text:
Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Merge with ODPM
Re Q of separate entries, ODPM is a department. All other departments and offices have entries of their own in which the ministers and officials are listed. The post is different in the same way that the Prime Minister is not the same as the Cabinet office so surely needs a separate entry. They need to x-ref but not automatically re-direct. That was how it was previously, leaving ODPM as the only government dept or agency that did not have its functions described or ministers listed. As with other depts, it will doubtless change post Blair and Prescott but many of its functions are very important for citizens, wherever located!--farsee50 09:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I see them as the same thing really. Ardenn 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep them separate. I'm a bit perplexed that this has even been suggested - they are not the same thing. The Deputy Prime Minister is an individual and member of the Government - who currently heads up his own Ministry in the form of the ODPM (which heads policy on the likes of English local government and English housing etc). This has not always been the case. For example, the functions of the ODPM were exercised by the Department of the Environment during the Thatcher/Major years. Should we therefore merge Secretary of State for Trade and industry, with the DTI article, or the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office article etc etc? Answer - NO!.. Globaltraveller 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * To look at it another way: when this grandiose title is abolished and the department renamed to something that vaguely describes what it does (like "The Department for Destruction of the Environment"), we shall have to Move the present ODPM article to the new title. But the DPM article will have to stay for historical reasons, since there have been many DPMs.  It will be a pig to demerge them at that stage.  So I also vote keep and even propose that we delete the material that relates to the duties of the ODPM Department from the DPM article and replace it with a pointer.  --Concrete Cowboy 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree it should stay seperate. They are not the same and should not be confused.Alci12 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep the two articles separate. The functions of the ODPM are not traditionally those of the DPM, and may not be in the future. I see no good reason to merge now if a demerge may be necessary later. Furthermore, the article on the Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary etc have not been merged with those of the Home Office, or Foreign Office, so why start with this? CPCHEM 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed merge tag as the Deputy Prime Minister no longer heads the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as of Tony Blair's reshuffle on 5th May. The department is awaiting its new title, but Ruth Kelly is now head of it making a merger absolutley out of the question. Ian3055 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New Merge
Hi. One down and then another one pops its head over the parapet. I am proposing that we should merge First Secretary of State in here and redirect. It seems pointless having both. We just need a section examining the differences between the honorifics and their respective usages. Then I would proposes interleaving the 2 lists chronologically identifiying which title was bestowed on each holder.

I came to this article via which lists Barbara Castle however there does not seem to be any mention of the office in her article. Buts that not for now. Suggestions? Frelke 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The only problem I see with the merge is that the title "First Secretary of State" is no longer entirely honorific. Certainly since 1997 (if not earlier) the title has begun to appear in legislation. The two articles can still be merged, but care should be given when comparing the honorific title of Deputy Prime Minister and the legislative title of First Secretary of State. Road Wizard 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually if any office is purely honorific it is the DPM. It has no constitutional status, no salary, no residence, nothing behind it. Even its supposed department turns out not to have deputy prime ministerial at all — if it was, how on earth could it be given to a non DPM? First Secretary of State is a cabinet posting with a ministry, a salary and a grace and favour residence. Prescott was made FSOS when he lost his departments because otherwise he would have been unsalaried and homeless. lol (So no croquet then!) As they are different, albeit complimentary, and one, DPM, is honorific while the other is real in constitutional and statute law, I see no need to merge. As with First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, they are two different offices, not one. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Prescott has held the dual roles of DPM and FSOS since at least May 2002 when the ODPM became a separate department (note this legislation from July 2002 refers to him as FSOS). I will correct the dates in the article of when he gained the title. He may have held the title before 2002, but I have yet to find verifiable evidence. Road Wizard 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I support this merger. The two titles seem to perform the same, essentially honorific, function. They generally seem to be awarded to appease someone difficult, to recognise service or for other personal reasons, rather than in order to realise actual political ends. On the whole, (though not always), the Conservative Party appears historically to have preferred the DPM title, while the Labour Party has preferred FSoS. A new table for the combined roles could look as follows: (BartBassist (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I can't agree with the inclusion of Harriet Harman. She is neither DPM nor FSoS and Brown's administration has often gone at great lengths to emphasise her exact official status. Inclusion on either list or a merged list should be restricted to verifiable holders of the titles. "Sort of Deputy" entries are too open to opinion. Road Wizard (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've found a way to deal with Harman, to include her without including her, as below. BartBassist (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

†Neither DPM nor FSoS, but nonetheless regarded as holding similar status (see Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

