I hear that a certain person in the public eye is p........
Is there anywhere that I can go where this will not be mentioned?
Please?
|
Pie-eyed? Poverty-stricken? Parsimonious? Prawn-fixated? Pollyannaish?
Could you be a bit more specific Duncan? I simply don't know what you mean.
|
|
Congratulations are in order.
|
D...... O. C........ P....... = Duncan On Car4 Play
|
Is there anywhere that I can go where this will not be mentioned?
Please?
This was a good place to avoid it but no more :-(
|
>> Is there anywhere that I can go where this will not be mentioned?
>>
No chance, I went to Australia to avoid their wedding. Unfortunately I made the mistake of living in a house with two females, 24/7 TV coverage. :-(
Australia a republic ? not in my lifetime. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 3 Dec 12 at 17:00
|
|
The MSM will now go into overdrive for the gestation period!
|
OOh, ah, got it at last. I was expecting some rank celeb scandal, but it's just about life going on. Bit of a disappointment.
Time for all the vulgar twozzer commentators to take against Prince William, start calling him old Smirk or old Shirk (duties as a helicopter pilot being neglected for swanning and public appearances), and demanding that the unborn nipper be promoted to first heir to the throne, I can't help feeling.
Fortunately no one will take any notice except to tiredly urge them to STFU.
|
See the Guardian online has a live newsfeed updated by the minute... they'll have to pad that out to hold interest for the next 6mths.
Good luck to the couple anyway... what a nightmare to have to go through this period under the public gaze.
Guess I'll have to swap my interest onto Pippa now!
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 3 Dec 12 at 17:30
|
>> the Guardian online has a live newsfeed updated by the minute..
Oh good. I look forward to knowing the exact moment of conception. Perhaps there will be an article about the surrounding circumstances, and even some candid photos of the event?
Nice to see the Grauniad moving with the times.
|
>> Guess I'll have to swap my interest onto Pippa now!
>>
Dont be so quick to switch. Being pregnant "enhanced" Mrs B's figure no end, although I must say she wore it very well compared to some of her friends
|
You've lost it, AC. Willie Wonder and Waity Katie can do no wrong, haven't you heard? No doubt this unborn nipper is already just as worthy of the job to which it is entitled by mere dint of an accident of conception. One can tell it is far better suited by being automatically superior to the other 60 million souls here. Obvs, really.
Sigh.
|
>> Sigh.
STFU javascript:void(null).
:o}
|
|
Here was me thinking Des O'Connor was being accused of some heinous offence.
|
>> Here was me thinking Des O'Connor was being accused of some heinous offence.
>>
He sang. That is enough to merit eternal damnation and torment.,
|
>> Here was me thinking Des O'Connor was being accused of some heinous offence.
Again?
|
|
Is this morning sickness thing contagious? I've felt quite nauseous since I hear the news.
|
>> One can tell
>> it is far better suited by being automatically superior to the other 60 million souls
>> here. Obvs, really.
>>
There are some jobs, very few, but this happens to be one, usually better performed by people who grow up knowing they will have to do it, than by anyone else selected on supposed merit.
Selection by conception is not the only way of achieving this, of course. The Tibetan system works quite well too. If you prefer it, we could switch to a system whereby the future heir to the throne is selected at an early age by a lot of old witchdoctors using mumbo-jumbo, or perhaps selected at random like the lottery winner.
Random selection, whether in title, wealth, health or power, is the ultimate fair selection procedure.
|
Alanovic, that remark suggests you may be better moving to a country that doesn't have a monarchy.
And while I'm on my pedestal....what is this? >>>> Obvs,<<<
If it isn't worth writing in proper English it isn't worth saying it at all.
Pat
|
>> Alanovic, that remark suggests you may be better moving to a country that doesn't have
>> a monarchy.
Here we go again. People telling me to leave the country of my birth because of a perfectly valid personal opinion. Where does this end? What other opinions are Subjects (not Citizens, note) not supposed to hold in this country for fear of ejection? Disgraceful attitude and thoroughly offensive. AC's done it plenty, but I expected better from you, pda.
>> And while I'm on my pedestal....what is this? >>>> Obvs,<<<
Response in kind to the STFU from AC. An attempt to reply in a similar idiom. Obvs, really.
>> If it isn't worth writing in proper English it isn't worth saying it at all.
Oui, d'accord. Du hast recht. Molodyets.
|
>> Here we go again. People telling me to leave the country of my birth because
>> of a perfectly valid personal opinion.<<
I told you nothing, I simply pointed out that a remark YOU made suggested that.
>>AC's done it plenty, but I expected better from you, pda.<<
Why? Neither AC or myself like hiding behind scowly faces or thumbs up.
However, I am quick to support you when it's justified so surely I have the right to disagree with you also.
I'm well aware of your feelings about the Monarchy and I would be the first to say you certainly have a right to voice them.
On the other hand, some of us have felt completely bogged down recently with gloomy/bad news and the lengthy threads on here about it, surely we can rejoice in others happiness for a short while before people try and turn it into a negative, can't we?
Pat
|
>> >> Here we go again. People telling me to leave the country of my birth
>> because
>> >> of a perfectly valid personal opinion.<<
>>
>> I told you nothing, I simply pointed out that a remark YOU made suggested that.
Perhaps you could follow a bit of your own plain English advice, because that's how it came across.
>> >>AC's done it plenty, but I expected better from you, pda.<<
>>
>> Why? Neither AC or myself like hiding behind scowly faces or thumbs up.
I meant that AC has advised me to leave the country several times over this issue, but I didn't expect you to voice such advice. Now you have clarified your comments, which I thank you for, but I still take umbrage at the sentiment. I don't do scowlies (I may have once, can't remember) either.
>> However, I am quick to support you when it's justified so surely I have the
>> right to disagree with you also.
Indeed you do.
>> On the other hand, some of us have felt completely bogged down recently with gloomy/bad
>> news and the lengthy threads on here about it, surely we can rejoice in others
>> happiness for a short while before people try and turn it into a negative, can't
>> we?
There's plenty of good news in the world, if you look for it. I'm not really moved by the impending arrival of an infant unless it is the progeny of a close friend or relative. I'm particularly non-plussed by the thought of the perpetuation of my feudal overlords and their line.
|
Now this s why we differ:)
>>of my feudal overlords and their line.<<
I consider myself to be their equals.
Pat
|
|
You can consider it all you like, but the feeling is not reciprocated.
|
>> I meant that AC has advised me to leave the country several times over this issue, but I didn't expect you to voice such advice.
Not really java. You should know perfectly well that such 'advice' was rhetoric intended to concentrate the minds of stubborn, donkey-like republican ideologues. Misinterpreting what is said as an excuse for taking offence is a technique sometimes used by others here as well as you. Damn playground crap.
|
AC, when you respond to a post on here, you are addressing the other individual directly, as well as perhaps trying to make a bigger point. In that context it's not hard to see that your words may be taken personally and, perhaps, they will cause offence. As is often pointed out, a thread on here is like a conversation in the pub, but you seem to be wanting to treat it like some kind of journalistic article. I bet you wouldn't say to my face in a pub some of the things you've written in direct reply to me, addressing me personally, on the subject of leaving the country if I don't like part of the system.
It's more the language of the playground bully to now carp on that those who are offended by direct insults are the wrong doers. Playground indeed.
You can't just bang in interminably and indiscriminately and not expect to be called on it occasionally.
|
>> I bet you wouldn't say to my face in a pub some of the things you've written in direct reply to me, addressing me personally, on the subject of leaving the country if I don't like part of the system.
I wouldn't hesitate actually. But it still wouldn't be an insult or a serious admonition to leave the country. I thought that would be obvious to an intelligence far meaner than yours seems to be. But I have got used to being misunderstood here. No doubt I fail to express myself clearly enough.
>> You can't just bang in interminably and indiscriminately
Now that is a bit of an insult. But I forgive you. You aren't the only person here with reading difficulties.
|
>> Now that is a bit of an insult. But I forgive you. You aren't the
>> only person here with reading difficulties.
Cheers. I'll forgive you your accusations of my thoughts being boring, and note that you're not the only one here with writing difficulties also.
;-)
|
>> your accusations of my thoughts being boring
Not all of them java by any means. But the obsessive compulsive personalisation of the monarchy and its members... dear oh dear.
