goo.gl/admmjv
Of course it won't pacify those who think that what ministers do should be no concern of the Prince of Wales, but some may think it a good thing that he is highlighting things that are of general public interest and worry.
|
>> some may think it a good thing that he is highlighting things that are of general public interest and worry.
>>
Do you mean "things that he thinks are of general public interest and worry".
|
>> Do you mean "things that he thinks are of general public interest and worry".
What do you mean by that ON?
Well-informed, well-meaning individual surely? What he 'thinks' is unlikely to be pure balderdash.
We live in a monarchy and you as an RN veteran have sworn allegiance to it, you sour little carphound. Tchah!
|
|
He knows as much about real life as the politicians who have never had a real job. I have seen him at "work", he exists in an insulated bubble.
|
I have seen him at "work", he exists in an insulated bubble.
Most of us do. Just different bubbles.
Have you looked at any of the letters? The ones I've glanced at don't seem at all controversial to me.
|
>> he exists in an insulated bubble.
>> Most of us do. Just different bubbles.
Indeed. And in ON's bubble, politicians and 'royals' are deemed phenomenally thick and ignorant. Quite unlike matelots made old before their time by radioactivity.
|
>> >> And in ON's bubble,
>>
I'd have though a submariner would be familiar with the concept of living in a bubble.
|
>> I'd have though a submariner would be familiar with the concept of living in a
>> bubble.
>>
In the real world I have been in one 100' under water during escape training. Not done any more as it is too dangerous, and was little more than a morale booster anyway. It was successfully used when a submarine sank in shallow water in Portsmouth Harbour and under controlled trial conditions from 600'. These days a mini sub would attempt a rescue.
www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/submarine-service/submarine-rescue-system/nato-rescue-system
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 13 May 15 at 21:45
|
>> Have you looked at any of the letters? The ones I've glanced at don't seem
>> at all controversial to me.
They are not controversial, but they are certainly nothing of any note or importance, and quite frankly a waste of time. That alone proves he has no clue at all about real world problems.
|
but they are certainly nothing of any note or importance, and quite frankly a waste of time."
Most people's correspondence is like that . Surely you yourself. as a great and brilliant writer on all things under the sun realise that your fellow philosophers have to resort at times to commenting on the mundane and trivial. Even Ludwig Wittgenstein's letters to his mum were thought to be a little boring by some.
"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done."
LW
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 14 May 15 at 07:30
|
>> Most people's correspondence is like that . Surely you yourself. as a great and brilliant
>> writer on all things under the sun realise that your fellow philosophers have to resort
>> at times to commenting on the mundane and trivial. Even Ludwig Wittgenstein's letters to his
>> mum were thought to be a little boring by some.
Great and Brilliant writing granted, but still nowt but a mere full stop on the page in the scheme of things.
He however is heir to the throne writing to government ministers, men who deal with matters of state, men who have the power to change the world and better our lives, men who have the power to ruin us, men who have the finger on the button of world destruction.
Yet Jug Ears wrote about Patagonian Toothfish
|
|
The Patagonian Toothfish is probably doomed too extinction because of its rather silly name which makes for a humorous headline and allows us not to take its plight seriously. At least Charles cares about the environment which is more than a lot of politicians do.
|
|
Was Patagonian Toothfish one of Geldofs kids?
|
|
.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 13 May 15 at 19:25
|
I rathers super that Prince Charles has had a considerably broader-view of life that you have ON, OK he has a privileged postition but he has met with a a very wide spectrum of people of all views and occupations over the years. And talking of living in bubbles doesn't living in. a radioactive tin can under the ocean for years qualify for that epithet?
|
I haven't much experience of Charles, but I have with Andrew.
As I think I've said before, an impressive man who most certainly is not unworldy or naive.
|
Seen the odd royal but never conversed with one that I can remember. Met a lot of politicians though. They tend to be very bright indeed in their fashion.
Have you got the message yet ON? Come on, admit you grossly overstated your case! Be a gent!
|
Let's just say that a little bit of bait can cause a few bites and stimulate discussion. :-)
I stand by my opinion though.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 13 May 15 at 20:42
|
>>Let's just say that a little bit of bait can cause a few bites and stimulate discussion. :-)
So you say dumb things to start a discussion? Worth knowing, thanks.
|
|
You are a bit slow No FM, I have been doing it here for years. :-)
|
>>You are a bit slow No FM,
You are not wrong. Dense, at times. I think one of the reason I dislike practical jokes so much is that I am so easily caught.
My children delight in it. My wife despairs.
|
>> My children delight in it. My wife despairs.
>>
Don't worry we all get caught occasionally. :-)
|
>> Met a lot of politicians though. They tend to be very bright indeed in their fashion.
Most of them yes. The much maligned Baroness (Cathy) Ashton was pretty smart as the junior Minister who lead on the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and very nice in person too. Local MPs Brian Binley and Sally Keeble, albeit from different parties were impressive both individually and collectively in advocating Northampton's rail services. Brief encounters with both current MP Chris Heaton-Harris and his predecessor Tim Boswell suggest they were nothing other than grounded and committed people.