John Prescott
I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Description of Lloyd George taking power
The idea, expressed in a footnote, that Lloyd George was somehow forced to create a coalition because of the way the king invited him to form a government, is absurd. Lloyd George had just joined with Bonar Law to lead a revolt against his own party leader, Asquith. There was absolutely no question of Lloyd George forming any sort of government besides a coalition - the whole point of forcing Asquith's resignation was to create a new coalition between the Unionists and however much of the Liberal Party Lloyd George could bring along. The statement as it stands is totally odd. john k 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy
One paragraph reads "In practice, however, only one Deputy Prime Minister has gone on to be appointed Prime Minister. Sir Anthony Eden was appointed not because he had been Deputy Prime Minister, but because he had long been seen as Churchill's heir apparent and natural successor." However, the later table also describes Attlee as being a DPM. Anyone know which is true? Kaid100 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It might need better wording, but that section appears to be describing cases where the Deputy Prime Minister goes on to succeed the Prime Minister after resignation/death of the incumbent. In Atlee's case he was Churchill's deputy in a coalition/unity government during the second world war. As they were leaders of separate parties, Attlee fought a general election against Churchill after the break up of the coalition and became Prime Minister when the Labour Party won (relegating Churchill to the position of Leader of the opposition). Road Wizard (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the paragraph to reflect this. Kaid100 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics
Decided to remove these, partly for consistency with other lists, and partly for tidiness. They're obviously all MPs, and The Rt. Hon. is also more-or-less ex officio. Other honorifics are irrelevant to public office (Eden's MC dates from World War I, and Howe is a QC, like many other MPs, through his legal career). Other honours were only attained after the Deputy PM in question left that office. BartBassist (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Premature?
It seems premature to say Clegg is deputy PM. The linked source has reporters being told by anonymous sources that Clegg will likely be Deputy PM (and that Osborne will be Chancellor). Shouldn't we await official announcements? john k (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. All reverted now.  raseaC talk to me 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now confirmed "A Downing Street spokesman says: "Her Majesty The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister.". Guest9999 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not knowing much about politics, I just wondered if the 'Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom' should still be there? Anemone  Projectors  23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably never have been on there. Deputy Prime Minister has always been an intermittent office.  Sometimes there is one, and sometimes there isn't.  That doesn't make it "defunct," when there isn't one, I don't think. john k (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DPM and First Secretary of State
The table does not refelct the situation (as extant at the moment) where the posts of DPM and First Secretary of State are both in existance but being held by different people, Nick Clegg ansd Wm Hague. Has this situation ever existed before? If not, I suggest the table is adjusted to list both Clegg and Hague, who are holding the posts at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, the same table exists in two articles, covering the two offices when there should be a table for one and a table for the other. Str1977 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman
Since when was Harriet Harman DPM, de jure or de facto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vacancies
Hi. You removed the vacancies from the lists at the pages Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State. I understand the oft-quoted desire for simplicity in such tables, but the vacancies are surely important - they serve to demonstrate that these posts are not always extant. Vacant is perhaps the wrong phrase for this particular situation - office defunct might serve better - but it surely needs to be indicated. Also, you removed the colour bar which indicated the party of the Prime Minister on these tables. Not a big thing, but I found it useful on the DPM table to illustrate the Churchill-Attlee and Cameron-Clegg situations. BartBassist (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The vacancies are not important because they are non-existent. DPM is merely a title and FSoS is merely an honorary office that just don't exist when nobody is appointed to them. To make matters worse is the splitting of these "vacancies" under different PMs and administrations.
 * I don't mind colouring the PMs (those that actually have business in appearing in the list. Str1977 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that these titles become non-extant, rather than merely vacant, when nobody is appointed to them - but surely this in itself is worthy of demonstration in these tables. It seems odd to have a table full of temporal gaps, without any indication within the table of why these gaps came about. I agree that the phrase Vacant is misleading. BartBassist (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Str1977; there is a distinction between a vacancy and when the position actually does not exist. A table is not supposed to be stand-alone; it exists in the context of its article, and this article fully explains why there are temporal gaps. YLee (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100516202621/http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk:80/dpm/ContactUs.html to http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/dpm/ContactUs.html

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

George Brown
George Brown was not DPM; he was First Secretary of State, which is a separate and distinct office. He is not listed on the table of Deputy Prime Ministers (rightly so) and while some random article may informally describe him as "Deputy Prime Minister," the office was not in use under Harold Wilson; he was First Secretary of State and Secretary for Economic Affairs as the box describes. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir Anthony-Eden number 10 Official.jpg

"Tending not to coincide"
"Due to the two offices tending not to coincide, and both representing the Prime Minister's deputy, journalists will often refer to the First Secretary of State as the Deputy PM." This is a weird sentence, in two respects: (1) If you deleted the word "not" in the first clause, it would make just as much sense. (2) The two offices have coexisted on at least three occasions (and on those three occasions the two offices belonged to the same individual) - which I assume counts as "coinciding". (I haven't established whether there have been occasions when both offices have existed and haven't belonged to the same individual.) 18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)

Eden and Butler
I've created discussions on both Anthony Eden's and Rab Butler's talk pages as to whether they actually ever held the office of Deputy Prime Minister. Please feel free to contribute if you can. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

List
I apologise if anybody feels that I've bought this up before, but Rodney Brazier, who is an eminant scholar on this topic and has been for several decades, lists in his recent book that there have only ever been five people formally appointed Prime Minister: Clement Attlee, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, John Prescott and Nick Clegg (Brazier 2020 p.76-7). He later goes on to list 14 de facto deputies to the Prime Minister, most of whom, obviously, never officially held the office (Brazier 2020 p.80-2). I think that the list in this article should either reflect one or the other, not an unsourced mix of both. I personally favour only including the five people who were formally appointed Prime Minister. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 * After recieving no replies either way, I have been bold and fixed the table so only the five who were formally appointed are included. Please be aware that a section on informal deputies already exists. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 * The list has since been pruned further, to exclude Attlee and Howe. I find this dubious – while I understand the footnotes that they may not have received Crown appointment as DPM, academic works acknowledge them as DPM (as opposed to merely acting or deputising, as in other cases). To exclude them seems pedantic. grateful for your thoughts. LookLook36 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, without Crown appointment, they cannot be listed as appointees. Could they be listed – subject to unambiguous citations of course – at the end of the section as de facto DPMs? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tagging me, LookLook36, and apologies for taking so long to reply. I agree with John Maynard Friedman. It was me who removed Clement Attlee and Geoffrey Howe from the list to begin with (after I made that initial comment in January 2021). I think it's best to list those who were objectively appointed deputy by the monarch in one section and those who are subjectively considered deputies in a different section. And Attlee and Howe are already considered as such below. I hope that makes sense! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Whitelaw DPM?
Copied from discussion at Willie Whitelaw:-