The monarchy isn't a collection of individuals, it's a thing. The slavering multitudes you so despise personalise it too, but in a much kinder and more humane way than some doomed egalitarian who bangs on enviously about their imagined suitability for the mysterious 'job'.
|
I must say, AC, that I think you're going a little bit over the top. I'm describing my views on a subject pertinent to the thread, whenever such a thread crops up. Surely this is what one is supposed to do on an interweb forum, and is in no way indicative of obsessive compulsion. By that measure we are all such.
And again the accusation of envy in there. Always there, never substantiated, and simply not true. A real example of playground language.
|
>> I think you're going a little bit over the top.
Perhaps. I often do. But you return every time to the Prince of Wales's memos as if you thought his foibles - scrutinised closely by media which aren't always sympathetic and are sometimes mischievous - could destabilise the country or influence its politics. That's quite simply barmy. And you return frequently to the slavering multitudes of your fellow citizens who are just, er, the population of your country.
The egalitarian project is doomed simply because there is no equality in any system, ever. People are allegedly 'equal in law' and the kind, courteous ones treat others as equals when dealing with them personally. But in the obsessive egalitarian there lurks, somewhere, a hint of envy. It's quite normal to be unaware of one's envy and to deny it.
|
"It's quite normal to be unaware of one's envy and to deny it."
I like that. It's quite Stalinist in its logic.
The mere denial of the crime is proof of the crime. Brilliant!
|
>> The mere denial of the crime is proof of the crime.
Of course it isn't. Nor is envy a 'crime'. It's a universal phenomenon. But people are quite rightly a bit ashamed of it because it can take ugly, destructive forms. Denial is an obvious response and very widespread. To understand this you have to be capable of genuine self-criticism. It isn't easy and many people can't begin to do it.
|
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it seems that every day there is a spat of some sort on here.
It get's tiresome and I'm sure I'm not the only one who visits the forum less when it's going on.
It's the season of goodwill to all men (and women), it's the season to be jolly.
Can we all have a group hug?
More to the point, can we (myself included) just button it until 2013.
...and yes, I am tetchy.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 4 Dec 12 at 15:59
|
>> This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it seems that every day there is
>> a spat of some sort on here.
>>
>> It get's tiresome and I'm sure I'm not the only one who visits the forum
>> less when it's going on.
>>
>> It's the season of goodwill to all men (and women), it's the season to be
>> jolly.
>>
>> Can we all have a group hug?
get stuffed
|
I didn't give you the scowly face Z, I have one word for you but the swear filter won't allow it.
It begins with B and ends in S.
Pat
|
>> I didn't give you the scowly face Z, I have one word for you but
>> the swear filter won't allow it.
>>
>> It begins with B and ends in S.
>>
>> Pat
How jolly unfair! I was merely wishing you a good feast at yuletide!
Oh and to the scowly face giver, yes you the one who is too cowardly to be identified, you are a spineless richard. I hope someone pees on your shoes in the gents.
|
>>Oh and to the scowly face giver, yes you the one who is too cowardly to be identified, you are a spineless richard. I hope someone pees on your shoes in the gents.
I think most of us probably do already.
|
>> How jolly unfair! I was merely wishing you a good feast at yuletide!
>>
>>
>> Oh and to the scowly face giver, yes you the one who is too cowardly
>> to be identified, you are a spineless richard. I hope someone pees on your shoes
>> in the gents.
I gave you a scowly face, Zero and frankly had it been possible I would have deleted your posting.
I am a moderator on another forum and that would have been my response to a gratuitous insult to a fellow forum member.
To try and weasel out of it with a patently spurious "good feast etc" is frankly not good enough. I know that these days, ladies demand and rightly receive, equality, but it is ungentlemanly and bad manners to say the least, to speak to a lady thus.
Obviously our opinions (yours and mine) differ vastly on many, many, topics and our exchanges have been barbed on occasion.
I can take it as well as dish it out - it is after all only an internet forum.
I would be very surprised if you would say "Get stuffed" to a lady, face to face, though.
I don't do "flounces", but I agree with Pat that recent personal exchanges on these pages have made C4P a less pleasant place in which to spend time.
|
I think that's an overreaction, Roger. I read it as being harmlessly in keeping with Z's humorously dyspeptic (not despotic, iPhone, thank you) persona, in response to a mischievous comment from Pat.
I'd be interested to see the forum you moderate; this one is courtly by most Internet standards, so is it the Discussion Board for Holding a Door Open for a Lady Riding Sidesaddle?
};---)
|
>>I gave you a scowly face, Zero and frankly had it been possible I would have deleted your posting.
Well, good on you for being up front about the scowly face, I suppose.
But, on that subject, as I understand it the scowly face is for something one finds offensive. Not annoying, wrong, disagreeable, rude, impolite, etc. etc.
But actually offensive. I struggle to think of a situation or a circumstance where someone in here would post anything I genuinely found offensive. Of course sometimes some people are annoying, wrong-shortsighted, misguided (all in my opinion of course) but even the most annoying person in here, on the most annoying day they've ever had, falls short of offensive.
I do notice that people don't appreciate a good row any more. Which I think is a shame. I have some great friends, I have one in particular in mind, with whom I agree on pretty much nothing political or emotional; and in some cases moral.
We go at it hammer and tongs in a pub or bar, or at the dinner table, until someone (usually a wife) entirely bored by us tells us to shut up. But we're friends. I've never seen the mutual exclusivity of argument and friendship.
As you do say, its an internet forum. So AC wanders around calling me a catemite (which I had to look up, by the way), it doesn't really matter. Zero is pretty insulting, which doesn't matter. again, etc. etc. etc.
I think a bit more getting a life, and little bit less taking everything seriously is required around here.
And in case you're thinking it, then yes, I do live in a glass house and I often throw rocks.
So sometimes C4P is pleasant, sometimes its thought provoking, sometimes its stimulating and sometimes it is downright annoying.
But nobody is getting shot so it can't be that serious.
And on this particular one, if it comes to a fight I've got a fiver on Pat.
|
>
>> I gave you a scowly face, Zero and frankly had it been possible I would
>> have deleted your posting.
Well have the balls to say so then, don't just hide behind an anonymous face.
>> I am a moderator on another forum and that would have been my response to
>> a gratuitous insult to a fellow forum member.
But its ok for you to utter "FFS" on here tho? Double standards at work.
>> To try and weasel out of it with a patently spurious "good feast etc" is
>> frankly not good enough.
I didn't weasel out of anything, it was a lead in, a set up, to that very remark.
>> Obviously our opinions (yours and mine) differ vastly on many, many, topics and our exchanges
>> have been barbed on occasion.
>> I can take it as well as dish it out -
Clearly not if you have to do it anonymously.
>> I would be very surprised if you would say "Get stuffed" to a lady, face
>> to face, though.
Be surprised then, I have said the same, and worse, to Pat face to Face, and she to me.
|
>> Well have the balls to say so then, don't just hide behind an anonymous face.
Upon reflection, I may have done you a mis-justice , you may have given me an additional scowly face and owned up at the same time. I hope so, I didnt have you down as yellow. If that is the case I apologise.
The rest stands tho. And you officiate at a web site? yeah a jobs worth - that figures.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 4 Dec 12 at 20:37
|
I think at the bottom of all this is the thumbs/scowly face system.
It was originally supposed to be for some mysterious reason which was never explained fully, and has never materialised.
Something similar is used on the Moneysavingexpert forums and I know of at least one person who set great store by accruing thumbs up from other members, yet complained that other posters 'mates' artificially inflated the totals.
It becomes the focus point when in fact, the content of the post is secondary.
I've never read anything on here which has offended me, apart fron the Anglian Water thread which was unforgivable.
I hate the system and much preferred it before we had it...what do you think?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Wed 5 Dec 12 at 04:55
|
>> It was originally supposed to be for some mysterious reason which was never explained fully
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=981&m=16215
"We needed some rating system because in future we want to put the best rated car review (for example) against the car being viewed, or at least order them by best rated. We need some kind of automated system as the computer can't read all posts and make it's mind up as to which are good and bad; it needs the community at large to do this. (i.e. some kind of human intelligence)"
>> and has never materialised.
Stephen will have to comment on that one.
|
>> This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it seems that every day there is
>> a spat of some sort on here.
>>
>> It get's tiresome and I'm sure I'm not the only one who visits the forum
>> less when it's going on.
>>
>> It's the season of goodwill to all men (and women), it's the season to be
>> jolly.
>>
>> Can we all have a group hug?