OTOH David Amess, who I met at a parliamentary awayday for junior civil servants was distinctly odd. Rosie Winterton was too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 May 15 at 20:54
|
>>OTOH David Amess, who I met at a parliamentary awayday for junior civil servants was distinctly odd. Rosie Winterton was too.
Eric Joyce.
|
I have given quite a few presentations at the Houses, mostly the Commons, and met a variety of the occupants.
There are some unpleasant politicians; there are some, as Bromp says, distinctly odd politicians. There are some with admirable motivations and some with despicable motivations. etc. etc.
But I honestly don't think I've met a stupid one. Face to face most of them are quite pleasant as well, at least superficially.
There have been [quite?] a few I have instantly disliked on sight, and I don't think any of those have subsequently changed my mind.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 13 May 15 at 21:28
|
>> Well-informed, well-meaning individual surely? What he 'thinks' is unlikely to be pure balderdash.
Have you tried homeopathy, AC?
|
|
Must be strange to be a Royal.Well meaning individual? Not sure about that one.I might be a softy still see Diana's face how she was treated by this bunch.No offence to Royals just my opinion.
|
|
Diana was no angel Dutchie.
|
>> Diana was no angel Dutchie.
>>
IMHO most of the charity work was to make sure she was kept in the public eye...
In her mind there was only one thing worse than being in the papers - and that NOT being in the papers.
And lets not mention her string of lovers, both after and during her marriage...
|
>> And lets not mention her string of lovers, both after and during her marriage...
>>
And lets not forget that jug ears was knocking off Camilla throughout their marriage !
|
>> lets not forget that jug ears was knocking off Camilla throughout their marriage !
Knocking off? .. the royals don't 'knock off', they fornicate.!
|
>> Have you tried homeopathy, AC?
No. Surely though everyone is allowed one or two eccentricities?
|
I read couple of those letters. Found language bit terse. But don't see why there is so much fuss about those letters.
In one case, Charles said army needs more money to operate efficiently - which I think very true.
Not a fan of monarchy, but media is over reactive on this matter.
Snowden's revelation was far more interesting.
|
Charles' press people were very anxious that Michael Crick didn't ask him any questions. I wonder why?
Scroll down to video link:-
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32726099
|
Bloke writes to various members of government expressing concern about how things are run. Letters now released to press. So what? I wish he didn't promote homeopathy and other dangerous practices, but apart from that they seemed to make sense.
|
|
Is homeopathy dangerous? Only in the limited sense that I suppose a dedicated believer in it might not seek conventional medical treatment for a serious ailment but for the most part it keeps the worried well and the hypochondriacs happy. Bit like organic food.
|
>> Scroll down to video link:-
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32726099
She handled that very badly. Michael Crick was exceptional rude and unpleasant when he forcefully barged into her. What she should have done was stood her ground and berated him very loudly for being an absolute pig.
Wouldn't have seen that in the press.
|
>>
>> >> Scroll down to video link:-
>> >>
>> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32726099
>>
>> She handled that very badly. Michael Crick was exceptional rude and unpleasant when he forcefully
>> barged into her. What she should have done was stood her ground and berated him
>> very loudly for being an absolute pig.
>>
>> Wouldn't have seen that in the press.
>>
You are joking, of course?
|
>> You are joking, of course?
No?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 May 15 at 01:01
|
>>We live in a monarchy
and monarchs, like God, are unknowable. Charles should practice for the possible future task by keeping his views to himself.
|
>>Charles should practice for the possible future task by keeping his views to himself.
Why?
|
>>Charles should practice for the possible future task by keeping his views to himself.
Parliament has sole discretion in decision making so any consultation with the monarch, or anybody else, is just that (disregarding the formality of royal assent which has not been withheld for over 300 years).
Incidentally, the monarch has the right to be consulted -
"The Queen has the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ her ministers via regular audiences with the Prime Minister." goo.gl/XB9u8n
So if you want Charles to practice, then writing a few letters seems fair enough.
Regarding the publication of the letters - well, the Queen's tea and biscuits sessions with the PM are not published, so there seems to be a reasonable argument that the heir apparent should be able confidentially to correspond with ministers if he or she chooses.
What I think jars with some is the hereditary principle; they will cite other reasons, but rarely point to any actual harm, so I put most of it down to sour grapes.
|
Charles probably likes to feel important have a input in what goes on in the world.He talks about killing badgers to safe the cows.
He could talk about the poverty in the thirdworld.Children dying of hunger.Polution in our envirioment.I don't care really what he writes he will never be King his eldest son William the next one.
Queen Beatrix gave up the reign for her son.I wonder why this Queen hangs on until the bitter end.
|
>I wonder why this Queen hangs on until the bitter end.