Many sources seem to point to Whitelaw being recognised as Deputy Prime Minister, including the House of Commons Library:

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04023#fullreport JLo-Watson (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

On another topic, given the discrepancies re. Whitelaw’s status, I propose that Deputy PM be added to Whitelaw’s info-box. We could add a “de facto” label if editors believe it is required. Thanks JLo-Watson (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Anthony Eden (retouched).jpg

Few
The original wording at the top of the list of official DPMs was out of date because it said that "few" people have been formally appointed DPM. This was once the case, but over the last 27 years there has been an official DPM 60% of the time. It is no longer a rarety, and there have been five in total, all five of those within the last 27 years, four of them serving within the last 20 years, and three of them within the last decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Appointment
The article seems to refer to Deputy Prime Ministers being appointed by The Crown / making an issue of them *not* being formally appointed. Deputy Prime Ministers are never appointed as DPM by The Crown, see privy council note that appointed Coffee as Health Sec but not DPM: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-13-The-List-of-Business.pdf DPM is a completely extra-constitutional role in the UK and it's just a designation by the PM - it doesn't draw a salary or cabinet position without a sinecure. 2603:9001:5201:5619:1C2B:7C94:A960:C548 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. I believe the Privy Council minute you linked to refers to oaths taken: there is an oath for Secretaries of State, but not Deputy Prime Ministers. You can see a similar distinction in the minutes of the most recent meeting: it is noted that Rishi Sunak was sworn in as First Lord of the Treasury, but there is no mention of him being Prime Minister. This is fully in line with the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. And I also believe there is good evidence that the King does approve the appointment of Deputy Prime Ministers: for instance, look at this GOV.UK page, which refers to the King approving the appointment of Dominic Raab as Deputy Prime Minister (among other offices). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the aforementioned gov.uk page is good evidence. It's just using the style of "The King has appointed ministers..." (standard) but it includes positions that we know aren't appointed by the Crown, such as the Leader of the House of Commons:
 * https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/leader-commons/ - "The leadership of the House is not a statutory office nor is the Leader formally appointed by the Crown; for these reasons the post has usually been held together with another office; recently this has usually been that of Lord President of the Council"
 * It's also mentioned here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/62576-2/ that the DPM is not appointed by the Crown, and that it's a very vague position constitutionally. Going further in this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/bp.2015.42 to assert that the position is "invisible" under the constitution. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I have taken so long to get back to you. The LSE blog does seem to contradict my claim that Deputy Prime Ministers are today appointed by the monarch (since it says that the post has "never been officially recognised by the monarch") — I hadn't seen that before, so thank you. I have also had a brief search through some literature and I haven't actually been able to find any explicit comment that Deputy Prime Ministers are today appointed by the monarch, though cited past palace concerns may suggest something along those lines and the GOV.UK lists do suggest this also. Nonetheless, in light of what you have pointed out, I would be happy if yourself or other editors were to edit the article to bring it into line with reliable sources. Thanks for your help and I hope that you have a nice Christmas! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have (finally) began to update the article. Thank you again for your useful comments! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi all. I think we have got ourselves into a bit of a bother on this article recently and I want to avoid anything even like an edit war. I essentially rewrote this article a couple of years ago, but I now realise (thanks to the above discussion) that I made some mistakes and even at one point may have violated WP:NOR. I have been trying to fix these edits recently, but @Ebonelm has been reversing my edits. I have been trying to speak to Ebonelm about this on their talk page, but they only responded once and have reversed my edits twice since then. Over concerns that my edits were not explained properly, I made sure in my third and most recent attempt at improving the article to do it in several edits so I could explain exactly what I was doing, but my edits were still reversed because of "unexplained removal of content and insertion of claims regarding Clement Atlee disputed by many reliable sources". I am not sure what I left unexplained and, as I explained on Ebonelm's talk page, the only person who seems to have disputed that Attlee was a Deputy Prime Minister was me two years ago (this is where I possibly violated WP:NOR), but I now understand that this was based on a misunderstanding that the monarch appoints Deputy Prime Ministers. Therefore, I was hoping that we could get a third opinion on this matter — the best place to speak may be on Ebonelm's talk page. I think that we both just want this article to be as accurate as possible. Thank you in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I should (belatedly) add that I have created a table with the 28 specific edits that I now want to make to the article and my rationale for each. It can be found here. I would be very grateful if editors could check this out and give their thoughts at some point! Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone! On the advice of @ThatRandomGuy1, and reflecting two minor alterations, I have reproduced said table below. Please do feel free to give your thoughts! To give some more context to these suggested edits, editors may find it useful to read the fuller discussion here and also to check out my recent (reversed) edits to the article from before I put this table together; a version of this article which reflects these edits can be found here (although, from what I can remember, this version of the article is not completely faithful to the table, it is pretty close!)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !Suggested edit !Reason
 * colspan="3" |INFOBOX
 * 1
 * Remove 10 Downing Street as one of the departments of the Deputy Prime Minister
 * Unsourced
 * 2
 * Change the first Deputy Prime Minister from Michael Heseltine to Clement Attlee
 * See 26
 * colspan="3" |LEDE
 * 3
 * Remove "the second highest ranking minister of the Crown" from the lede
 * Unsourced
 * 4
 * Add to the lede that the title is not always in use and that Prime Ministers sometimes have 'informal deputies'
 * Useful context, particularly in light of the informal deputies section
 * colspan="3" |CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
 * 5
 * State that Deputy Prime Minister is a title
 * This is supported by Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Norton (2020). "Title" is also uniquely used to describe the Deputy Prime Minister in the Cabinet Manual
 * 6
 * State that successive monarchs have refused to officially recognise the position of Deputy Prime Minister
 * This is supported by Bogdanor (1995), Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Thornton and Kirkup (2017)
 * 7
 * Reword the "classical argument" sentence to make the context for royal objections to Deputy Prime Ministers clearer and add some information about its history in respect of Anthony Eden
 * This is a more accurate use of Bogdanor (1995) and useful context
 * 8
 * Move Brazier and Bogdanor's arguments in favour of appointing a Deputy Prime Minister to after Norton's two advantages of a Deputy Prime Minister, add Seldon's voice and cut this down to a sentence
 * This flows better and one sentence ensures that not too much prominence is given to this reason over Norton's two other reasons
 * 9
 * Remove "(though this might be different within political parties in relation to their respective leaderships)"
 * Unsourced
 * 10
 * Add "The title is not always in use and the holder's responsibilities will vary depending on the circumstances"
 * Useful context
 * 11
 * Add Kirkup and Thornton's list of why Deputy Prime Ministers are appointed to Brazier's
 * Useful context
 * 12
 * Add Norton's two advantages to having a Deputy Prime Minister
 * Useful context
 * colspan="2" |HISTORY
 * 13
 * Remove the examples of other junior party leaders given offices in coalitions
 * Irrelevant to a section about people who have been Deputy Prime Minister
 * 14
 * Add a source to why there was nobody formally styled Deputy Prime Minister until Michael Heseltine and that Heseltine was Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 15
 * Add a source to Prescott, Clegg, Raab, Coffey and Dowden being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 16
 * Remove that there was no Deputy Prime Minister under Gordon Brown, David Cameron after 2015 and Theresa May
 * Irrelevant
 * 17
 * Remove explanations as to why Clegg left office
 * Irrelevant
 * 18
 * Remove explanation that Coffey is the shortest serving
 * Irrelevant plus currently untrue!
 * 19
 * Remove reference to Raab deputising for Boris Johnson in April 2020 before being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Included below
 * 20
 * Remove explanation as to Raab being the first non-consecutive Deputy Prime Minister and why he stopped being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Irrelevant
 * colspan="3" |SUCCESSION
 * 21
 * Move succession section to the bottom of the article
 * I think it fits better away from the sections on the title of Deputy Prime Minister, as being Deputy Prime Minister gives no right to succeed the Prime Minister!
 * 22
 * Replace 2006 Cabinet Office quote with 2021 Simon Case quote
 * The newer source is much more relevant
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Unofficial deputies - issue with Brazier list dates
The list cited to Brazier would seem to have a problem in that it lists George Brown as being defacto Deputy Prime Minister from 1964 to 1970. I am not sure if this is an error in editing or by Brazier, but the 1970 end date makes no sense. Brown was not a member of the cabinet from 15 March 1968 after resigning from Harold Wilson's Government after he and Wilson had a very public falling out over Wilson holding a special meeting of the Privy Council to declare and acting bank holiday without informing him. As a a result he held no Government office until the fall of Wilson Government in 1970. He remained Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, largely as there was no way Wilson could remove him from the post, but he had no part in Government decisions and his Party post did not mean he would be considered Wilson's Deputy by the civil service or the Palace. Thus at best he could be considered Deputy PM up to 15 March 1968, but certainly not after that. Dunarc (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Excellent spot! I just checked Brazier's book and he does indeed use the 1970 date, while also highlighting that Brown resigned as a minister in 1968. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