>>
>> More to the point, can we (myself included) just button it until 2013.
>>
>> ...and yes, I am tetchy.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Well said, Pat.
Keep smiling. XXX
|
>> Can we all have a group hug?
Not if Zero and his catamite take part. It could easily degenerate into one of those Mongolian cluster thingies... not everyone's cup of tea.
Sorry you are feeling tetchy Pat. So am I, as usual. But don't expect me to shut up until the new year. Rabbiting too much and getting into trouble for it are meat and drink to me.
:o}
|
Then I shall continue to nag you;)
I do hope it was you who gave Z the scowly face though?
Pat
|
>> I do hope it was you who gave Z the scowly face
Nah. Don't do them and am parsimonious with green thumbs. He probably got his assistant to do it to make him look controversial.
|
>> completely bogged down recently with gloomy/bad news
>>
That is exactly what the news of D O C P does to anti-Royalists.
It raises their blood pressure, and adds to their chronic depression.
There is no getting away from it, despite the plea made in the OP.
p.s. King Edward VIII, despite being born in Britain and of Royal blood, knew that the only way to get away from Monarchists was to flee to the Republic of France.
|
>> You've lost it, AC. Willie Wonder and Waity Katie can do no wrong, haven't you
>> heard? No doubt this unborn nipper is already just as worthy of the job to
>> which it is entitled by mere dint of an accident of conception. One can tell
>> it is far better suited by being automatically superior to the other 60 million souls
>> here. Obvs, really.
Better suited to the role than you for sure!
|
>> Better suited to the role than you for sure!
Who the hell suggested I'd be any use? Certainly not me. I'd do a damned sight better job than you though, with your attitude to people with mental illnesses. You'd be about as embarrassing an ambassador for our country as Phil.
|
>> with your attitude to people with mental illnesses.
It was an insult. He's called me fat, bald, and gin soaked. He's called everybody something at some point or other.
Only now are people up in arms because he insulted someone with a mental illness.
Presumably that's because people with mental illnesses have to be treated differently as they are special?
I only ask because I understood that people with mental illnesses preferred to be treated like anybody else with any other illness or issue.
|
>> >> with your attitude to people with mental illnesses.
>>
>> It was an insult. He's called me fat, bald, and gin soaked. He's called everybody
>> something at some point or other.
Was that the best I could manage? It must be love.
|
>>
>> >> Better suited to the role than you for sure!
>>
>> Who the hell suggested I'd be any use? Certainly not me. I'd do a damned
>> sight better job than you though, with your attitude to people with mental illnesses. You'd
>> be about as embarrassing an ambassador for our country as Phil.
Yeah but then you would really have something of value to moan about if I was on the throne.
|
>>Yeah but then you would really have something of value to moan about if I was on the throne.
But at least we'd have someone we could feel good about beheading.
|
>> >>Yeah but then you would really have something of value to moan about if I
>> was on the throne.
>>
>> But at least we'd have someone we could feel good about beheading.
I never had you down as a cheese eating surrender monkey?
|
>> Charles I was french?
Which one?
Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor or Charlemagne (742–814)
Charles I of Naples, King of Sicily (1226–1285)
Charles I of Hungary, King of Hungary (1288–1342)
Charles I of Bohemia or Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor (1316–1378)
Charles I of Norway or Charles VIII of Sweden (1409–1470)
Charles I of Spain or Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1500–1558)
Charles I of England, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1600–1649)
Charles I of Romania or Carol I of Romania, King of Romania (1839–1914)
Charles I of Portugal or Carlos I of Portugal, King of Portugal (1863–1908)
Charles I of Austria, Emperor of Austria (also known as Charles IV of Hungary) (1887–1922)
Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine (953–993)
Charles I, Count of Flanders (1080/86–1127), called Charles the Good
Charles of Valois or Charles I, count of Alençon 1291–1325
Charles I, Lord of Monaco (died 1357)
Charles I, Duke of Bourbon (1401–1456)
Charles I, Count of Nevers (1414–1464)
Charles I, Margrave of Baden-Baden (died 1475)
Charles I, Duke of Savoy (1482–1490)
Charles I, Count Palatine of Zweibrücken-Birkenfeld (1560–1600)
Charles I, Duke of Elbeuf (1556–1605)
Charles I, Duke of Mantua and Montferrat (1580–1637)
Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine (1617–1680)
Charles I, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel (1654–1730)
Charles I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1713–1780)
Charles I, Duke of Parma or Charles III of Spain
|
>> Time for all the vulgar twozzer commentators to take against Prince William,
AC, I never had you down as a monarchist?
|
|
One assumes that this news would have remained under wraps for much longer had the lady in question not been admitted to hospital for acute morning sickness.
|
According to the News, only3% of the 70% of Women that get Morning sickness have to be admitted to hospital.
Trust her to be in that pampered percentage! - the other 67% of other normal, healthy young women, who have a mere fraction of her lifestyle luxuries seem to manage perfectly well! - It must be a "Pedigree-related" issue, the "mongrels" seem to have no problems poppin` them out!
|
>> It must be a "Pedigree-related" issue, the "mongrels" seem to have no problems poppin` them out!
Hardly. 'er be a commoner.
|
>>Hardly. 'er be a commoner.
As common as the "Chantelles" and "Whitneys" of the inner-city estates? - me thinks not! ;-)
|
>> never had you down as a monarchist?
Sort of, in a way, up to a point. What else would one be in this country, if one wasn't a deluded rationalist eager beaver who imagines everything is simple and obvious and would soon be sorted out if they or some other genius were put in charge?
Monarchy isn't a rational system and embodies numerous absurdities. But a nation isn't a rational entity and has absurdities coming out of its ears, capisce? Anyone who thinks getting rid of the monarchy would improve anything at all is living in cloud cuckoo land. But then most people do in my humble opinion.
I don't have the impression that any woman enjoys morning sickness. Perhaps the Duchess's morning sickness isn't really that bad. She may be in hospital while Physicians of the Utmost Fame look her over with special machines to make sure everything is all right. Just a guess.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 3 Dec 12 at 19:01
|
A female's point of view:
She hasn't been told to eat a gingernut and get on with it then...
|
*crosses fingers*
Please let the nipper be Ginger.
Pleeeeeease.
|
|
Nope - wrong brother to be ginger!
|
>>Nope - wrong brother to be ginger!
Exactly - imagine the look on William's face if a carrot-top popped out.
Would be the same as Charlie's when Harry popped out 20-odd years ago.
|
|
Hold my horse's head said the major.......................................
|
As you may have guessed, I'm no Monarchist, nor do I think that inherited titles automatically make it necessary for we commoners to treat such inheritors with more respect than they have earned.
Nevertheless, given that a monarchy is likely to be with us for a good long time, I think that Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge, is as good as many and better than most, at taking on all the carp which comes with her husbands job.
She may have been dubbed, unkindly I think, "waity Katy", but at least, unlike the last naive and troubled commoner who married into the prime branch of the Windsor family, she can be under no false illusions as what to expect.
So far, I think from what we have seen, she has slotted in to the position admirably.
William & the Royals are lucky to have her and I wish her all the best.
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 3 Dec 12 at 20:23
|
Thank the Lord for the Monarchy. Absolutely no power over our lives, relatively cheap to run and saving us from being bossed around by an elected president whose office would no doubt cost billions every year.
And the 5% who bothered to turn out and vote for one would all be rabid lefties who'd foist some washed up old coke bottle shaker like Ken on us.
|
|
Nice to hear the prince putting his chopper to good use, other than rescuing people with it.
|
|
She will need to be careful - look at what happened to the last woman once she had provided an heir to the throne
|
Wishing them good luck as one would do to any couple in the same situation and hoping all goes well.
|
I am a monarchist - though not a raving loony monarchist. I believe that a nation needs a figurehead like a living room needs a fireplace - and we are all familiar with the dismal results when we try to elect leaders. The present royal system works fine and I think that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are a splendid young couple and that they'll do a great job.
I am, however, already saddened by the media frenzy and wall to wall coverage of Kate's pregnancy. I switched on 'Breakfast' this morning and, after discussing the present situation with a correspondent stationed outside the hospital, they found a young woman to interview who had suffered a similar type of sickness to Kate. I fear this is going to go on and on............
For goodness sake, give 'em a bit of peace!
|
>> Thank the Lord for the Monarchy. Absolutely no power over our lives, relatively cheap to
>> run and saving us from being bossed around by an elected president whose office would
>> no doubt cost billions every year.