Because she wants to and she is The Queen. I'd guess she has discussed it with her son as well, its just that she forgot to explain to the Daily Mail.
|
>> he will never be King his eldest son William
>> the next one.
>>
>> Queen Beatrix gave up the reign for her son.I wonder why this Queen hangs on
>> until the bitter end.
>>
Quite feasible that ER will outlive Charles, especially if she lasts as long as her mother.
She still has her marbles AFAIK, and it's thought she regards lifelong service as an obligation. So she may well carry on to the end.
I'd rather she handed over to Charles; now is probably as good a time as any, with Royal sprogs arriving to bolster public sympathy. But it doesn't matter much, as long as they keep changing the guard at Buckingham palace.
|
>> Charles probably likes to feel important have a input in what goes on in the
>> world.He talks about killing badgers to safe the cows.
Of course he wants to save the cows. He has plenty of them on his Duchy Estate in Cornwall which turn him a very nice profit indeed. No wonder he wants the badgers culled if he thinks it'll save his moo cows. The cull was aimed at Somerset I seem to recall, not all that far from his personal feudal fiefdom in Kernow.
Public interest my hairy backside. He's lobbying the government in private for personal gain.
Not that I'm surprised, but seriously, it's a lousy thing to be doing. Sickening.
|
> Of course he wants to save the cows. He has plenty of them on his
>> Duchy Estate in Cornwall which turn him a very nice profit indeed. No wonder he
>> wants the badgers culled if he thinks it'll save his moo cows. The cull was
>> aimed at Somerset I seem to recall, not all that far from his personal feudal
>> fiefdom in Kernow.
I believe farmers are compensated anyway. From what i read he was concerned about why all the uproar about badgers but not the cattle. Seems reasonable to me.
|
>> >>We live in a monarchy
>>
>> and monarchs, like God, are unknowable. Charles should practice for the possible future task by
>> keeping his views to himself.
>>
He wrote PRIVATE letters...
|
Yes, madf, using his privileged PUBLIC position to gain greater access to the government with his PRIVATE thoughts than the rest of us truly PRIVATE subjects (not citizens).
Do you really think his PRIVATE correspondence is accorded the same weight of response as yours or mine would? We're lucky to get a generic photocopied reply from a secretary or administrator.
If, however, he (Charlie boy) were to be writing in his PUBLIC capacity, I'd agree that he should gain precedence in terms of consideration and response of other correspondence, given the existing governance structure of the country. Then, of course, this correspondence should not be kept PRIVATE by law, as it is now. It should be PUBLIC. (That's not to say I believe he should have any PUBLIC position by dint of birth, this is plainly an anachronistic left over of feudal times which must surely disappear.)
Which way does he want it? If he wants to be a PRIVATE citizen, he should stand down. Or of he wishes to maintain his PUBLIC position, he should accept that his PRIVATE correspondence should have no more weight than anyone else's.
Off your knees, Britain. And orf with their (metaphorical) heads.
|
For once Al, I do not agree.
If he is writing in a public capacity, then those letters should be treated as all such communications are. Which is pretty much public subject to security and confidentiality requirements.
If he is writing in a private capacity, then those letters should be treated as all such communications are; as private.
What weight is given to such a private communication is a matter for the recipient. As it would be whoever that letter came from, even from you or I.
What Charles cannot do, nor has shown any sign of doing, is protesting about any lack of attention or attributed weight given to private communication
>> which must surely disappear
I hope not. I like it.
|
>> If he is writing in a public capacity, then those letters should be treated as
>> all such communications are. Which is pretty much public subject to security and confidentiality requirements.
Then you do agree with me, but the law doesn't. All his correspondence is now protected by law. We shall see no more.
Good thing?
|
>> Then you do agree with me,
I think we differ on this bit...........
"If he is writing in a private capacity, then those letters should be treated as all such communications are; as private.
What Charles cannot do, nor has shown any sign of doing, is protesting about any lack of attention or attributed weight given to private communication"
By "in a private capacity" I do not mean he has to step down and become a private citizen.
|
|
I think you're being naïve if you think his correspondence, which is all now private (the laws precludes any public correspondence unless he choses to write publicly, which he has so far failed to do 100%) doesn't go straight to the top of any given politician's inbox, and receives full personal attention and response from the addressee. This would not be the case for any other "subject" writing in a private capacity.
|
>>I think you're being naïve if you think his correspondence ......... .doesn't go straight to the top of any given politician's inbox
I'm damned sure it does.
However, the issue belongs to the politician (for his subsequent behaviour / response), not Charles.
|
>> However, the issue belongs to the politician (for his subsequent behaviour / response), not Charles.
>>
The issue belongs to the deference which is demanded of us all, politicos included, by the institution of monarchy. The issue belongs to the game, not the player.
Change the game.
|
>>The issue belongs to the deference which is demanded of us all, politicos included, by the institution of monarchy.
>>Change the game.