text:
United States v. Watson

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Facts
On August 17, 1972, an informant, identified as Awad "Tony" Khoury, telephoned a postal inspector named Frank L. Barbarick to inform him that one Henry Ogle Watson was in possession of a stolen Bank of America credit card that belonged to a Syed T. Ahmed.

Barbarick told the informant to come to his office to inspect the card. When the informant came to his office, he stated to Barbarick that Watson mailed him the card, so that Khoury could purchase him TWA airline tickets with the card. Prior to the case, the informant provided information to the United States Postal Inspection Service 5 to 10 times, all of them being substantiated. These reports also involved Watson.

The inspector and informant agreed to set up a sting operation to catch Watson. Upon learning that Watson agreed to send additional cards, the inspector arranged the informant to meet with Watson. A potential meeting was scheduled on August 22, but Watson canceled the appointment. A second meeting took place the day after at a restaurant that was chosen by the informant. The inspector instructed the informant to give a signal to other inspectors if Watson had indeed possessed additional credit cards.

Having confirmed that Watson did have additional cards, the informant signaled the inspectors, and they removed him from the restaurant and arrested him. When the inspectors searched Watson's person, no credit cards were found on him. The inspectors then asked Watson if they can search his car, which was near the restaurant, he consented, replying "Go ahead." When the inspector warned him that,"If I find anything, it is going to go against you," Watson replied with the same answer. After finding Watson's car keys, the inspector opened the car door, and found an envelope under the floor mat, containing two credit cards with different names. He was then charged with four counts involving possession of stolen mail.

