that convicting the principal is required to be an accessory; the theory would be that it can be demonstrated that the defendant "had something to do with it" even though not guilty as a principle themselves.
No problem in New York.
@@readmylispwell, he‘s the Devil, he isn‘t a ham sandwich
"So... Mr Michael, do you have any preconceptions about Mr Lucifer?"
"I don't like him. We get into arguments and I had a fight with him."
...
"Due to a prejudice against Mr Lucifer, #0001 has been struck from the Jury. Please send in #0014 Mr Gabriel."
"Peers" in a jury are just people drawn from the same state and federal district. If you file a suit in Western PA, and it goes to a jury trial, the jury must also be selected from Western PA. This is pretty much always possible, except in the parts of Yellowstone that are not in Wyoming, which is just an unusual error by Congress.
Obviously Satan lives at 666 Good Intentions Road, Frozen Lake, Ninth Circle, Hell. They just couldn’t be bothered to serve him the papers lol
As has become apparent recently, US Courts do have procedures to deal with somebody who persistently refuses service. I know of cases where this has come up. The person alleged to have refused service was real, and paying a lawyer to argue their claim that the suit against them was built on malicious lies.
@@davebell4917 You still have to make a good faith attempt at proper service (usually multiple attempts), and you still need another way of making sure the person has actual knowledge of the pending litigation. Since Satan is not necessarily omniscient, there is no way to tell if he has actual knowledge of the suit, and since he doesn't seem to live anywhere on Earth, it's impossible to serve him. The response is that Satan is in fact amok all over the world, and therefore clearly he knows. However, he still might have diplomatic or sovereign immunity.
People have also tried to sue God before, and they have run into similar problems. What I really wonder though is their plan if they win. Do they think God will pay their legal costs?
That address is probably outside of the US Postal Service's delivery range. An officer of the court may be willing to go there, however.
@@lhfirex You can't usually mail a summons. Normally, someone employed by the state has to personally hand-deliver it, such as a police officer or an agent employed just for that purpose (can't remember what they're called). Only after multiple failed attempts can you serve them in some other manner. Of course, it depends on the state.
@@lhfirex
Every address outside US territory is outside the US Postal Service's delivery range - and outside the jurisdiction of any and all US courts.
The summons would need to be served by a (private?) 'process server' who has authority to act within the jurisdiction of 'Hell'.
There was an episode of Magic Roundabout where Ermintrude the cow found these pills that made her fly.
Why do these clips NEVER have closed captioning enabled. My mother is deaf but LOVES this show. It's so sad that she can't watch them. GOOD JOB!! *slow clap*
You could always download the clip and add your own captions.
After the official permanent position of Devil's Advocate was formally abolished, Christopher Hichens took on the role of Devil's Advocate, arguing against the cannonisation of Mother Teresa. This occurred well after the abolition of the paid position, and so he represented the devil pro bono.
This was actually on the invitation of the Church.
Russell Brand must be wanting immunity from prosecution
Surely they could have gotten the firm of Blazing Apostles, LLC to deliver the summons - it's their specialty. They've even got albums of redemptions and confessions on cassette, all on easy hire from the following address: Blazing Apostles, Flat 99, South Revelation Row...
i like when you read the title and can just hear the claxon going off
Noel missed a trick there. ‘Santa’ would have made a better joke
Man: "i want satan to face court"
Satan: "fine...fine...good luck finding a lawyer :)"
Man: I have a dozen lawyers on retainer!
Satan: I have several million lawyers on a rack, on a wheel, on a crucifix....
I thought only the Monarch couldn't be brought to trial, since the courts are held in the monarch's name. Andrew couldn't be arrested in the presence of the Monarch.
Cromwell disagrees
Not every nation has a monarch - eg the USA, where the litigation took place.
(Trump seems intent on proving that a former POTUS can't be / shouldn't be prosecuted. 🤣
@@trueaussie9230 one of many crimes Andrew had dodgy relations in the UK as well.
@@andrewmartin2103
What?!?
@@trueaussie9230kings guards arrested him not police.
Devils Advocate would have almost certainly prevented the canonization of Teresa of Calcutta.
Christopher Hitchens was invited by the Church to play the role of Devils' Advocate.