I don't want the game changed, I like it the way it is. If one does not wish to defer, then don't. It is still, mostly, a free country.
And if your politician defers, and you don;t like it, don't vote for him.
I don't feel I defer, although I do both respect and like the institution.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 14 May 15 at 14:43
|
Ask the journalist chappie who tried to doorstep Charles the other day where choosing not to defer gets you. If you don't bow down, they don't want to know. We are their subjects, and they demand we behave as such.
I refused invitation to an event at Buckingham Palace at which a close family member was awarded the MBE, due to the fact that I knew that I would be forced to defer, physically, in the presence of a royalty I do not accept as my superior.
If you had to meet them, you'd have to defer or risk forcible removal.
Yuck.
Your comment about voting is facile, it would severely restrict the field of candidates I could vote for. Seeing as this is not the most pressing matter in national affairs, to withhold my vote entirely would be a bit daft.
|
>Your comment about voting is facile,
No its not. If I was a royalist and my candidate was strongly anti-royalist then I would take that into account come election time. In balance with everything else he does, of course, but into account nonetheless.
>it would severely restrict the field of candidates I could vote for
Perhaps. but someone would want your vote and sooner or later would move into that vacancy - presuming, of course, that there were enough of you there to be interesting to someone seeking election.
I was contemplating in the traffic this morning how its not obvious exactly how an individual politician votes / behaves / attends; Ok, I guess much can be found, but its not obvious.
I would like to see easily exactly what someone that I voted for did.
Take, for example, the alleged backbench threat to vote against any change to defence budgets.
I'd like to see exactly who votes against that. And I'd like to see anybody who voted for that politician take it into account the next time they vote in an election. Perhaps that one issue, like attitude to royalty, wouldn't be a showstopper, but its all part of the picture.
We need to see exactly how our politicans vote and act, and we need to vote according to their actions, not their promises or publicity.
|
>> Ask the journalist chappie who tried to doorstep Charles the other day where choosing not
>> to defer gets you.
I don't think I'd be polite to a journalist doorstepping me.
In fact it's the Royals who find themselves having to court the journos, in general, whereas you or I can tell them to bog off regardless of whether they are polite or not.
>> I refused invitation to an event at Buckingham Palace at which a close family member
>> was awarded the MBE, due to the fact that I knew that I would be
>> forced to defer, physically, in the presence of a royalty I do not accept as
>> my superior.
There we differ. I'd have no problem with a purely conventional bow or whatever - does one still leave the Royal presence walking backwards? It doesn't equate in my mind with inferiority, and I doubt if it makes them feel any more or less superior.
>>
>> If you had to meet them, you'd have to defer or risk forcible removal.
>>
The boss is going to a royal garden party later this year. I think she is broadly anti-monarchy herself, or at best indifferent, but she will play the game and I doubt if it will make her feel inferior - just part of a special occasion.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 14 May 15 at 15:18
|
"If you had to meet them, you'd have to defer or risk forcible removal."
What exactly do you mean by defer? If you meet Prince Charles for example a simple handshake is all that is needed, much like meeting anyone else really.
|
|
Flippin eck. Not just sour grapes but the dog in the manger. Old Aesop is getting a good run out today :)
|
>> Flippin eck. Not just sour grapes but the dog in the manger. Old Aesop is
>> getting a good run out today :)
>>
Sick to death of trying to refute the knee-jerk jealousy argument. Don't judge everyone by your own standards. This is a point about right and wrong in principle terms, grapes and mangers have nothing to do with it.
|
>> Flippin eck. Not just sour grapes but the dog in the manger.
Have to confess I am anti royalty, but not quite so rabid about it as some.....
|
>> Have to confess I am anti royalty ...
So am I, but look out, AC's about!
:-)
|
>> >> I am anti royalty ...
>> So am I, but look out, AC's about!
OFFS... people have a perfect right to republican opinions and attitudes.
I do have a slight sneer though for those who would feel humiliated by making a formal bow or inclination of the head, or who have to parade their republicanism by insulting the appearance or mannerisms of royals. They seem to me to be badly brought up insecure vulgarians. They should read Private Eye and learn how to do it properly.
Takes all sorts though. It's not their fault after all, and there are a lot of them.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 14 May 15 at 16:36
|
>> They seem to me to be badly
>> brought up insecure vulgarians.
I can assure you my mother brought me up superbly. My entire family are perfectly obsequious grovelers with thorough God complexes. Sadly for them I had a personal epiphany around the age of majority and saw through it all.
Still, that leaves insecure vulgarian as the rump insult. Insecure, well you'll have to take my word for it that I am perfectly secure in my feelings regarding my social standing, i.e. that I couldn't care less what anyone thinks, so leaving vulgarian. I'll take that, rather be thought that than an obsequious toady any day of the week.
And I thought you approved of those with a rebellious view and healthy disrespect of "authority", like all your cats in the Grove you speak so fondly of. Tchah indeed.