Trial and Appeals
Watson filed a pre-trial motion to suppress against the evidence that was found in his car, claiming that there was a lack of probable cause and that him saying,"Go ahead." was involuntary, due to him not being told that he could withhold consent. The motion was denied, and he was convicted on all three counts, the fourth count being dismissed. The only physical evidence were the credit cards and envelope found in his car. His conviction was reversed by the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, arguing that,"
 * The record reveals that both parties, the court and the jury all were under the impression that the stipulation had been entered in the record. The agreement to stipulate was communicated to the court prior to the empanelling of the jury. The stipulation was read to the jury in the government's opening statement. The defense counsel referred to the stipulation during his cross-examination. The appellant himself made reference to the stipulation. Since all parties concerned were under the impression that the stipulation had been entered in the record, the defendant-appellant cannot be allowed to benefit from a purely technical error, if in fact there was error.

Appellant next contends that (A) the hearing on the motion to suppress failed to establish that the informant's reliability was sufficient to warrant use of his 'tip'; (B) he contends that the failure to obtain an arrest warrant vitiates the arrest and subsequent seizure; and (C) he contends that a consent to search cannot be acquired during an illegal detention and that his consent was not shown to be voluntary and knowledgeable.

As to appellant's first contention, the Judge at the suppression hearing found that the informant's reliability had been established by the testimony of Inspector Barbarick and that the reliability standards of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 had been met. Inspector Barbarick testified that he had been contacted by Informant Khoury prior to August 17, 1972, on five to ten occasions and that Khoury had related information concerning appellant Watson and his associates and that the information supplied helped in knowing the whereabouts of people that were involved in mail theft throughout the Los Angeles area. There is sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that Khoury was 'reliable'. Consequently, on August 17, 1972, when Khoury gave Barbarick the credit card which he said he had received from Watson, probable cause existed to arrest appellant Watson for mail theft.

Appellant's second contention has merit, i.e. the failure to obtain an arrest warrant vitiates the arrest. As stated above, Inspector Barbarick had probable cause to arrest appellant on the 17th of August, 1972. However, the arrest was not made until six days later—on the 23rd of August. There appears to be no reason for the failure to present the question to a detached magistrate to obtain an arrest warrant.

'The case of Warden v. Hayden, (387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782) where the Court elaborated a 'hot pursuit' justification for the police entry into the defendant's house without a warrant for his arrest, certainly stands by negative implication for the proposition that an arrest warrant is required in the absence of exigent circumstances.' Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 480, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2045, 29 L.Ed.2d 564. '(The warrant requirement) is not an inconvenience to be somehow 'weighed' against the claims of police efficiency. It is, or should be, an important working part of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course to check the 'well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers' who are a part of any system of law enforcement.' Coolidge, supra at 481, 91 S.Ct. at 2046. The government in this case has shown no 'exigent' circumstances which would justify not obtaining an arrest warrant during the six-day interim period between the 17th of August and the day of the actual arrest. The arrest of the appellant was in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thirdly, appellant attacks the voluntariness of his consent to search. At the time appellant consented to the search, he was under arrest. Nothing in the record indicates that he knew of or was advised of his right not to consent to the search of his automobile.

At the time of the consent to the search of this car, the law of the Ninth Circuit required a showing that the defendant knew he could withhold his consent and a showing as to whether any consent was coerced or uncoerced. Schoepflin v. United States, 391 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1968). However, in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), the Supreme Court, reversing an earlier decision by this court, 448 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1971), held that:

'...Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent...'

Recently, in United States v. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir., 1973), this court, conceding that Schneckloth is limited by its facts to cases in which the consenting party is not in custody, observed that we have never applied a different test for consent searches on the basis of the pre-consent arrest of the consenting party and held that 'arrest is but one factor, albeit a critical one, in determining whether or not the consent was voluntary.' 492 F.2d at 1264 n. 1. Hence, the Supreme Court's 'totality of circumstances' test applies to all consent search situations, whether or not the consenting party is under arrest.

Here, we find that the totality of circumstances strongly suggests coercion. Appellant had been placed under arrest and was in custody at the time that he gave the officers permission to search his car.

'. . . In looking at the factual issue of voluntariness, the court must be aware of the 'vulnerable subjective state' of the defendant as well as the possibility of 'subtly coercive police questions.' Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 229, 93 s,.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 and the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation, Id. at 247, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854.' United States v. Rothman, 492 F.2d at 1265.

Not only was appellant Watson in custody, he was in custody in violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the agents had failed to obtain an arrest warrant. Moreover, in Rothman, where we held that the defendant had not properly consented to a search, the defendant admitted that he knew that he had a right to refuse. Here, nothing indicates that Watson knew or was advised of his right not to consent to the search of his automobile. Hence, in light of Schneckloth and Rothman, we hold that the in custody search of the appellant was invalid, and the fruits of the search should have been suppressed."

Holding
The Court decided the case with a 6-2 majority vote (Stevens did not participate in the case) that the arrest of Watson and the consent and subsequent search of his car, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, effectively reversing the Ninth Circuit decision.