>>
You missed a major advantage. Britain gets to send its actual Head of State elsewhere without impacting the day-to-day business of government at all.
That's a diplomatic bonus worth the cost all on its own.
|
|
Surely the same in any country where the Head of State is not part of the executive e.g the Republic of Ireland, so I don't think your argument really applies at all.
|
>> Surely the same in any country where the Head of State is not part of
>> the executive e.g the Republic of Ireland, so I don't think your argument really applies
>> at all.
>>
That wouldn't happen here, our politicians at any level would never be content unless they had the power to interfere in our lives. And if it actually would make no difference, why change it? No tourists are going to come here to see Ken Livingston riding round on a bendy bus.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 4 Dec 12 at 10:45
|
>> Thank the Lord for the Monarchy. Absolutely no power over our lives,
You did read the recent news about Prince Charles and his private Government communications, didn't you? It was discussed on here.
|
>> You did read the recent news about Prince Charles and his private Government communications, didn't you? It was discussed on here.
>>
He was rightly or wrongly trying to influence events, which many people do. His opinions were ignored so had zero effect on our lives.
|
>>His opinions
>> were ignored so had zero effect on our lives.
And we know that how?
|
>> And we know that how?
>>
You're asking me to prove a negative.
You know full well that lobbying for something (which many people and organisations do, from News International down to the Women's Institute) is entirely different from having the power to legislate.
|
The point is that the Monarch isn't supposed to even lobby, and if you think he's going to stop once he's got the silly hat, then you're dafter than AC. If anything, he's indicated that he intends to take an even more active role in attempting to influence legislation.
Anyway, here's some interesting stuff to chew on. If the baby is to be a girl, she will take precedence over any subsequent brothers in terms of accession to the throne.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607
This decision was in the hands of the governments of the 15 Commonwealth countries which have the British Monarch as their HoS. So we've had the choice made for us by the governments of Belize and Papua New Guinea. I hope all the Royalists here who also have strong anti-immigration views are happy that this decision is in the hands of foreign people who haven't even had the good manners to immigrate here before taking it upon themselves to tell us who we should have at the Head of our State. Here's that list of countries in full (they are the Realms in the list):
www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Commonwealthmembers/MembersoftheCommonwealth.aspx
Good, innit?
|
|
There was talk of twins on Daybreak this morning - that would be interesting...
|
Oh FFS - the sanguinary Daily Mail is in full royal-up-the-duff mode now.
Pass the sick-bag.
|
>> the sanguinary Daily Mail
Whilst I echo the gist of the rest of your post, be careful you don't split your cheek with your tongue there, Rog.
|
>> >> the sanguinary Daily Mail
>>
>> Whilst I echo the gist of the rest of your post, be careful you don't
>> split your cheek with your tongue there, Rog.
>>
OK, OK, ALL the sanguinary Red Top Press, then. :-)
|
Good, innit?
Well that's (global) democracy in action for you.
|
>> Good, innit?
>>
>> Well that's (global) democracy in action for you.
>>
Yeah. Funny how, when it's the EU "running our country from Brussels", that's a bad thing, but when it's the Commonwealth running it from Perth (Australia), it seems to be fine.
|
|
I don't think that's a very good comparison.
|
>> I don't think that's a very good comparison.
>>
Really? Sounds like the same principle to me, with the one exception that we do actually get a vote on the running of the EU every now and again.
|
>> >> I don't think that's a very good comparison.
>> >>
>>
>> Really? Sounds like the same principle to me, with the one exception that we do
>> actually get a vote on the running of the EU every now and again.
>>
No, really it's not. Despite your explaination I think you know why.
|
|
No, you're going to have to explain how the principle is different.
|
|
The two organisations, the purpose of them, their impact of the decision and how they impact on people make it an invalid comparison.
|
>> The two organisations, the purpose of them, their impact of the decision and how they
>> impact on people make it an invalid comparison.
>>
Oh, I see what you're saying now. But I disagree - in principle it's the same matter. Decisions being made on behalf of us by (partly) foreign agencies. Only I see the EU as more legitimate as we have a vote on that organisation's personnel, and in fact voted to join it in the first place.
Last edited by: javascript:void(null); on Tue 4 Dec 12 at 13:05
|
|
In principle possibly similar, but the impact and what it does is of far greater relevance. Which one concerns you more? The impact of the EU or a meeting of the Commenwealth on a fairly minor point of little real impact to most?
|
Well the EU is of more importance but I am more comfortable with its role as it is a partly democratic institution. The Commonwealth and the Monarchy are not even that. There is no accountability. The allocation of Head of State is a function of importance and does have a direct consequence on our lives, whichever way you slice it. If not, why bother?
So yes, there are degrees of influence, but a bad principle remains a bad principle and should be scrutinised, criticised and, ultimately, done away with.
|
I would say the commenwealth is democratic, our represetative was democratically elected, and I believe so were all the others.
'If not, why bother?'
I'd say because it's the best option. I'm quite comfortable with having no say in the Head of state.
'So yes, there are degrees of influence, but a bad principle remains a bad principle and should be scrutinised, criticised and, ultimately, done away with.'
Which one are you taking about the EU or the Monarchy?
|
>> Which one are you taking about the EU or the Monarchy?
Take a wild stab in the dark.
|
|
I know ;) just saying that such a statement would, I'd bet, resanate with more people in relation to the EU than the Monarchy.
|
sooty123:
The Queen is Head of State of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. She is also Head of the Commonwealth itself, a voluntary association of 54 independent countries - countries which we used to rule over.
The Commonwealth used to be called the British Commonwealth for a reason. We saved most members of the EU from Hitler's rule. So, I say do away with President Barosso. Let the EU show their gratitude and make the Queen the Head of EU too.
:)
|
>> then you're dafter than AC.
But nowhere near as damn daft as javascript:void(null); who appears terrified that the Prince of Wales is slowly seizing power here. Cloud cuckoo land I said.
|
>> But nowhere near as damn daft as javascript:void(null);
That's the second time you've used that AC - I'm confused.
|
>> >> But nowhere near as damn daft as javascript:void(null);
>>
>> That's the second time you've used that AC - I'm confused.
It's my real name. Keeping up with the times, you see. My children are called Tweet and Skinny-Latte.
|
|
There we go. All in aid of helping the aged, you understand.
|
>> There we go. All in aid of helping the aged, you understand.
Yeah figures, all your posts are in error.
|
>>>> But nowhere near as damn daft as javascript:void(null);
Hover the pointer over anybody's username and that will appear in the bottom left corner of your browser.
|
The late Christopher Hitchens is so much better at this than me:
www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/charles-prince-of-wales
Also, PoW himself is quite good:
"What's wrong with everyone nowadays? What is it that makes everyone seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure and tells people they can be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or even infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting ikn the necessary effort or having natural abilities. It's social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially re-engineeered to contradict the lessons of history. What on earth am I to say to Elaine in reply? She's so PC it frightens me rigid."
Prince Charles
Hand-written note by Prince Charles dismissing efforts by personal assistant Elaine Day to be trained for a higher-level post
"What I want to know is: what is actually wrong with an elite."
Prince Charles
Newspaper quote, 1985
Anyway, I've nothing against the man personally (yet), I might even vote for him if he were brave enough to stand for election as Head of this country. But he isn't. And I can't. And both of those things tell me he's the wrong man for the job, along with his elitist attitudes so ably articulated in his own words above.
|
>>javascript:void(null);
I believe it is now compulsory that a moderator will come along, give you a "strong telling off" for irresponsibly changing your username, force it back to what it was and then you have to go on a major sulk and flounce off.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 4 Dec 12 at 12:27
|
>> >>javascript:void(null);
>>
>>
>> I believe it is now compulsory that a moderator will come along, give you a
>> "strong telling off" for irresponsibly changing your username, force it back to what it was
>> and then you have to go on a major sulk and flounce off.
>>
>>
>>
Not related to little Bobby Tables, perchance?
|
>> I believe it is now compulsory that a moderator will come along, give you a
>> "strong telling off" for irresponsibly changing your username, force it back to what it was
>> and then you have to go on a major sulk and flounce off.
We haven't had a decent flounce for a while.
I think we are due one. Well, it would be nice for Christmas, wouldn't it?
Has Iffy flounced?
|
|
You're obsessed with the man javascript. It's a bit boring.
|
>> You're obsessed with the man javascript. It's a bit boring.
