If you're a patriot you'll sign this.......

[antony1969]

John52 - 2017-02-13 10:42 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-02-12 9:07 PM

 

malc d - 2017-02-12 8:58 PM

 

John52 - 2017-02-11 3:58 PM

 

 

 

 

Our own Establishment has arguably been a bigger threat to us than other countries.

 

As long as we have an unelected Head of State as Head of her Armed Forces that threat hasn't gone away.

 

 

 

 

I think it very unlikely that the queen will instruct ' her ' armed forces to invade Britain.

 

;-)

 

Dunno ... Her and Prince Phillip did set up the sting to kill Diana with some fellas down the pub ... Prince Phillips whereabouts that night have never been accounted for ... John could have a point

I don't think the Royal Family had Diana killed. But the fact so many take it seriously proves they are not held in the high regard that their hangers on claim.

 

Nope ... Certain folk take it seriously because they live on another planet ... A continuation of the reality TV world they live in and glossy mags they read ... The Royal Families popularity Im afraid for you is very high and just who are these "hanger ons" claiming this , that and t'other ???

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2017-02-13 2:58 PM

 

John52 - 2017-02-13 10:42 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-02-12 9:07 PM

 

malc d - 2017-02-12 8:58 PM

 

John52 - 2017-02-11 3:58 PM

 

 

 

 

Our own Establishment has arguably been a bigger threat to us than other countries.

 

As long as we have an unelected Head of State as Head of her Armed Forces that threat hasn't gone away.

 

 

 

 

I think it very unlikely that the queen will instruct ' her ' armed forces to invade Britain.

 

;-)

 

Dunno ... Her and Prince Phillip did set up the sting to kill Diana with some fellas down the pub ... Prince Phillips whereabouts that night have never been accounted for ... John could have a point

I don't think the Royal Family had Diana killed. But the fact so many take it seriously proves they are not held in the high regard that their hangers on claim.

 

Nope ... Certain folk take it seriously because they live on another planet ... A continuation of the reality TV world they live in and glossy mags they read ... The Royal Families popularity Im afraid for you is very high and just who are these "hanger ons" claiming this , that and t'other ???

 

They also think Corbyn represent the working classes 8-) .........

 

 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-13 10:52 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-12 10:02 PMIt's the Armed Forces who have done nothing worthy of gratitude when compared to those denizens of civil unrest...

So now you have gone from Ad hominem to Straw Men, putting words into my mouth so you can deride them

RogerC - 2017-02-12 10:02 PMWhy didn't we tell Hitler we had suffrage and hence 'the vote' here in jolly old UK?

Why didn't we just not declare war on Germany and let our 2 worst enemies Hitler and Stalin annihilate each other? Instead of declaring war on Hitler to liberate Poland, then leave Poland with Stalin who was worse than Hitler :-( Or not declare war on Germany in 1914 which led to the rise of Hitler?Incidentally the inhabitants of Hitler's concentration camps who we were supposed to be doing it for returned to their homes to find someone else living in them who told them to go back where they came from :-( Problem with having Europes most expensive armed forces is politicans feel they have to use them. But fail to plan what happens afterwards so they usually leave a bad situation worse. :'( What I also find remarkable is those of us who don't want to send our lads to fight are the ones accused by the Daily Mail Brigade of not supporting them. Wheras those most keen to send them into battle are portrayed as their supporters.

Our lads......OUR LADS!!!!!!  Coming from you that is too damn rich to stomach.  From your comments implying that our Armed Forces do it for money/travel.....oh yes and the nice smart shiny uniform I wholeheartedly believe that 'YOU' have NO RIGHT to refer to any or all of our Armed Forces as 'our lads'.  Given the circumstances and were they aware of your bile and beyond description attitude it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if there was an occasion of 'friendly fire' coming your way.

As for the rest of your comments I am more than a little inclined to be of the opinion that with your wholly questionable feelings and totally abhorrent attitude towards this country I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea where you could live that would meet with your insane ideas.