Reasoning
The Court relied on (1) "the well-settled common-law rule that a warrantless arrest in a public place is valid if the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the suspect is a felon; (2) the clear consensus among the States adhering to that well-settled common-law rule; (3) the expression of the judgment of Congress that such an arrest is reasonable"; (4) "By regulation, 39 CFR § 232.5(a)(3) (1975), and in identical language, the Board of Governors has exercised that power and authorized warrantless arrests. Because there was probable cause in this case to believe that Watson had violated § 1708, the inspector and his subordinates, in arresting Watson, were acting strictly in accordance with the governing statute and regulations. The effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeals was to invalidate the statute as applied in this case and as applied to all the situations where a court fails to find exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest. We reverse that judgment"; and (5) "Because our judgment is that Watson's arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, Watson's consent to the search of his car was not the product of an illegal arrest. To the extent that the issue of the voluntariness of Watson's consent was resolved on the premise that his arrest was illegal, the Court of Appeals was also in error.

We are satisfied in addition that the remaining factors relied upon by the Court of Appeals to invalidate Watson's consent are inadequate to demonstrate that, in the totality of the circumstances, Watson's consent was not his own "essentially free and unconstrained choice" because his "will ha[d] been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973). There was no overt act or threat of force against Watson proved or claimed. There were no promises made to him and no indication of more subtle forms of coercion that might flaw his judgment. He had been arrested and was in custody, but his consent was given while on a public street, not in the confines of the police station. Moreover, the fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession or consent to search. Similarly, under Schneckloth, the absence of proof that Watson knew he could withhold his consent, though it may be a factor in the overall judgment, is not to be given controlling significance. There is no indication in this record that Watson was a newcomer [p425] to the law, [n14] mentally deficient, or unable in the face of a custodial arrest to exercise a free choice. He was given Miranda warnings, and was further cautioned that the results of the search of his car could be used against him. He persisted in his consent.

In these circumstances, to hold that illegal coercion is made out from the fact of arrest and the failure to inform the arrestee that he could withhold consent would not be consistent with Schneckloth and would distort the voluntariness standard that we reaffirmed in that case."

Powell's concurrence
Justice Lewis Powell concurred with the majority opinion, arguing that this case was the definitive holding on the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest in a public place. He wrote,"
 * In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Court concludes that nothing in our previous cases involving warrantless arrests supports the position of respondent and the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113 (1975). But it is fair to say, I think, that the prior decisions of the Court have assumed the validity of such arrests without addressing in a reasoned way the analysis advanced by respondent. [n1] Today's decision is [p427] the first square holding that the Fourth Amendment permits a duly authorized law enforcement officer to make a warrantless arrest in a public place even though he had adequate opportunity to procure a warrant after developing probable cause for arrest."

"Moreover, a constitutional rule permitting felony arrests only with a warrant or in exigent circumstances could severely hamper effective law enforcement. Good police practice often requires postponing an arrest, even after probable cause has been established, in order to place the suspect under surveillance or otherwise develop further evidence necessary to prove guilt to a jury. [n4] Under the holding of the Court of Appeals, such additional investigative work could imperil the entire prosecution. Should the officers fail to obtain a warrant initially, and later be required by unforeseen circumstances to arrest immediately with no chance to procure a last-minute warrant, they would risk a court decision that the subsequent exigency did not excuse their failure to get a warrant in the interim since they first developed probable cause. If the officers attempted to meet such a contingency [p432] by procuring a warrant as soon as they had probable cause, and then merely held it during their subsequent investigation, they would risk a court decision that the warrant had grown stale by the time it was used. [n5] Law enforcement personnel caught in this squeeze could ensure validity of their arrests only by obtaining a warrant and arresting as soon as probable cause existed, thereby foreclosing the possibility of gathering vital additional evidence from the suspect's continued actions."

Stewart's concurrence
Potter Stewart concurred, arguing that the Supreme Court should not measure what circumstances the officer must pass before getting an arrest warrant, if the crime takes place in public and in broad daylight,"The arrest in this case was made upon probable cause in a public place in broad daylight. The Court holds that this arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and I agree. The Court does not decide, nor could it decide in this case, whether or under what circumstances an officer must obtain a warrant before he may lawfully enter a private place to effect an arrest. See Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113 n. 13; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474-481; Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 728; Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499-500."

Marshall's dissent
Thurgood Marshall dissented, with Brennan joining, claiming that this decision gave broad powers to police to arrest suspects in public without a warrant. Furthermore, he argues that the cases cited in the majority opinion do not support the ruling, along with common law. Also, he exclaims that the Court did not adequately measure the facts in the case before deciding. "By granting police broad powers to make warrantless arrests, the Court today sharply reverses the course of our modern decisions construing the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court turns next to the "consent to search" question last dealt with in Schneckloth [p434] v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973). Without acknowledgment or analysis, the Court extends the scope of that decision to the situation expressly reserved in Schneckloth, and creates a rule inconsistent with Schneckloth's own analysis. The Court takes both steps with a remarkable lack of consideration of either the facts of this case or the constitutional questions it is deciding. That is unfortunate not only because, in my view, the Court decides the constitutional questions wrongly, but also because consideration would have shown that the first question decided today is not raised by the facts before us, and that the second question should not be resolved here, given the present posture of this case. I respectfully dissent." "Since, for reasons it leaves unexpressed, the Court does not take this traditional course, I am constrained to express my views on the issues it unnecessarily decides. The Court reaches its conclusion that a warrant is not necessary for a police officer to make an arrest in a public place, so long as he has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed, on the basis of its views of precedent and history. As my Brother POWELL correctly observes, ante at 426-427, n. l (concurring), the precedent is spurious. None of the cases cited by the Court squarely confronted the issue decided today. Moreover, an examination of the history relied on by the Court shows that it does not support the conclusion laid upon it."