:-)
|
>>rather be thought that than an obsequious toady any day of the week.
I have never done any more than shake hands when meeting someone from Royalty. I am on my very best behaviour though!
I can understand these objections if we were talking of the required behaviour a couple of hundred years ago, but not now.
|
>> rather be thought that than an obsequious toady any day of the week.
See what I mean? You seem to care what people think of you. Insecure, comrade, insecure!
Heh heh...
|
>> I couldn't care less what anyone thinks,
.
.
>> rather be thought that than an obsequious toady any day of the week.
ummmm..........
Edit: snap.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 14 May 15 at 17:41
|
>> >> I couldn't care less what anyone thinks,
>> .
>> .
>> >> rather be thought that than an obsequious toady any day of the week.
>>
>> ummmm..........
>>
>> Edit: snap.
Yes, I can see how that may have appeared hypocritical, got me there. I didn't really mean it the way you are presenting it, but never mind. I'm sure most people can see what I clumsily meant. My turn of phrase/idiom let me down.
|
>> And I thought you approved of those with a rebellious view and healthy disrespect of "authority", like all your cats in the Grove you speak so fondly of. Tchah indeed.
>> :-)
All things change with the passage of time. Not radically as a rule, just slow mutation. I could go on about not all disrespect being 'healthy' and not all cats being equally cool, but everyone sensible knows those things anyway so it would be boring.
You'd have loved my late dear friend Hoppy Alanović, and so would FMR. He could have shown you a thing or two about anti-monarchist disrespect.
|
>> My entire family are perfectly obsequious grovelers with thorough God complexes. Sadly for them I had a personal epiphany around the age of majority and saw through it all.
So you were the only one with an independent attitude? Perhaps they see you as a not-always-lovable maverick.
Aren't you getting on a bit for that sort of thing?
At least you haven't been going on sentimentally about the whorish sexual behaviour of the POW, his late ex-wife and his present consort, widespread and commonplace at the time... I even got a social disease from a fellow-'intellectual' and very nasty it was.
|
>> Aren't you getting on a bit for that sort of thing?
Age is no barrier to being an irascible, opinionated sod, AC. You've taught me almost everything I know about that.
;-)
Not interested in their personal relationships I'm only interested in the principle of a hereditary HoS being wrong, don't care who puts what into whom. None of my business.
My feeling is that 'royalty' are the ultimate embodiment of 'celebrity' culture. Being famous for being famous. The sort of thing I imagine all those who support the monarchy on here would be the first to moan about. You know, TOWIE and all that. This is why I'm distinctly nonplussed by their personal behaviour and the discussions thereof, I just want an accountable, useful, recallable HoS. I don't want a Minister for Anti-Science in Perpetuity as HoS, as we will inevitably get sometime in the next 20 (max) years.
|
>> My feeling is that 'royalty' are the ultimate embodiment of 'celebrity' culture. Being famous for
>> being famous. The sort of thing I imagine all those who support the monarchy on
>> here would be the first to moan about. You know, TOWIE and all that.
Of course they are, they were in a way the first to have a celebrity culture all carefully brought about. And very good they are at it too. The rest are mere amateurs, here today gone tomorrow. So good most don't notice, but then that's a good thing, wouldn't want it any other way.
|
>> I'm only interested in the principle of a hereditary HoS being wrong
It's a very good principle. Means the head of state can't be a clapped-out political high flyer who sees the job as the pinnacle of the greasy pole, as in a presidential system where the head of state is usually also head of government. So the state itself isn't politicized, and people aren't dragged from left to right and back again ad nauseam.
It's why this country has been so stable for so long. We can all vote for a government of left, right or centre while remaining loyal citizens of a more or less unchanging state. Nothing's perfect of course, we can be criticized for being stuffy and small-c conservative. But it's silly to care much about being 'subjects' of a monarch whose individual character doesn't matter a damn.
|
>> the state itself isn't politicized, and people aren't dragged from left to right and back again ad nauseam.
I tried to add: we are also spared the savage infighting and venomous personal slander that often make US politcs appear so garish and distasteful. Of course all the same feelings and attitudes are present here as there, but they are expressed somehow with more civility. Or so it seems to me. Others may disagree.
|
Stable? Compared to DR Congo, perhaps. But WW1, WW2, Great Depression, Winter of Discontent, miners' strike, 2008 financial collapse, Chelsea allowed to win the league...........
Don't see the Monarchy helping much with that little lot. The Monarchy is not why this country has remained as stable as it has, the (general) good sense of the people and our ability to remove incompetent governments is at the root of that. We will stay in the EU for instance, providing on-going stability, versus the chaos of a withdrawal, and this will be achieved by the voice of the people, not because of King Charles III.
Besides, I'm not in favour of political heads of state anyway. It wouldn't have to be like that. A man of your imagination and experience would be able to grasp that.