The last devil's advocate was late Christopher Hitchens in 2003 against Mother Teress sainthood
Okay I can't remember the episode, I live in America and so have to watch whatever I can find on RUclips. However, I remember watching an episode in which Sandi says that CD's are technically superior to vinyl records because the digital recording on the CD has a greater range than on vinyl and that because a CD uses lasers you dont get the mechanical feedback that you get with analog records. I would argue that because music is art, you can only determine its effects through subjective means. I have brought people to tears by playing a vinyl record on my fancy sound system. That would not have happened if I simply put in a CD and played a track. The other consideration is vacuum tubes. I probably read this on Wikipedia so I cant site the source. But, I recall reading something that correlated the perceived superiority of vinyl to it being historically listened to on 1. High end sound systems and 2. the effect passing the sound through a vacuum tube had, it supposedly gives it a "richer' and "fuller" sounds.
So perhaps the quality of music that we hear isn't directly tied to how technically specific that music is presented. Perhaps the quality of music is tied to how we perceive it, how it affects us. It is art.
No, you could replicate those effects perfectly with a CD. The human ear wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
@@c_n_b The human ear wouldn't be able to tell the difference. i can .
I suspect someone has already pointed this out. It would be practically impossible to prosecute Satan, because no court could find a lawyer willing and able to do it.
Conflict of interests ~nods~
At 0:30 I thought I heard Neil out of the Young Ones going "Helloooo...."
"It's going to be something with horns...."
She already said Prince Andrew.
I was expecting the answer to be the Monarch, as they are "the font of justice" from which the power of law flows. Much like the Monarch does not need a UK passport because all UK passports are issued in his name.
It would certainly be a very odd case, as it would be the Crown vs the King.
of course it has happened when Charles I was tried for treason
@@fredrikkirderf2907 - I believe that at that point, Charles I had already been deposed and Cromwell was in charge.
@@TechBearSeattle nope at that point Cromwell was still just an MP (and general) Parliament would rule as sovereign and would eventually declare himself Protector.
This wasn't even the first time a king was brought to trial as Edward II and Richard II had been told to abdicate by parliament (albeit at the behest of new monarchs).
Only in America would "He isn't real" *not* be the primary issue with prosecuting Satan.
Well he is real. He runs a night club and solves crimes.
@@dannykent6190and he’s hot
Because in the US we have a lot of judges who fully think he IS real, including our supreme court justices. The late justice Antonin Scalia got upset at a reporter for being incredulous when he said he believed satan was real (physically real, walking around somewhere).
Are you saying only in the US would the system refrain from relying on a statement which can't be proved as grounds for dismissal? I happen to agree Satan isn't real - but do feel free to prove it.
Only in America, maybe. But if a lawsuit could be dismissed just because someone says the defendant isn't real, that would effectively be the end of jurisprudence.
Can anyone tell me what episode this is please? I can't seem to find it on iPlayer!
The Devil's Advocate was simply reduced in power by John Paul II, not abolished. A recent example is Christopher Hitchens, who was called to testify against Mother Teresa's sainthood.
In Washington, according to him
Good knowledge that Christopher Hitchens was a legitimate Devil's Advocate (and not just playing it )
I'm definitely on Mayo's side, if Satan himself is screwing with your life, it must be fairly harsh.
“The devil’s greatest trick is convincing the sector he doesn’t exist.” - Charles Baudelaire (9 April 1821 - 31 August 1867)
There was a movie made on similar principles starring Billy Connolly, called The Man Who Sued God. It's not the best movie in the world but it's lighthearted fun. The premise was that insurance companies were using the 'acts of God' clause to avoid paying out for damages, so the plaintiff sued God, and because God as a concept was defined by theistic faiths, the Churches were directly on the hook for God's deeds. If that logic has any real-life bearing, I can understand why anyone, especially Americans, would throw such a case out; after all, Satan, like God, is their concept, and I'm sure no judge would be caught dead letting any suit against a church in American court come to trial.
I wish they would add cc to these.
Satan and his staff? Can just imagine a partitioned office space with lesser demons in business suits typing away on their keyboards, talking to someone on their headsets, while Satan watches them through the window of his personal office holding a mug of steaming hot coffee.
Christopher Hitchen's was asked to be effectively The Devil's Advocate when Mother Teresa was beatified. They still have the practice, they just don't call it that any more.
Subtitles for those of us who are hard of hearing would be helpful.