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: United States v. Watson


text:
monochronic

Adjective

 * 1) Characterized by a system where things are done one at a time.
 * 2) Contemporaneous.
 * 3) Having or relating to a personality type or culture (distinguished from ) which prefers to set a certain time to perform each task.
 * Western Europe tends to have a monochronic time orientation, as exemplified by the adage "there is a time and place for everything".

Derived terms

 * monochronicity

title: monochronic


text:
Young Citizen Volunteers

The Young Citizen Volunteers refers to either:

 * Young Citizen Volunteers (1912)
 * Young Citizen Volunteers (1972)

title: Young Citizen Volunteers


text:
LIAZ 100 series

LIAZ 100 series is a collective term for several modifications of truck made by LIAZ company in Czechoslovakia, later Czech Republic in town Jablonec nad Nisou between 1974 and 1994.

Development
In LIAZ started the development of a new series already in the 60s, but due to problems with the supply was made just upgraded a number of LIAZ RT and LIAZ MT. Originally intended transient model, which should produce only temporary, eventually to be replaced by LIAZ 100 and in 1974. Versions with special cabin were labeled number 110th

New LIAZ have compared to 706 RT completely new engine, transmission, cab and axle meets the requirements of customers and time. Development effort thwarted complications with suppliers and so was in 1969 Transitional Council MT with new engines and axles.

Since 1974, gradually started the production of trucks 100.45, 100.05 flatbed and other variants of vehicles from 100 series. The first trucks were obliquely motor M series with a volume of 11 940 cm³ and a power of 210, in 1978 was refurbished and known as M1 and in 1988 was again modernized to M2. New units reached thanks to turbo power up to 236 kW (320 hp), and longevity to overhaul 420,000 km. New and were 9 and 10-point synchronized gearbox Praga. Modernization in 1984 brought tilting cab and air suspension front and rear axles.

Produce began Tippers 150 (4×2) and 151 (4×4) chassis 111 (4×4) and 122 (6×2) for the superstructure. Other enhancements to Series 100 has received since 1989, when the market opens increased competition. In the menu, so there was a new 16-speed gearbox ZF, remote cabin with high roof MAXI braking system ABS, central lubrication, electric mirrors and windows, cooling box or ISRI seats.

Production Series 100/110 was terminated after 20 years of production in 1994, but according to customer orders were implemented until the end of the company's existence.

Historical cars

 * Private collector car (reg. No. 5273, ex DP Brno)

Configuration
Serial Prototypes and specials 6x4 AGRO - driven front and middle axle. The rear axle is retractable.
 * 4x2 - two axles, steerable front, rear driven
 * 4x4 - two axles, front steer, both powered by engine
 * 6x2.2 - three axles, steerable front, middle-powered, rear retractable
 * 6x2.4 - three axles, front and middle steerable, powered rear
 * 6x4 - three axles, steerable front, middle and rear driven
 * 6x4.4 - driven front and rear axle. Front and center are controllable.
 * 6x6 - three axles, front steer, all driven

Cabins

 * Middle non folding - original series cab 100
 * Short non folding - created small-scale series of secondary contraction cabins
 * Middle folding - first modernization mid cabin
 * Short folding - cab for daily use
 * Middle modernized - the second modernization mid cabin
 * maxi - High cab for the long haul
 * long - multi crew (up to 9 seats)

Racing trucks Series 100

LIAZ 100.55 D was the first Czech truck, which was attended by Dakar Rally, in 1985. The crew Jiří Moskal - Jaroslav Joklík - Radek Fencl finished the race at 13th place in the truck category. The second truck LIAZ crossed the finish line outside the classification.

 The biggest success LIAZ 100.55 D
 * 13th place on the Rallye Paris-Dakar 1985
 * 1st place in the Rallye des Pharaons in the category above 10 tonnes

LIAZ 111.154 is the name field of the truck produced in Czech Republic in the years 1986–1991. Racing version of this car carried the designation 111.154 D and the successor vehicle 100.55 D. At present (2010) it is possible to see the racing variant 111.154 VK on long rallies, including Dakar Rally (e.g., 2009 Dakar Rally and 2010 Dakar Rally). Crew members who brought this car to finish 2010 Dakar Rally in fourth place, were Martin Macík, Josef Kalina and Jan Bervic.

 The biggest success LIAZ 111 154 D:  1st place at the 1987 Rallye Jelcz 1st place at the 1988 Rallye Jelcz 2nd place in the race Baja Hungaria 2009 1st place in the race Baja Spain 2009 (version 111.154 VK)
 * 3rd place at the Rallye Paris-Dakar 1987
 * 2nd place at the Rallye Paris-Dakar 1988
 * 1st place in the European Championship series in truck-Trial 1991

LIAZ 110.577 was the first Czech truck in the European Cup Truck Racing Circuit. The first time were the two LIAZ trucks in this series in season 1987. They followed the Jiří Moskal and František Vojtíšek. Moskal won in its first year of tenth place, Vojtíšek was fourteen.

LIAZ 150 571 is the term for race trucks LIAZ years from 1988 to 1992. From 110.577 the previous type differed many technical changes that make it faster and easier to control. The successor type was 250.471.