>>
The irony is strong in this one. I'm far less obsessed with him/them than the slavering, nodding, glass-eyed, star-struck, supine mob will be in the coming months around this baby (babies,) and how they were with the wedding not so long ago.
And it's Mr Javascript, Esq to you.
|
>> And it's Mr Javascript, Esq to you.
>>
Doesn't say that in your profile.
|
I do hate to be pedantic, especially in such a slightly heated thread, but it's Mr or Esquire, but not both. And you might want to double check the status and meanings of UK citizen and subject, since I'm being boring, unless I've misread what you intended to say earlier.
Normally I let this stuff go, but I'm grumpy and don't care about the inevitable flak today.
|
It's debatable, CC.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm
But I'd rather not be thought of as a Subject at all, all the same.
|
As you say, it is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject
Do keep on posting your views though, always interesting. We like debate.
|
>> the slavering, nodding, glass-eyed, star-struck, supine mob will be in the coming months around this baby (babies,) and how they were with the wedding not so long ago.
Is this what you really think of a substantial group of your fellow subjects? You wouldn't want to live in a republic with a lot of people like that in it would you? So I should leave well alone if I were you.
>> Mr Javascript, Esq to you.
What's with the uppercase and multiple titles? If you can't beat them join them, eh?
sir lord:void(null) will do nicely thanks. Heh heh.
|
>> void(null) will do nicely thanks. Heh heh.
>>
Wondered how long it would take to spot that obvious gag.
|
>> to spot that obvious gag.
You may or may not be 'losing it' but you have lost me. What obvious gag?
|
|
As you were, I misread your post.
|
|
Not a subject I can get worked up about but I do like reading people getting in a lather over their own prejudices:-)
|
>> Physicians of the Utmost Fame
I have just remembered that the late Sir George Pinker, the Queen's gynaecologist until his retirement, was senior consultant at St Mary's in Praed Street where herself had my second and third daughters. He wasn't hands-on exactly though. Used to sweep grandly through the ward with a comet's tail of assistants, students and hangers-on, glance at the bumf, say something polite to the patient and sweep on to the next ward.
He wore damn nice suits though and his cuffs were impeccable, not a speck of blood or afterbirth. But his Utmost Fame did reassure one somehow that the old girl was getting proper attention. St Mary's has done very well by me too, although the team that did my pacemaker consisted entirely of immigrants from everywhere under the sun.
|
>>
>> He wore damn nice suits though and his cuffs were impeccable, not a speck of
>> blood or afterbirth.
>>
If you'd have looked down his shoes were probably covered in both.
|
CH5 now... Wills & Kate - Baby Fever.... for those that need the latest insight.
They cobbled that 1hr doc together quickly.
|
|
Like obituaries, RR - you don't suppose they call a junior journo in on Sunday morning to bash one out the moment the news breaks, do you? They have them on file, ready for a quick dust-off when the Reaper reaps, which is why every so often the wrong button gets clicked and some minor notable gets to read their own over the toast and marmalade.
|
|
Oops! FL, not RR. See how easy it is?
|
|
All this fuss over a pregnancy! - after all, 99% of them are a cock-up at the time!
|
"...99% of them are a cock-up at the time!"
Or a shot in the dark.
|
>> "...99% of them are a cock-up at the time!"
>>
>> Or a shot in the dark.
Nah - a quick release valve.
|
>> They have them
>> on file, ready for a quick dust-off
>>
Probably there are ready-made letters, report findings, prison sentences, etc for just about every eventuality, all waiting just in case:
We are sad to report ...
We are pleased to announce ...
We conclude that there have been regretable lapses ....
We are happy to exonerate ....
You will go to prison ..
You are released without a stain on your character ...
The war has turned out not altogether to our advantage ...
Sweeping allied victory at ...
The Prime Minister's life is slipping slowly towards its end.
|
"Royal pregnancy: Hoax call to Duchess of Cambridge hospital"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20610197
"The hospital treating the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge said it "deeply regrets" giving out information about her condition to hoax callers from an Australian radio station.
Presenters posing as the Queen, Prince Charles and corgis got details from a nurse at King Edward VII hospital."
??
|
I wouldn't be surprised if the staff in question were from overseas.
Private hospitals love paying bottom dollar to the non-consultants :-)
|
>> I wouldn't be surprised if the staff in question were from overseas.
>>
>> Private hospitals love paying bottom dollar to the non-consultants :-)
"...were connected to the duchess's private nurse..." - sounds expensive!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20610197
|
>> "...were connected to the duchess's private nurse..." - sounds expensive!
Not really, TheNursing agency rate is quite reasonable.
|
|
Just heard the hospital receptionist that put the call through has been found dead. Suspected suicide. Very sad.
|
My word. To think that this person sees the Royal family's mild embarrassment as more important than their own life.
Speechless.
|
Oh come on, we know nothing of the reasons
You will be blaming the D of E next
Very sad, whatever the background
Last edited by: commerdriver on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 15:24
|
Well it's that or an extraordinary coincidence, I'll grant you.
I have no intention of blaming the Duke.
|
>> the Royal family's mild embarrassment
I doubt if they were remotely embarrassed. Why should they be? The Wince (of Prales) was chortling about it to hacks yesterday. But they may well be a bit upset about the poor receptionist. Why wouldn't they be?
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20645838
A nurse at the London hospital where the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge was treated has been found dead at an address in central London, the BBC understands.
|
|
I have to say thats pretty tragic, I suspect the Dutchess will be upset, thats the last thing you want out of an event like this.
|
|
I expect so Z, but it's hardly worth mentioning in light of the upset which the nurse's loved ones will be experiencing. It's kind of a secondary consideration, surely.
|
>> I expect so Z, but it's hardly worth mentioning in light of the upset which
>> the nurse's loved ones will be experiencing. It's kind of a secondary consideration, surely.
In such circumstances, nothing is secondary consideration. Funny how you can even trot out your hatred of the Royal Family under any circumstances. Full marks for perseverance and single mindedness.
|
What a truly awful and very sad event. Unspeakable. Those jolly ockers will be feeling a bit guilty I would think.
One can't help wondering whether some useless overpaid jumped-up twit of a 'line manager' set about making the poor girl's life a misery or threatened to fire her. She sounded African to me in the audio clip, West African. A naive person with no ear for British accents or speech mannerisms.
|
|
I should imagine those Australian presenters aren't feeling too good right now either.
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 15:55
|
>> I should imagine those Australian presenters aren't feeling too good right now either.
Good.
|
>> >> I should imagine those Australian presenters aren't feeling too good right now either.
>>
If they are anything like the UK tabloid journalists I doubt it.
|
I doubt it too.
It is sad and she must have felt so gulity and couldn't face being exposed as the one who was taken in.
The whole thing was wrong on so many levels.
The Australians for even attemting it...
The Hospital for not having a practice in place for dealing with calls to royalty...
And most of all, Kate's well paid security men and women who should have been manning the phones.
Pat
|
Oh for goodness sakes, they made a phone call, played a trick and mostly got away with it. AS *countless* radio presenters have done over the years.
And whilst I think its very sad that the lady committed suicide, if it was truly over that phone call then she was already in a bad way.
|
>>*countless* radio presenters have done over the years.<<
And on what level does that make it right then?
Pat
|
>And on what level does that make it right then?
Not right, not special, not evil and not reason for suicide.
As it happens, not very funny either, but that's no crime.
|
>> Not right, not special, not evil and not reason for suicide.
>>
Not looked at in a rational light, but for someone who may be a shy and private person, proud of her career and who is thrust into the public spotlight and lampooned as an idiot it may be a cross too many to bear.
Incidently, I wonder what percentage of us would have fallen for it too? A member of the royal family is in your hospital and another member phones up to ask about them. It's not as ridiculous an scenario as it has been made out to appear.
|
I would have assumed there was a protocol in place, some from of identity password, that kind of thing.
Clearly not, surprising that.
|
>> I would have assumed there was a protocol in place, some from of identity password,
>> that kind of thing.
>>
>> Clearly not, surprising that.
>>
5.30am, normal gate staff, (phone answerer) not on duty, nurse answers phone, not clued up on procedures, easy cockup which hopefully won't happen again.
|
>> Incidently, I wonder what percentage of us would have fallen for it too? A member
>> of the royal family is in your hospital and another member phones up to ask
>> about them. It's not as ridiculous an scenario as it has been made out to
>> appear.