Still thanks for the entertainment....oh and confirmation that the freedoms so costly won over the decades were worth it....freedoms won for one and all....for freedom of speech and all that we hold dear..... because had they not been one can quite fairly claim that attitudes and comments such as yours if made public as on here would result in a somewhat terminal event.

So whilst I will likely never ever understand your mindset, your bile and denigration of this country as the saying goes:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"

 

You see to our Armed Forces there is no prejudice in their act of defence of the Realm, in doing their duty.  No matter who or what the opinions are of those they are tasked to defend those freedoms are fought for regardless.

Maybe you ought to think yourself lucky...............but I very much doubt it.

P.S.  Clearly the overt sarcasm in my 'that bad bad man.....telling Hitler we have the vote etc' response didn't register but hey using Ad hominem and now 'Straw man' in your posts of late must have been quite taxing for you.  Take a vote on it and go lie down for a rest  :-)

[John52]

antony1969 - 2017-02-13 2:58 PM

 

. The Royal Families popularity Im afraid for you is very high

So why won't they have an election *-)

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-13 4:03 PM

 Given the circumstances and were they aware of your bile and beyond description attitude it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if there was an occasion of 'friendly fire' coming your way

 

Its an uncomfortable fact that Her Majesty's Armed forces fired on those in the Peterloo Massacre etc who won the freedoms which you and I enjoy. As we have seen in other countries thats always the danger when the Head of the Armed forces is an unelected head of state. But I thought you said they were defending our freedom of speech now?

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-13 4:03 PM

Our lads......OUR LADS!!!!!!  Coming from you that is too damn rich to stomach.

So they are not fighting for us then?

Should I have said 'her lads' because they swear their allegiance to our unelected head of state, and we only pay them?

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-14 9:05 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-02-13 4:03 PM

 Given the circumstances and were they aware of your bile and beyond description attitude it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if there was an occasion of 'friendly fire' coming your way

 

Its an uncomfortable fact that Her Majesty's Armed forces fired on those in the Peterloo Massacre etc who won the freedoms which you and I enjoy. As we have seen in other countries thats always the danger when the Head of the Armed forces is an unelected head of state. But I thought you said they were defending our freedom of speech now?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the government of today would/could carry out another Peterloo massacre? ;-) ..........

 

It might come as a shock John but we have moved on a bit since then :D .......

 

 

[malc d]

John52 - 2017-02-14 8:51 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-02-13 2:58 PM

 

. The Royal Families popularity Im afraid for you is very high

So why won't they have an election *-)

 

 

 

Because there is no sizeable demand for one.

 

 

:-|

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2017-02-14 9:13 AM

 

 

 

It might come as a shock John but we have moved on a bit since then :D .......

 

 

 

I hate to think what he'll say when John finds out that the earth isn't flat.

 

;-)

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-14 9:13 AM

 

John52 - 2017-02-14 9:05 AM

 

RogerC - 2017-02-13 4:03 PM

 Given the circumstances and were they aware of your bile and beyond description attitude it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if there was an occasion of 'friendly fire' coming your way

 

Its an uncomfortable fact that Her Majesty's Armed forces fired on those in the Peterloo Massacre etc who won the freedoms which you and I enjoy. As we have seen in other countries thats always the danger when the Head of the Armed forces is an unelected head of state. But I thought you said they were defending our freedom of speech now?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the government of today would/could carry out another Peterloo massacre? ;-) ..........

 

It might come as a shock John but we have moved on a bit since then :D .......

 

Doesn't RogerC's suggestion of friendly fire coming my way suggest otherwise?

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-14 9:12 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-13 4:03 PMOur lads......OUR LADS!!!!!!  Coming from you that is too damn rich to stomach.

So they are not fighting for us then? Should I have said 'her lads' because they swear their allegiance to our unelected head of state, and we only pay them?

'Our Lads' is a term of endearment, of caring for and being grateful for that which has been done and is being done to protect our freedoms.......none of which you seem capable of.

Your harping on about unelected this and that, Armed Forces ranged against society, only doing it because they are paid,.....I quote you here:

Our own Establishment has arguably been a bigger threat to us than other countries. 