You quoted my statement about it being the principle which bothers me and yet repeat the fallacy of the monarch's character mattering again at the end. Your final sentence there is totally irrelevant to the point. I do still care about being a 'subject' of anyone, however. If you find that silly and (no doubt) puppyish, so be it. Woof woof.
|
I don't want to live in a grey world and having a Monarchy brings some colour.
In any case, other than your delicate sensibilities it doesn't really affect you in any way, does it? It actually doesn't affect me, except I like it and I think its good to have. But there isn't really any practical or operational difference.
Goodness knows how you cope with a roughty-toughty manly kebab with chilli sauce. Wuss. You've probably started reading the Daily Mail, that's what's done it.
|
I believe it affects the whole country and sets the wrong tone regarding earning rewards on merit, from the top. It's not about me.
Don't really see what my kebab munching has got to do with it, but I will confess my capacity to handle hot curry has diminished with encroaching middle age. Used to be Phall man, can't get near a Madras now.
I guess I've been found out as "not a real man" on both counts. Wotevs.
|
>>Used to be Phall man, can't get near a Madras now.
I find mine has rather gone the other way. Things that used to cause me real difficulties in the past are now somewhat more bearable - with sauces, curries and peppers.
|
>> Stable? Compared to DR Congo, perhaps. But WW1, WW2, Great Depression, Winter of Discontent, miners' strike, 2008 financial collapse, Chelsea allowed to win the league...........
What an utter load of cobblers. The world wars and the 2008 financial crisis were international occurrences and the great depression was a crisis of world capitalism that started in the US. The other things are just local British trivia.
'Winter of Discontent' indeed! The echo of Shakespeare's Richard III should tell you something about British stability, cultural/historical depth and sense of irony. But it probably won't. Most republics are Johnny-come-lately, couple of centuries old at most and many post WW2. The US is the oldest big one.
You cats bring out my reactionary side. It's really annoying.
|
Old geezer in old-means-best shock.
;-)
|
>> Old geezer in old-means-best shock.
>> ;-)
Past-first-youth whippersnapper in clip-round-the-ear-to-concentrate-mind shock.
:O/
|
I can't see that he does want his opinion to matter more than anyone else. Merely that he has one and wishes to speak about it. I was surprised how non generic letters that i got from the gov when i had dealing through our local mp.
Did/does he get more access overall probably but then the famous wealthy etc always have always will. Anyway the letters I've read seem a polite fob off in reply to him.
|
>> I can't see that he does want his opinion to matter more than anyone else.
>> Merely that he has one and wishes to speak about it.
Why does he wish to do so in private? Why does the law protect all his correspondence from publication now? If he wants his opinion known, why does he not wish to share it with his "subjects"?
|
|
Like most people, well known people like some parts private some public.
|
I think we should abolish the monarchy.. and appoint a President.
President Blair has a nice ring...
|
>> I think we should abolish the monarchy.. and appoint a President.
>>
>> President Blair has a nice ring...
>>
And the vile Cherie Blair as first lady !
Saying that makes you realise just how safe the monarchy is in this country !
|
>> I think we should abolish the monarchy.. and appoint a President.
>>
>> President Blair has a nice ring...
>>
You will get No FM responding soon. :-)))
|
>> President Blair has a nice ring...
>>
>You will get No FM responding soon. :-)))
I know the pun / joke I wanted to make, but I couldn't think of anyway to get it past the swear filter.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 14 May 15 at 17:03
|
How about:
President Blair has a nice ring...
Really, I've never seen it myself.
8o)
|
>> 8o)
>>
Oh dear, plumbing new depths :-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 May 15 at 01:02
|
|
Quite amusing Matt on today's Terrorflag front page.
|
>> Quite amusing Matt on today's Terrorflag front page.
goo.gl/CC0igd
Very good.
|
>> I think we should abolish the monarchy.. and appoint a President.
>>
>> President Blair has a nice ring...
>>
The beauty is he'd have to be elected first. I think you're missing the point that it wouldn't be an appointed post, such as we have now. You don't want President Blair, well I don't want King Charles. I want a say in that as much as you'd want a say in Blair not getting the job. However, if the country elected President Charles Windsor, all well and good. No complaints.
The electorate would have to agree that Blair's the man for the job. Never gonna happen.
Use some imagination, we wouldn't have to have a political appointee at all, that's the point. We might even end up with one of the sainted 'royals', they could stand. Why don't they? What are they scared of?
|
Obviously what this country needs is conflict between the monarch and parliament over who rules, a civil war, the executions of the monarch and the declaration of a Protectorate with a strong man in charge.
Second thoughts that didn't work when we tried it last and we ended up having to meekly ask for the son of the executed king to come back to be crowned.
Let's just go on as we are. Seems all round the best solution
|
|
Because what's right for the 17th Century is right for the 21st. Right?
|
>> Because what's right for the 17th Century is right for the 21st. Right?
Yes. Certainly looks like it.
|
|
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Again.
|
>> I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Again.