>>
particularly so in the case of Subjects born in Commonwealth countries (or whose ethn ic origin is from such countries) who regard the Royal Family with great respect (infinitely more so than some UK born Citizens born who post on here filled with hatred of anything to do with Royalty).
Such a person would be mortified, in this case proved to be literally true, that they let down a Royal. To such people, honour is of prime importance and they will give up their life for it.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 17:19
|
(infinitely more
>> so than some UK born Citizens born who post on here filled with hatred of
>> anything to do with Royalty).
Laughable crap.
>> Such a person would be mortified, in this case proved to be literally true, that
>> they let down a Royal. To such people, honour is of prime importance and they
>> will give up their life for it.
>>
And if you think that's a desirable and acceptable state of affairs, you want your bumps feeling.
|
>> >> Such a person would be mortified, in this case proved to be literally true,
>> that
>> >> they let down a Royal. To such people, honour is of prime importance and
>> they
>> >> will give up their life for it.
>> >>
>>
>> And if you think that's a desirable and acceptable state of affairs, you want your
>> bumps feeling.
>>
Don't judge others by your own standards.
|
Honour, and giving up one's life for it, I can understand as a concept, and there are things which would probably make me feel strongly enough to take such a stand. I would be prepared to stand up and fight for my country should the call come. However, were the call purely based on protecting our Royal family, then I would most likely demur. For country, yes. For my fellow countrymen, yes. For Queen? No.
Suzanne Vega performed a very nice song on the subject, The Soldier and the Queen. Very moving.
|
For my fellow countrymen, yes. For Queen? No.
Isn't the Queen a member of this country also?
|
|
As a human being, yes. And, were I in the bizarre and thoroughly unlikely situation of being the only person between her as an individual and an aggressor, then I'd do my bit as best I could. But as an abstract concept for which I am prepared to give up my life? I don't think so.
|
>> Suzanne Vega performed a very nice song on the subject, The Soldier and the Queen.
>> Very moving.
I don't think Brenda is likely to have anybody knocked off, even if the phoney Pharaoh did ;-)
Nice song though.
I hope the outcome of the 'prank' goes some way to humanising the 'entertainment' industry and the cycnical exploiters therein.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 13:59
|
>> Suzanne Vega performed a very nice song on the subject, The Soldier and the Queen.
>> Very moving.
Yes, one of my favorites - saw her doing it live at Leeds Uni 1986 (IIRC).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt0sXRBLfJM
|
>> whilst I think its very sad that the lady committed suicide, if it was truly over that phone call then she was already in a bad way.
I can't think of a reason why you should assume that. More likely that she didn't have any sensible British friends. A naive individual perhaps over-aware of being on the far side of a big cultural gap, without sympathetic support from someone more experienced or knowledgeable, can feel very fragile psychologically simply because they are in a place that still seems strange and a bit frightening. You've been around FMR and should understand that.
|
>> Kate's well paid security men and women who should have been manning the phones.
They didn't get through to the duchess, did they? The receptionist put them through to someone with a better ear who brushed them off I think.
There are a lot of people far less grand than the royals who never answer their own phones and are hard to reach.
|
|
A previous GP of mine referred to his receptionist as the "Dragon on the door", she was ferocious but astute and was well briefed as to patients clinical priority status. He would say "Don't tell her I called her that" which was wise as she was his wife.
|
The way I read it earlier, because it was early (and so no receptionist) this nurse answered the phone. It was not her that told the callers anything about the Duchess - that was another nurse.
Tragic that she felt this way but she obviously did. To much of a coincidence if it was not linked to the prank call.
|
Here is the total extent of the lady's involvement in the phone call....
Greig: "Oh, hello there. Could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter?"
Saldanha: "oh yes, just hold on ma'am"
Now it appears the the two radio presenters have agreed not to return to work until further notice out of respect.
What a ridiculous pile of crap.
They made a ridiculous phone call. Not funny, not criminal.
A poor lady committed suicide. I cannot believe that it was because of this phone call given the level of her involvement. But it would appear that she did commit suicide.
Now I'm very sorry she committed suicide. At least, I'm sorry for her family. But I don't see how the two presenters can be held in anyway responsible for any reason other than it makes great headlines and everybody just *loves* to be outraged.
And to listen to a whole bunch of raging nutters on radio shows, and twitter, and goodness knows where else, making death threats, and going on about "blood on their hands" and a whole bunch of other dross is insane.
Pile of old crap.
|
|
I'm making an assumption here but maybe this highlights the work ethic and loyalty of some of our 'migrant' workers (the assumption being the migrant part but nevertheless from a NWB ethnic group)
|
>> I cannot believe that it was because of this phone call given the level of her involvement.
>> But it would appear that she did commit suicide.
I think the call was a catalyst to cause her to commit suicide. The prank call was in bad taste and not funny. Were they responsible? No. Did they contribute to whatever led her to commit suicide? Yes.
Who knows what state of mind she was in but this prank call was linked. And another nurse divulged medical details anyway.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 20:05
|
>> NWB?
>>
non-white-British?
|
>> (the assumption being the migrant part but nevertheless from a
>> NWB ethnic group)
>>
Armel thought her accent was South African.
I think it was South Indian, possibly Goan or Tamil.
The name is certainly one found amongst Catholic Indians from parts of South India that had Portuguese links.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 7 Dec 12 at 20:11
|
>> thought her accent was South African.
No, West African, completely different. But it was a short clip and I was wrong anyway. The name could indeed be Goan but to me it could equally well be Filipino or something obscure from around the Indian Ocean. Suggestion of Christianity anyway. Perhaps the clip was of the second nurse whose name I haven't seen. TV and radio producers often play incredibly fast and loose with that sort of thing and casual but blatant misinformation is commonplace.
The hospital brass in their statement said she had been given full support and encouragement. If true this would make the King Edward VII hospital rather unusual for that sort of place these days. But perhaps it is kinder and less 'managed' than the others as well as being a bit lax and offhand with its security and filtering arrangements.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 9 Dec 12 at 17:16
|
>> No, West African, completely different. But it was a short clip and I was wrong
>> anyway. The name could indeed be Goan but to me it could equally well be
>> Filipino or something obscure from around the Indian Ocean. Suggestion of Christianity anyway. Perhaps the
>> clip was of the second nurse whose name I haven't seen.
>>
The 2nd nurse clip was self-censored by the UK press.
As for the origins of Jacintha Saldanha
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245294
"Mrs Saldanha, from Valencia in south-west India, married Mr Barboza, from the nearby village of Shirva, in 1993. They moved to Bristol nine years ago. "
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/09/jacintha-saldanha-hoax-call-india
"On Saturday, relatives gathered at the Barbozas' smart single-storey home in Sorkala, near the town of Shirva in Karnataka"
Last edited by: John H on Sun 9 Dec 12 at 17:45
|
>> The 2nd nurse clip was self-censored by the UK press.
That would have been because of the private, but undoubtedly boring, banal and already public in essence, information she is said to have disclosed. But the clip I heard was of someone just starting to answer a phonecall, not disclosing information. There would be no reason for the media to censor that.
|
>>But the clip I heard was of someone just starting to answer a phonecall, not disclosing information. There would be no reason for the media to censor that.
>>
The whole recording is on Youtube. It is not difficult to find.
|
>> Here is the total extent of the lady's involvement in the phone call....
>>
>> Greig: "Oh, hello there. Could I please speak to Kate please, my granddaughter?"
>>
>> Saldanha: "oh yes, just hold on ma'am"
>>
The 2nd Nurse who then took call was possibly told: The Queen iis on the line.
Mrs Saldanha obviously did not feel able to question the authenticity of a caller who claimed to be the Queen, but the 2nd Nurse now has Mrs Saldanha telling her it is the Queen, hence the 2nd Nurse feels unable to refuse answering questions from the Sovereign and gave away confidential information.
|
Whatever the reason this poor woman felt compelled to take her life.
The DJs should not have done this especially in light of the recent furore over press intrusion and the history with regards Prince William's mother.
Should they be punished. I think there should be some punishment or the media will continue and extend intrusions in to other lives. It is an offence in this country to obtain information that you are not entitled to when using a computer system. Is there similar legislation to general information?
|
In other circumstances the stunt could have been very funny. There have been famously good impersonations in the past. Horace de Vere Cole as the "Emperor of Abysinia" reviewing the fleet in c 1930 for example, or William Douglas-Home phoning his brother at No. 10 and impersonating the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But whilst officialdom and pompous bigwigs are fair game, nurses of non-English extraction are not. Above all it was such a tasteless exercise, extracting medical information that was merely private and not remotely justifiable by any public interest argument.
|
The hospital is now attempting to restore its reputation. sroppy letter to Aus etc.