 The biggest success LIAZ 150.571  2nd place in the series of European Truck Racing Cup 1989 1st place in the Championship of Great Britain in 1989 2nd place in the European Cup series tractors 1990 1st place in the Championship of Great Britain in 1990 2nd place in the 24 Hours of Le Mans tractors 1990

Historical vehicles

 * Private collector (version flatbed, SPZ UH 78–66)
 * Private collector (version tractor, SPV 06V 0119)

title: LIAZ 100 series


text:
2019 SMU Mustangs men's soccer team

The 2019 SMU Mustangs men's soccer team represented the Southern Methodist University during the 2019 NCAA Division I men's soccer season and the 2019 American Athletic Conference men's soccer season. The regular season began on August 30 and concluded on November 5. It was the program's 45th season fielding a men's varsity soccer team, and their 7th season in the AAC. The 2019 season was Kevin Hudson's fifth year as head coach for the program.

SMU finished the season with an 18–2–1 overall record and a 5–1–1 conference record, second-best in the AAC. The Mustangs went on to win the AAC Tournament for the third-consecutive time and reached the quarterfinals of the NCAA Tournament for the first time since 2010.

Background
The 2018 SMU Mustangs men's soccer team had a record of 10–5–3 overall and 5–1–1 in the AAC. The team beat UCF in the finals of the AAC Tournament to claim the program's second consecutive conference title. The Mustangs earned an automatic bid to the 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament, where they were eliminated in the first round by Oregon State.

Schedule
!colspan=6 style=""| Non-conference regular season

!colspan=6 style=""| American Athletic regular season

!colspan=6 style=""| American Athletic Tournament

!colspan=6 style=""| NCAA Tournament

title: 2019 SMU Mustangs men's soccer team


text:
Actinoschoenus ramosus

Actinoschoenus ramosus, commonly known as soft actinoschoenus, is a flowering plant in the sedge family, Cyperaceae, that is native to Western Australia throughout parts of the Kimberley region.

title: Actinoschoenus ramosus


text:
Georgios Mitsibonas

Georgios Mitsibonas (Greek: Γεώργιος Μητσιμπόνας; 11 November 1962 – 13 September 1997) was a Greek football player during the 1980s and 1990s.

Biography
Mitsibonas was born in 1962 in the village of Tsaritsani (Larissa regional unit). He started his football career as a centre forward in Ikonomos Tsaritsanis and in 1981 he signed with AEL where he played one year as a forward. In 1982 the coach of Larissa used him as a sweeper, and as a defender Mitsibonas made a great career. With Larissa he won a Greek Football Cup in 1985 and a Greek football Championship in 1988. This championship was and still remains a huge success, as Larissa became the first, and until now, only team not based in Athens or Thessaloniki to have won the Greek championship. Mitsibonas is believed to be the best Larissa defender and one of the greatest Greek defenders in history. In 1989, he moved to PAOK and three years later he signed with the team of Olympiacos where he won a Greek Football Cup. In 1994, he returned to Larissa, but nothing was like before. Many good players had left the team and Larissa eventually in 1996 failed to remain in the first division. Then Mitsibonas moved to AE Tyrnavos, a team in the Greek Third Division, in the city of Tyrnavos, the second biggest of the Larissa regional unit after Larissa.

Death
On 13 September 1997 Mitsibonas was killed in a car crash near the village of Giannouli outside Larissa. He was only thirty-five and left behind his wife and his two daughters. He left also of course a large career, 413 matches and 43 goals in the first Greek division (he played 344 matches and scored 38 goals with AEL) and 27 matches and one goal with the national team of Greece. He was one of the biggest football players not only of Larissa, but also of Greek football.

Honours
AEL
 * Greek Championship (1): 1987–88
 * Greek Cup: 1985

title: Georgios Mitsibonas


text:
Talk:Hell's Ditch

I merged in Hell's Ditch Demos. -R. fiend 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hells ditch.jpg
Image:Hells ditch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hell's Ditch


text:
Nadine Provençal

Nadine Provençal is an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University and Investigator at BC Children's Hospital Research Institute. In 2020, she was recognized by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) with an appointment to CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar.

Early life and education
Provençal earned her Bachelor of Science degree in biology from Montreal's Université Laval before enrolling at McGill University for her PhD in Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Upon receiving her PhD, Provençal completed her postdoctoral training at the Université de Montréal and accepted a research fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to complete a second postdoctoral training at the Max-Planck Institute of Psychiatry (MPIP) in Germany. While completing her second postdoctoral training, she received a $50,000 grant from the Canadian Institute for Health Research Fellowship to focus on neuronal cellular models with multiple tissues from non-human primates also exposed to glucocorticoid activation.

Career
In 2018, Provençal was recruited for a joint appointment at Simon Fraser University faculty of Health Sciences and BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Alongside Faranak Farzan and William Odom, she received $450,000 through the Canada Foundation for Innovation John R. Evans Leaders Fund to study exposure to early life stress. Provençal later led a study titled Glucocorticoid exposure during hippocampal neurogenesis primes future stress response by inducing changes in DNA methylation which found that when fetuses are exposures to stress during pregnancy by the mother, it affects them later in life. She also received $300,000 to open a new laboratory at SFU called Epigenomics of Developmental Trajectories, which would include sequencing platform capable of analyzing the entire genome of multiple individuals.

In 2020, Provençal was recognized by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) with an appointment to CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar.

title: Nadine Provençal