Interestingly you can successfully sue god since a church counts as his address to serve the summons (this is a thing that actually happened)
This episode must've happened in the small window of time between Prince Andrew's cancelling and Russell Brand's
I mean, I think Andrew is technically correct as well...
But Andrew *has* been prosecuted ... he settled out of court.
@@phillwainewright4221 He was never prosecuted. He has been accused of various offences and he has been sued, but never officially prosecuted by the legal system.
Oh, fictional characters can't be sued?
Who gets to decide who is fictional? (I'm an atheist, but I don't like the idea of the state deciding whether gods and devils are real.)
Closed Captioning mis missing, please enable for deaf and hard of hearing people. Thnx
Reminds me of Ardra
Star Trek nerds will get that one 🤓
I'm not sure that Alan is the best person to criticize someone else for repeating what has just been said by another panelist.
1:02 when you hit 100 hrs of playtime in DRG
John Paul II: now a saint! Can't imagine that the devil's advocate would have ANY argument against him.
Hitchens was one if the last Devil's Advocates.
Appropriately.
Still no CC on this channel 😞🙄
😂😂best lawyers are in hell off course😂😂😂😂😂
Royals? Oh, I got this one! Lorde!
Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t it also impossible to prosecute the monarch of the United Kingdom? When the judges deliver a verdict they always say something like "In the name of Her/His Majesty".
Russell Brand, eh? Whatever happened to him?
Politics lmao. From what I know he got clean and went the new age spirituality youtuber way but truth-seeking and anti establishment thinking led him to find his audience in Trump suporters so that's all the bs he talks about now...
He’s waffling on about UFOs and all that shit now.
It was so nice to see him… and not hear him.
The devil is royalty? I’ve heard of the price of darkness but I don’t know whether or not that makes him regal?!
Btw , shock that this happened in America
He is a prince of hell.
So, adam_p99, you don't think people should be allowed to initiate lawsuits without approval from an established state authority. Of course, rich folk and government agents will be exempted from this rule.
@@davidhoward4715 i honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.
Russel Brand is a very ambitious supporter of Tucker Carlson...just fyi.
All of them
The monarch cannot be prosecuted for a crime because all Justice descends from them. So Charles. There, that’s the actual real world answer.
Put the chuffing subtitles on!
The Devil was put on trial, found guilty, and blinded.
The cartoonish "Satan" however...
how was the fact that the ruling monarch of the UK is immune from all forms of prosecution not mentioned?
I think they had a big claxon ready for whoever said that. (And if it had been true then they'd have mentioned it I think). Of course, QI often talks bollocks, so it isn't impossible that you're right.
They're not immune from all forms though. The former Queen was quite clear about the law applying to everyone including her when it was raised during the fallout from Diana's death.
@@nealjroberts4050 if you believe that i've got a bridge to sell you
@@stocktonjoans Do you have evidence it's a lie?
@@nealjroberts4050 well her husband nearly killed a baby in a car crash but got of scott free so . . . .
my guess was The Corgies.
Oh great, the only time my name gets mentioned on QI!…..
😳
Hi Dylan !
This video is entirely factually incorrect because you cannot be prosecuted in a civil case (as was the case), satan could have only been found liable for that dudes woes, not criminally prosecuted. Another example of high quality QI research!
Go away, troll.
But Billy Connolly sued God 😅
Dougal was always eating sugar lumps. 🤔🫢😁
When was that court case, 1690? Or the judge was just having a laugh or what?
When was the USA founded?! 🤔
Listen to the video.
Sandy clearly says "in 1971 there was a case ...".
In any civilised nation the plaintiff would be reprimanded, at the least, for squandering public resources.
But, this happened in the USA.
Say no more. 😉😉
People who 'real-ise' metaphors into their worldview, to the degree that they will personify the metaphor and believe it to be 'true', (or 'false'), certainly are weird.
They are called Americans.
Technically I don't think any of them can be prosecuted they do whatever they want especially behind closed doors 🚪
👍❤️
The same might happen with The National Baseball Hall Of Fame. You take away the Devil's advocate and they just lower standards for enshrinement. At this rate Pete Rose might make it in while he is still alive and definitely not a saint.
I'd have said the Corgis.
Fun fact, the last official devil's advocate was Keanu Reeves.
I thought it was Christopher Hitchens on the beatification of Mother Teresa
The late queen?
Lol, is this popping up because Russell Brand is trending?
Well that explains Trump thinking he should be immune...