Their procedures were not very good.
They must be worried about the security re other high profile customers and future bookings?
|
Why don't The Royal Family use The National Health Service?
Surely it would be seen as leading by example?
|
>> Why don't The Royal Family use The National Health Service?
>>
>> Surely it would be seen as leading by example?
>>
Unlike most middle class lefties you mean, who bang on about about the evils of private medicine while spending a fortune on BUPA?
|
There is something a bit off centre about the way that the "alleged suicide" is being reported.
I don't know what it is, but I feel we are missing a piece of information.
|
There's no dividing line between private and NHS. The Queen had her children at St Mary's in Praed Street which is an NHS hospital albeit with different 'wings' at least one of which is mainly private. Her gynaecologist George Pinker was a consultant who saw NHS patients including my wife. He correctly whipped her in when she thought she was having a false alarm with our youngest, having instantly sussed that we were wrong in our time estimate and she was at term or damn near. Some of these chaps are talented, so to speak.
So, there may be a difference but there's no real dividing line. Does private medicine make free use of NHS facilities as some complain, or does the NHS get the benefit of all these top quacks? I don't know enough of the detail to say.
|
|
The only time private hospitals make free use of the NHS is when things go mams up and they dial 999.
|
... so you aren't one of those complainers Lygonos.
But does the NHS benefit from Physicians of the Utmost Fame at a financial discount? No doubt the fees are pretty healthy even with the discount.
I can remember, just, when all medicine was private. Of course we were all much poorer then and things were cheaper. But chronic illness must have been a big worry to working-class people and even the middle classes looked at medical bills with furrowed brows.
|
I am surprised at the fee a surgeon and the anaesthetist charge for a self funded operation. No idea what is charged to BUPA.
The cost of the hospital stay is another matter.
|
>>... so you aren't one of those complainers Lygonos.
No, but I am wary of conflicts of interest in medicine.
"Well Mrs Loaded my waiting list for a new knee is 5 months, but I have a slot free next Tuesday on my private list. £7000 sound fair?"
Pretty much all consultants work in the NHS - some may choose to work privately outside their contracted hours.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 9 Dec 12 at 20:03
|
>> Pretty much all consultants work in the NHS - some may choose to work privately
>> outside during their contracted hours.
|
>>"Well Mrs Loaded my waiting list for a new knee is 5 months, but I have a slot free next Tuesday on my private list. £7000 sound fair?"
>>
Sounds too cheap, in my experience, for that job part of the world.
|
>>Sounds too cheap
Indeed - 10-12 grand would be more like it ;-)
|
|
Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse do a scarily realistic surgeon double act, often very funny.
|
>> Indeed - 10-12 grand would be more like it ;-)
>>
Swmbo had a new knee 3 months ago. Your figure is pretty accurate.
What surprised me was that some hospitals could not give a total figure cos it depends on the day which make of joint is used.
|
>> when things go
>> mams up and they dial 999.
Which happens far more frequently than you would like to know,
|
>> >> when things go
>> >> mams up and they dial 999.
>>
>> Which happens far more frequently than you would like to know,
>>
When I needed major life saving surgery my GPs advice was "Private is OK for minor peripheral stuff, the NHS has the backup including an on site ICU if you need it".
|
|
I generally think that NHS is best - I have opted for private health care twice - effectively once when my first wife died accesing counselling through my company and recently for my tennis elbows (now sorted). One client's story sticks in my mind - during a gap year he was left comatosed after a holiday incident in a first world country's hospital - his mother brought him home after nine weeks and he was admitted to an UK hospital to quote her "who painstakingly stuck him back together again" both mentally and physically...I don't blame royalty for going private - keeps beds free for others
|
|
Why can't private be in a NHS hospital? If people have the money let them pay put them up in a posh room with all the extras they want.Under the NHS umbrella.
|
>> Why can't private be in a NHS hospital?
>>If people have the money let them pay put them up in a posh room with all the extras they want.Under the NHS umbrella.
>>
That is exactly what the Lindo Wing is at St Marys Paddington where the royals go.
www.imperial.nhs.uk/privatehealthcare.
The best of both worlds.
Quite a few NHS hospitals have a private wing.
We were at Guildford last week which has a private wing.
www.nuffieldhealth.com/hospitals/guildford
Next to the main hospital.
SWMOs previous knee ops was private in a NHS hospital with a not very posh room but with privacy and an en suite.
|
>> Why can't private be in a NHS hospital? If people have the money let them
>> pay put them up in a posh room with all the extras they want.Under the
>> NHS umbrella.
>>
They used to do that, but at some time within living memory private beds were cleared out of NHS hospitals.
There also used to be an intermediate category called "amenity beds". This was a cheaper option than the full private room, I think sharing basic catering with the full NHS ward but offering more privacy. AFAIK these too have been abolished.
Perhaps some hospitals still offer both these options, but I do remember a big political debate about them, perhaps in Harold Wilson's time.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sun 9 Dec 12 at 21:33
|
|
Surprised that this option was abolished regarding privacy.I was priviliged being in a top ward at Castle Hill Hospital cancer ward.Rooms very modern two patients per room.Nothing is perfect I couldn't take to the cooked trolley food but I think that was due to the chemotherapy I was receiving.
|
Thanks to Zero and his fellow southern taxpayers we have a very modern hospital in the region - en-suite rooms and a view to die for...
www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/861/page/41583#Facilities
Last edited by: R.P. on Sun 9 Dec 12 at 22:43
|
|
S'ok, the debts will be passed over on independence.
|
|
I'm watching the snooker Rob good match going to be a late night both players evenly matched.>:) Our main hospital should have been replaced a good few years ago.Building is old and it shows.All the tax evasions from certain company's good have gone towards sorting this out.
|
>> a very modern hospital in
>> the region - en-suite rooms and a view to die for...
>>
Dignitas Suite?
|
|
According to the Telegraph, the D. of C. is still up-chucking a lot.I bet she wishes she'd said "No" that fateful time!
|
|
She should have done it Navy style, not Army/RAF style.
|
>> She should have done it Navy style, not Army/RAF style.
>>
Oi, wind your neck in doc ! :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 21:28
|
Join the Navy, feel a man...
;-)
|
|
I must admit I am glad I retired before females went to sea, although I believe they have yet to infiltrate submarine crews. Mrs ON has been a couple of hundred feet down in a submarine on a families (WAGs) day, she was thoroughly unimpressed by 100 odd million quids worth of kit.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 22:02
|
Didn't really pay much attention that women were on warships prior to this unfortunate coq-up: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7277464.stm
edit: didnt realise it took 4 years to get to the end of the inquiry - I remember when it was first reported in 2004.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 10 Dec 12 at 22:26
|
>> Didn't really pay much attention that women were on warships prior to this unfortunate coq-up:
>> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7277464.stm
>>
>> edit: didnt realise it took 4 years to get to the end of the inquiry
>> - I remember when it was first reported in 2004.
>>
I don't think there is anything particularly signifcant in the fact she is a women in that case. Plenty of similar ones involving men.
|
>>I don't think there is anything particularly signifcant in the fact she is a women in that case.
Indeed, other than it brought to my attention that women served on warships which I think hadn't been the case before 1990 or so.
|
|
Ah right fair enough. I think it was a bit later than that 93/4?
|
although I believe they have yet to infiltrate submarine crews.
ON, I think it's changed already or just about to.
|
>> I must admit I am glad I retired before females went to sea, although I
>> believe they have yet to infiltrate submarine crews. Mrs ON has been a couple of
>> hundred feet down in a submarine on a families (WAGs) day, she was thoroughly unimpressed
>> by 100 odd million quids worth of kit.
>>
As part of our bootneck training - well we are part of the Royal Navy - we spent a day on a submarine (diesel-electric in circa 1955) - good grief it was boring!
I, later on, quite liked driving a destroyer though.
I grew to like sleeping in a hammock, while on HMS Bulwark, a light fleet carrier used as a training vessel in its later days. Our quarters were over the tiller flat - very noisy, especially in a force 9 in the Bay of Biscay.
|
|
that couldnt have been very jolly... roger?
|
>>- we spent a day on a submarine (diesel-electric in circa 1955) - good grief
>> it was boring!