Please yourself Alanović. OK by me. But I would remind you that technology changes, while human nature stays the same, or evolves very slowly and often in the wrong direction (tee hee). Ideologues hate this and I don't blame them.
We've always been the same animal though. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, knowImean? Anyway, I know what you mean for what it's worth.
EDIT: that sounds a bit rude. I don't mean it rudely.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 15 May 15 at 19:38
|
|
The problem with an elected president is exactly that . You have to vote for one and the very act of voting confers a certain amount of power to that president or head of state. An elected constitutional monarch has no power at all. Its a solution that took 1000 years to evolve. It works. Other things to worry about i suggest.
|
>> The problem with an elected president is exactly that . You have to vote for
>> one
No we don't, we don't need one of them either. Don't need no queen, don't no king, don't need no prez.
|
>> >> The problem with an elected president is exactly that . You have to vote
>> for
>> >> one
>>
>> No we don't, we don't need one of them either. Don't need no queen, don't
>> no king, don't need no prez.
>>
Interesting, not sure there are many democratic countries with no head of state. Is that what you mean?
|
>> Interesting, not sure there are many democratic countries with no head of state. Is that
>> what you mean?
>
Yeah, why do you need a head of state? At the end of the day, what do they actually do?
|
>> Yeah, why do you need a head of state? At the end of the day,
>> what do they actually do?
>>
I'm no constituational expert but the head of the government needs some form of check and balance. I think nearly every country has a head of gov and seperation from the head of state.
I don't think you can start lopping off parts of the government willy nilly.
|
>> >> Yeah, why do you need a head of state? At the end of the
>> day,
>> >> what do they actually do?
>> >>
>>
>> I'm no constituational expert but the head of the government needs some form of check
>> and balance. I think nearly every country has a head of gov and seperation from
>> the head of state.
Yep, Zeddo's ducked the point of nations that manage without.
With notable exceptions of the USA and France Heads of State and Heads of Government in major democracies are separate in same way that Chair and C/Ex are in 'Cadbury' principles for governance of UK limited companies.
Sure, there are differentiations in balance of power but in most President is a figurehead with a role to perform official functions independently of politics and possibly to negotiate resolution in political deadlocks.
|
>> I'm no constituational expert but the head of the government needs some form of check
>> and balance.
And yet we have other posts in this thread telling us the monarchy is great because it is powerless. So which is it? Is it powerless, or is it a check and balance on the Head of Government? It can't be both.
What I suspect is that we are told it's powerless, we swallow this, and yet power is wielded secretly by the monarch. Royal secrecy laws allow this to happen, they are exempt from FOI requests for example.
|
>>
>> >> I'm no constituational expert but the head of the government needs some form of
>> check
>> >> and balance.
>>
>> And yet we have other posts in this thread telling us the monarchy is great
>> because it is powerless. So which is it? Is it powerless, or is it a
>> check and balance on the Head of Government? It can't be both.
>>
>> What I suspect is that we are told it's powerless, we swallow this, and yet
>> power is wielded secretly by the monarch. Royal secrecy laws allow this to happen, they
>> are exempt from FOI requests for example.
There are endless arguments for use in debate here, but none has much relevance when the influence wielded by corporate giants, their lobbyists and their money is considered in comparison.
I fully expect the monarch, and for that matter the heir apparent, to use their special access for good; and for politicians to ignore them when they are not helpful.
For me there is only benefit to be gained. I think the job serves a purpose, I don't want it myself, and nor do I want it to go to a greasy pole climber or random lottery winner. There are many greater injustices and inequalities, with fewer or no redeeming features, to merit my concern.
|
|
All well and good Mantee, but not everyone feels the same.
|
>> All well and good Mantee, but not everyone feels the same.
Damn nuisance, this freedom of speech.
|
>> It can't be both.
>>
Yes it can. That's the beauty of the British system - you have someone who theoretically occupies all the the key top posts, but in practice hardly if ever exercises the power.
The point is it denies the ultimate, and corrupting, power to anyone else. The obligation on the PM to consult the monarch, and the monarch's right to advise and warn, applies the check and balance.
Just once in a while the power to break a deadlock, act as mediator, broker a coalition, or (as has happened on a few rare occasions via dominion governor generals) dismiss a prime minister has been crucial.
It's a very subtle balance, arrived at by accident rather than design, which we would be stupid to meddle with.
|
|
So it's not powerless then. Let's stop pretending it is.
|
>> So it's not powerless then. Let's stop pretending it is.
>>
You are missing the point. It has power that cannot be used. That stops undesirables who would want the power for its own sake.
|
>>What I suspect is that we are told it's powerless, we swallow this, and yet power is wielded secretly by the monarch.
You have got to be taking the mick.
A conspiracy theory? Jeez, if it actually existed Paul Burrell would have written a book about it.
|
Why were the Royal secrecy laws passed in 2010 to prevent a repeat of the FOI request from the Guardian regarding Charles's letters?