Their crimes are already paid in full…
What astonishes me is that they have to find technicalities to dismiss the lawsuit. As if trying to sue a supernatural entity would be ok if they had an address. Allowing for absurdity within a legal system is extremely dangerous
Genuine question: why is the audio always so bad on these videos?
sounds mostly fine to me, slightly muffled I suppose. Not sure if it'd sound the same on TV programming
sounds good to me with headphones
I use full range speakers and keep it at a normal volume for just about any YT video. Let's say I keep volume at a default which woks for just about any video. With QI volume is always low, sound can be muffled (compressed?) and at times it is hard to distinguish what is being said.
@@Dronstonit's called a British accent.
The audience almost constantly laughing dosent help.
I love that in this fantasy story Satan was the first to demand equal rights and got punished for it.
Not a member of royalty though, is he?
Rapey Russel !!!
What the hell was that?
This, once good, show has run its course.
Trying to sue "Satan".... oh, the silly things religious people do and believe 🤣
Russell Brand has been accused of being a sexual predator... hooda thunkit?😆
I would wager everyone that has ever met him.
#displacement #ignorance #denial #defencemechanism #british #english #white #empire #empireNoMore...
🔥🔥🌹🔥🔥
Can't they just give the papers to the Bailiff and tell him to go to hell? After all that is where Satan lives , everyone knows that.
You believe in satan?
I thought he went down to Georgia?
Canned laughter WHY
That's simple -- God-Emperor Trump, Ruler of The Universe, and All The Realms.
Sorry but the first answer was the correct one, this show has gotten it's facts wrong before and that scumbag has gotten away with it so Aisling was perfectly correct.
She was wrong. Only the Monarch can not be prosecuted. Andrew can.
@@richard6440But he never will be because the King is his big brother.
@@neilpemberton5523 The question was " immune " not will . Andrew is NOT immune from prosecution. Wether he ' will ' or not, is another topic.
There is a movie called Devil's advocate
This reminded me that Russell Brand exists...so had to thumbs down.
Surprised nobody came up with the name of a royal minor...
US law isn't global law...
Had to quit watching QI a long time ago because Alan just can't stop shouting maniacally, thinking he's so witty and hilarious. He's exactly the kind of dinner guest you wish you'd never invited, and can't wait to see the back of.
Which is why he's on a show with other loud people and not invited to dinner.
Your opinion . I'd love to have him for dinner.
Please update your ending, it's getting old now
In the meantime, you can pause the video once it's over so you don't have to watch it.
oh this is a sandi tosvig clip, she is to QI what cancer is to people
opinion
noun
1.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
YT algorithm offering me videos featuring Russell Brand in September 2023 seems a bit...iffy 🫣
Easy nobody can be arrested in the monaches presence.
The monarch of which nation?
@@trueaussie9230 the UK..
@@andrewmartin2103
The question posed was "which horny member of royalty is immune from legal prosecution?"
1 - the UK was not mentioned.
2 - the UK is not the only nation in the world with members of royalty.
3 - at any given time, only 1 member of 'royalty' is the monarch.
4 - 'arrest' was not mentioned. One can be prosecuted without being arrested - eg 'in absentia'.
5 - UK legislation has juridiction only within UK controlled territory.
6 - it's probable that any member of UK royalty - including the reigning monarch - could be arrested AND prosecuted in a foreign nation.
7 - within the UK, arrests could be made in the presence of foreign royalty / a foreign monarch.
@@trueaussie9230 6 - it's probable that any member of UK royalty - including the reigning monarch - could be arrested AND prosecuted in a foreign nation......... Probable ? Has it happened? Ever ? It is ' possible' but unless you know better ?
@@richard6440
Open a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word 'probable'.
If a hypothetical / proposed action / activity has already happened, even only once, it's no longer 'probable' - the hypothesis / proposal has been proven true.
"It is 'possible' but unless you know better?" is an incomplete and, thereby, nonsensical sentence.
Everything is theoretically 'possible'.
It's the strength of the available evidence that determines 'probability'.
If the reigning UK monarch were to murder the current POTUS on US soil, the probability is that they would be arrested and prosecuted in the USA - assuming they weren't shot dead on site by one or more of the crowd of extremely nervous and trigger-happy 'security' that constantly swarms around the POTUS.
My puerile troll / puerile child alarm is starting to glow.