[alancalverd]

Drivel. We don't vote for parties, but for named local representatives. We have provided examples of minority governments, formal coalitions, PMs who were not even MPs, and the words of the constitution. The leader of the Labour Party and most others is elected by the annual conference, not MPs, and of the Conservatives by a postal ballot of paid-up members. None of this seems to have any impact on your misunderstanding.

It would be better to keep your ignorance to yourself - this display is unbecoming.

[Bored chemist]

At the last general election, Jeremy Corbyn won the only election where his name was on the ballot.
He got 64% of the votes  in that poll.
34600 people voted for him

At that same election, Boris Johnson was also elected.
He only got 52% of the votes
Only 25400 people voted for him.

But Corbyn is not PM.
Because we don't vote for a Prime Minister.

[Petrochemicals]

Drivel. We don't vote for parties, but for named local representatives. We have provided examples of minority governments, formal coalitions, PMs who were not even MPs, and the words of the constitution. The leader of the Labour Party and most others is elected by the annual conference, not MPs, and of the Conservatives by a postal ballot of paid-up members. None of this seems to have any impact on your misunderstanding.

It would be better to keep your ignorance to yourself - this display is unbecoming.

This is unsubstanciated abuse now alan.  Mps support party leader, party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm, with an overburgeoning minority of the popular vote. Us president usually has majority of popular vote. Had we forgotten US presidental elections far worse than the uks and queen picking anyone she likes for pm. 

[alancalverd]

party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm,

No.  Douglas-Home was not the leader of the Conservative party when appointed PM, and the constitutional requirement is for the monarch to invite the person most capable of commanding a majority to form a government. BC has quoted the numbers by which Gordon Brown became PM despite the Labour Party occupying fewer seats than the Conservatives.

with an overburgeoning minority of the popular vote.

What does this mean?

Us president usually has majority of popular vote.

Not a constitutional requirement. OI don't have previous figures but the present incumbent did not have a majority of the popular vote, The US President is chosen by the electoral college.

Had we forgotten US presidental elections far worse than the uks and queen picking anyone she likes for pm.

No evidence that the Queen ever liked Margaret Thatcher, and whilst she eventually got on well with Harold Wilson, there was a lot of early distrust.

Back to basics. The prime minister is not elected and is not head of state. The US president is elected and is head of state.

You are correct. Your refusal to accept facts is not ignorance, but something much deeper and more worrying.

[Petrochemicals]

party leader with greatest share of support is by default destined to be pm,

No.  Douglas-Home was not the leader of the Conservative party when appointed PM, and the constitutional requirement is for the monarch to invite the person most capable of commanding a majority to form a government. BC has quoted the numbers by which Gordon Brown became PM despite the Labour Party occupying fewer seats

yes he was the leader, constitution not monarch. Commanding the seats as in the person who leads the mps or the leader. Not whoever the queen likes. Gordon bown is incorrect. Leader of largest seats pm by default

What does this mean?

it means you cannot understand english.

 Not a constitutional requirement. OI don't have previous figures but the present incumbent did not have a majority of the popular vote, The US President is chosen by the electoral college.

better than the uk though, trump better than johnson

.[

 No evidence that the Queen ever liked Margaret Thatcher, and whilst she eventually got on well with Harold Wilson, there was a lot of early distrust.

Back to basics. The prime minister is not elected and is not head of state. The US president is elected and is head of state.

You are correct. Your refusal to accept facts is not ignorance, but something much deeper and more worrying.

again  terrorism and abuse, why not just shove your nuts and screach satan at the lightning ?

[evan_au]

IMHO, anyone who desires to be the President, Prime Minister or Dictator should be automatically disqualified.

[Bored chemist]

Gordon bown is incorrect.

Ture.
But only because of your typing.
For a few days he was PM but not leader of the party with the most seats.

terrorism

In what way has anything here been "terrorism"?

[alancalverd]

Terrorism is not defined in UK law. During the reign of Tony B Liar, a man was detained under the Terrorism Act (formerly the Prevention of Terrorism Act) for calling Jack Straw a liar during the Party conference, so the precedent exists for anyone to use the word to mean anything that makes him blush with maidenly embarrassment.

[Bored chemist]

Terrorism is not defined in UK law. During the reign of Tony B Liar, a man was detained under the Terrorism Act (formerly the Prevention of Terrorism Act) for calling Jack Straw a liar during the Party conference, so the precedent exists for anyone to use the word to mean anything that makes him blush with maidenly embarrassment.

He was detained, but not arrested or charged.
Because, in fact, he wasn't a terrorist (and they knew it).

[alancalverd]

Arrest precedes detention, but fortunately custody sergeants know a lot more about the law and human behavior than the average politician, which is why he was released without charge.

[Bored chemist]

Arrest precedes detention

No it doesn't.
For example, a PCSO does not have authority to arrest you, but can detain you until a  police officer arrives.

custody sergeants know a lot more about the law

Perhaps you should have asked one.

know a lot more about the law and human behavior than the average politician

I doubt that the person was detained (or arrested) by a politician.

[alancalverd]

From West Yorkshire police manual: "PCSO powers of arrest and detention. PCSOs can utilise the 'any person' powers of arrest under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (commonly known as a citizens' arrest). All PCSOs can also make common law arrests in exactly the same manner …" The "20 minute" rule is a local restriction imposed by some but not all police forces. 

In the case of Straw v Common Sense, I don't think any action would have been taken if a politician hadn't requested it. The general public is much less easily offended by the truth.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, being a so called "plastic plod" doesn't actually reduce your powers of arrest below those of any other citizen.

There are  situations where a citizen's arrest would not be lawful (For amusing example would be that there was a police officer present- which there probably would have been).

In that case,  a PCSO is allowed to detain you until a police officer arrives- and they- with their broader powers of arrest, may well decide to arrest you.

The point remains, you can be detained without being arrested.

"Fact 2: Although PCSOs do not have the power of arrest, they can detain people when necessary. As a PCSO you also have designated powers surrounding anti-social behaviour, tobacco and alcohol, transport and fixed penalty notices, for example."

From
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/jobs/pcso/five-facts-pcsos/
And you can also be detained under the mental health act, without any question of an arrest.

This may have been a better outcome in the case of Reality vs Straw.