Why do they need their work with government protected from public scrutiny?
|
>>Why do they need their work with government protected from public scrutiny?
Because if they were not protected then people might find out that the Royal Family had been replaced by The Slitheen as part of their plan to take over the world and finally defeat the Doctor.
As any fule kno.
|
>> Why do they need their work with government protected from public scrutiny?
To minimise the irrelevant and boring clamour from ignorant malevolent self-satisfied would-be republicans that would otherwise gobble up even more media space?
|
>> Why were the Royal secrecy laws passed in 2010 to prevent a repeat of the
>> FOI request from the Guardian regarding Charles's letters?
>>
>> Why do they need their work with government protected from public scrutiny?
They would then be writing their letters for a different audience. cf. the Chatham House Rule - free expression allows ideas and opinions to be shared more freely for discussion and testing.
|
>> They would then be writing their letters for a different audience. cf. the Chatham House
>> Rule - free expression allows ideas and opinions to be shared more freely for discussion
>> and testing.
>>
Oh. So why is this only the case for the royals? We should scrap FOI entirely then.
|
>> Oh. So why is this only the case for the royals? We should scrap FOI
>> entirely then.
FOI is a complex subject with considerable scope for refusal in whole or in part or for information to be redated:
ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/
|
Great. So let's include the royals in it.
(Until the Glorious Day, obviously ;-))
Yours,
Wolfie Smith
|
|
And, let's never forget, Fulham for the Cup.
|
>> And, let's never forget, Fulham for the Cup.
We can forget Fulham for a very long time indeed. The best outlook for Craven Cottage is a block of flats and a marina.
|
>> >> And, let's never forget, Fulham for the Cup.
>>
>> We can forget Fulham for a very long time indeed. The best outlook for Craven
>> Cottage is a block of flats and a marina.
>>
And the fate of the Boleyn? Probably best give it to Orient, it can't be worth much.
|
>> And, let's never forget, Fulham for the Cup.
>>
Blimey. A green thumb. This is the last place I thought I'd find the other Fulham fan wandering into. Hello, Trevor.
|
>
>> What I suspect is that we are told it's powerless, we swallow this, and yet
>> power is wielded secretly by the monarch.
There is no power wielded by the monarch, and I am really sure you don't believe there is.
|
>> >
>> >> What I suspect is that we are told it's powerless, we swallow this, and
>> yet
>> >> power is wielded secretly by the monarch.
>>
>> There is no power wielded by the monarch, and I am really sure you don't
>> believe there is.
>>
What do you take the phrase "Activist King" to mean?
|
>> What do you take the phrase "Activist King" to mean?
We haven't got one. We have a prince who wrote letters that got filed, politely, but got filed.
I have a beef with Royalty because I have no time for birthright, blessed by god or chinless wonders. But I am under no illusions that they weld any power. Nor are you
|
>> We haven't got one.
We will have one. We have no choice. What then?
|
>> >> We haven't got one.
>>
>> We will have one. We have no choice. What then?
Who?
As I explained, next in line is a stupid old buffer with no power who everyone ignores. Activist? you make it sound like he is about to blow up the houses of parliament.
|
|
Oh. That's all right, then.
|
>> I have a beef with Royalty because I have no time for birthright
So you will be leaving your money and property to the state no doubt.
Part-time pick'n'mix rationalism is unworthy of intelligent people like you Zero. Sure, our state has a barmy side, but so do all the republics as I'm sure you know. But better the devil you know eh?
History has us all by the goolies and it's silly to scream and yell about it.
|
>> Second thoughts that didn't work when we tried it last and we ended up having
>> to meekly ask for the son of the executed king to come back to be
>> crowned.
except of course it was only form of monarchy where the governing powers of the monarch are restricted by parliament
|
|
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good grovel.
|
|
You should try it, infact I think of and do nothing else. Grovel, grovel, that's all us subjects do. 24/7.
|
>> You should try it, infact I think of and do nothing else. Grovel, grovel, that's all us subjects do. 24/7.
Heh heh... waste of breath though sooty, they'll never get it. They are believers God help us all. Thank goodness the population is too busy and indifferent to decipher what they are on about.
|
>> They are believers God help us all.
Irony much?
;-)
|
>> Don't let the facts get in the way of a good grovel.
>>
A good grovel is great for your back . It stretches the back muscles and is a counter to the slightly stooped position that occurs peering at a screen.
I practise grovelling 5 days a week...tinyurl.com/qen7v72
(That's not me btw - I am younger and more handsome :-)
See also postures for back pain..www.curaspineprocedure.com/8-yoga-poses-relieve-pain/
I am busy looking for postures to relieve PIAFRS == pain in ass from republican sympathisers.. :-)
Last edited by: madf on Mon 18 May 15 at 11:28
|
|
I don't think much of the Downward-facing Dog.!!
|
Those Prince Charles letters - Old Navy