>>
Passengers often find that, It can be different if you have to run the contraption.
|
"Oh look someone's left the shower running"
"Umm, we don't have showers on this submarine"
|
Roger the cabin boy ?
Ted
|
>> >>- we spent a day on a submarine (diesel-electric in circa 1955) - good grief
>> >> it was boring!
>> >>
>>
>> Passengers often find that, It can be different if you have to run the contraption.
>>
Even worse was the time we spent experiencing the four on, four off, of the engine room stokers.
It was horrible.......I did have much more respect for my Dad though. He joined up as an ERA , trained at HMS Fisgard and served not only in the pre-war,Navy (hence my birth in Malta) but then ALL of the war at sea, enduring that regime, before transferring to the Fleet Air Arm post-war and finishing up as a Lieutenant (E).
|
Referring to the death of the nurse.
How is it that Keith Vaz MP always manages to get his nose into these things?
|
>> Referring to the death of the nurse.
>>
>> How is it that Keith Vaz MP always manages to get his nose into these
>> things?
Connections of family or clan? She and her family are Indian Catholics with connections to Goa, as is Vaz.
|
|
Wouldnt be too bad if he was adding any value.
|
|
Keith Vaz often seems annoying and pushy like quite a lot of modern MPs, but he's pretty bright and seldom seriously wrong.
|
>> How is it that Keith Vaz MP always manages to get his nose into these
>> things?
As Bromp said.
>> Connections of family or clan? She and her family are Indian Catholics with connections to
>> Goa, as is Vaz.
>>
to add to that:
Vaz was approached by the Saldhana family.
Vaz and Saldhana: Both families come from the Konkani speaking (Konkan Coast) region of India. They also share the same religion that was spread in the area by Portuguese conquerors/missionaries, which also explains the origins surnames.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/09/jacintha-saldanha-hoax-call-india
"Saldanha and her family were active members of the expatriate Konkani community in the UK – people who hail from the Konkan region, which runs down the south-west coast of India."
Last edited by: John H on Thu 13 Dec 12 at 17:30
|
Re Keith Vaz
I am glad to receive all the reassurances. I am delighted to hear that he was doing all this from the goodness of his heart.
There was me thinking he was just another jumped up, publicity seeking MP.
You don't know how relieved I am.
|
>> goodness of his heart.
>>
goodness of the heart?
What's that? Something to be found in humans? You'll be telling me next that there is a Father Christmas.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 14 Dec 12 at 10:15
|
>>There was me thinking he was just another jumped up, publicity seeking MP.
>>You don't know how relieved I am.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2247795/Jacintha-Saldanhas-death-Who-does-Keith-Vaz-think-Tony-Soprano.html
Some light reading :-)
|
|
So, it appears all was not rosy in the Saldana household, and that she left not one, but three suicide notes! - not one of them mentioned the hoax `phone-call, so I hope all those that "jumped the gun" and blamed the two daft D.J`s now have the decency to apologise for all the relentless Carp they have given them. On the same score, anybody involved with the numerous "Tv Prank" shows should expect the same treatment, everyone from Candid Camera to the modern day Kids program, "Prank-Patrol"!!
|
>> So, it appears all was not rosy in the Saldana household,
where do you get that from?
>> not one of them mentioned the hoax `phone-call,
>>
where do you get that from?
|
|
Twas on one of last evenings News reports!
|
>> Twas on one of last evenings News reports!
>>
Oh right, we have to take your word for it then.
I shall wait for the coroner's court proceedings before making statements about what the three notes said. (Although some newspapers have apparently already leaked some details of the notes, which contradict devonite's hearing).
|
>> >> Twas on one of last evenings News reports!
>> >>
>> (Although some newspapers have apparently already leaked some details of the notes, which
>> contradict devonite's hearing).
>>
>>
devonite may be looking forward to the Coroners report, to prove him right or wrong:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/jacintha-saldanha-suicide-notes
"One note deals with the hoax call by the DJs from 2Day FM, another details her requests for her funeral, and the third addresses her employers, the hospital, and contains criticism of staff there, the Guardian understands from two separate sources."
|
>> So, it appears all was not rosy in the Saldana household, and that she left
>> not one, but three suicide notes! - not one of them mentioned the hoax `phone-call,
>> so I hope all those that "jumped the gun" and blamed the two daft D.J`s
>> now have the decency to apologise for all the relentless Carp they have given them.
Certainly not. I don't see the coroners report part where it said the fake call was not the final straw?
|
>> I don't see the coroners report part where it said the fake call was not the final straw?
Conversely, I haven`t seen a report that it was the last straw either!
If the three notes had been written Post-prank, surely there may have been mention of it as being the "last-straw" but there wasn`t. To my mind, Ms Saldana had been contemplating this for other reasons for a while, and the phone-hoax was nothing more than co-incidental, she was probably about to do it anyway.
|
>> Conversely,
>> If
>> may
>> my mind,
>> probably
>>
Oh, right again.
You have probably confirmed what I may have had in my mind, if anything, about many of your past contributions.
|
Whatever! - You`ve quoted a comment that a Newspaper Hack "understands", I quoted an ITV News correspondent (live at the scene) on last evenings News. One or possibly both may be right or wrong, but I know which I prefer to believe at this time!
It doesn`t change my mind that I believe that She was already preparing to do this selfish act.
I originally tried to disclose my source to you, to hear for yourself, but unfortunately ITV player seems to decline to show News programs.
Last edited by: devonite on Fri 14 Dec 12 at 16:24
|
|
Strong words devonite calling suicide a selfish act.We don't know how far this lady was pushed over the edge taking this prankcall and the ridicule what went with it.
|
>> Strong words devonite calling suicide a selfish act.
Yes. Have we seen the contents of the notes? You are making assumptions devonite.
|
|
But it's still selfish isn't it, no matter what the contents? That is, I don't see how taking her life could help anyone else. But of course it might explain why she felt she had to do it.
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 14 Dec 12 at 16:50
|
|
Oh all right. Suicide for anyone with family or friends or children is a 'selfish' act. But it isn't the sort of selfish thing people do for pleasure or greed, like taking the biggest piece of pie or taking advantage of foolish young girls. Suicides are driven to it by unhappiness or self-hatred. I feel pity for them.
|
>> I feel pity for them.
Yes, no argument there.
|
|
Taking your own life doesn't help anyone.She might have felt she was worthless and people where better off without her.We can't look in each others mind can we selfish or not.
|
Clearly your source is rubbish or you misheard
1 note was about the hoax call
1 note was about funeral arrangements
1 note was about her treatment by hospital management after the call
Source Sky news 17:00
|
Does the Roman Catholic church normally hold a mass for its followers that have died, at Westminster Cathedral?
Or is it only if they committed suicide?
Or is it only if Keith Vaz is there and can be photographed with his arm around the dead woman's daughter?
|
>> Does the Roman Catholic church normally hold a mass for its followers that have died,
>> at Westminster Cathedral?
>>
>> Or is it only if they committed suicide?
>>
>> Or is it only if Keith Vaz is there and can be photographed with his
>> arm around the dead woman's daughter?
If they're devout, a death in prominent circumstances and in the Cathedral's district then perhaps so.
Maybe you should direct your inquiry to the Cardinal?
|
|
I thought suicide was a sin in the catholic church.
|
>> I thought suicide was a sin in the catholic church.
>>
It is although the church acknowledges that psychological disturbances, or anguish, can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
It doesn't stop one praying for the deceased.
|
A fairly mean spirited post.
If you are a member of the Roman Catholic church you can indeed request that a mass be said for the dead. I hope it brings some comfort to the family.
|
From 1989 until 1992 I had a gentleman from the Goan Catholic Community working for me.
He was far more devout in his following of the requirements of his religion than others (Irish, Maltese etc ) who were ostensibly of the same persuasion.
Bit like followers of Orthodox Judaism; it was all taken literally.
|
>> A fairly mean spirited post.
You are probably right.
However I dislike hypocrisy.
|
>> Referring to the death of the nurse.
>>
>> How is it that Keith Vaz MP always manages to get his nose into these
>> things?
Guardian piece explains:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/02/keith-vaz-jacintha-saldanha-children-this-could-be-me
Suspect though it simply reinforces whatever one thought of the guy before.
|
D...... O. C........ P....... - Armel Coussine