As long as we have an unelected Head of State as Head of her Armed Forces that threat hasn't gone away. 

The foregoing comment from you is not what one would consider rational........maybe a visit to your doctor would help treat your delusional disorder.

From one who is of the mindset that there exists a threat to 'us' from 'our' Armed Forces.....my goodness man your thinking is unbelievably warped. 

This is not Russia or North Korea or one of those other despotic regimes and to consider 'that' of our Armed Forces I most certainly am of the opinion that given the right circumstances 'friendly fire' would be a possibility.

Freedom of speech is one thing but there comes a point that ones disabuse of those freedoms brings it into question.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-14 3:12 PM

given the right circumstances 'friendly fire' would be a possibility

Freedom of speech is one thing but there comes a point that ones disabuse of those freedoms brings it into question.

 

Kim Jong-un says something similar - freedom of speech is fine as long as he agrees with it *-)

Remembering inconvenient truths from the past like the Peterloo Massacre is too much freedom of speech, and may need some 'friendly fire' *-)

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-14 4:32 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-14 3:12 PM given the right circumstances 'friendly fire' would be a possibilityFreedom of speech is one thing but there comes a point that ones disabuse of those freedoms brings it into question.

Kim Jong-un says something similar - freedom of speech is fine as long as he agrees with it *-) Remembering inconvenient truths from the past like the Peterloo Massacre is too much freedom of speech, and may need some 'friendly fire' *-)

Madness abounds.....I think I have it now.  You have a propensity towards tenuous links, links that in reality (something I suspect that has clearly passed you by!!) towards events of 'today' have no relationship whatsoever.   In that reality, at least your idea of reality, I should hazard a guess,  it is firmly lodged between the annals of time and a warped view of the here and now because your offerings are either absolutely insane or based firmly in the past.

The Peterloo massacre took place 16th August 1819.......now that, regardless of the why's and wherefores prevailing at the time bears no relation to modern times.  It is an event that is closing in on 200 years ago and bears no relationship to today....the here and now, although one supposes it does make you feel more secure in having something, no matter how tenuous a link, to hang your inane thought processes on.

Methinks (good word that.....dates back to before the 12th century so should fit with you quite nicely.....hehe) one has great difficulty in differentiating between reality, fantasy, idiocy and a complete lack of ability to adequately draw comparisons that have any merit whatsoever.

Freedom of speech/expression.....a lovely thing isn't it?  Unfortunately it is so greatly abused by some...........and those who abuse it to the extent that 'some' do are beneath contempt.

'Friendly fire' anyone?  :-)

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-14 6:52 PM

.  It is an event that is closing in on 200 years ago and bears no relationship to today....the here and now,

Its what ultimately got us our vote which is very relevant today. The French had a revolution about that time and got rid of their monarchy - very relevant today. The Americans had a war of Independance to get rid of British control - the anniversary of which is still the greatest day in the American Calendar.

You could go back much further to 1066 Battle of Hastings, Norman Conquest etc where land was given to the conqurers and handed down through the generations today. Last Year the Duke of Westminster inherited £10bn (tax free) from lands given to his ancestors much longer than 200 years ago. His dad said his recipe for business success was to have ancestors that were friends of William the Conqueror.

This is not a slight on anyone in todays Armed Forces. But the the fact remains that it was not Her Unelected Majesty's Armed forces that won us the freedoms which you and I enjoy today. The fact remains Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces were used against those who won our freedoms and Her Majesty never lifted a fnger to help us. Fact. All your Bluff and Bluster will not change that fact. Some things that happened hundreds of years ago are still very relevant today, because they are what got us to where we are now.

[Brian Kirby]

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

[pkc]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AM

 

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

 

 

 

 

Hopefully no one least of all me would decry the sacrifice of those who fought to defend our freedoms, but you don't always need to carry a rifle to win or defend those freedoms.

 

[malc d]

John52 - 2017-02-15 8:42 PM

 

 

The fact remains Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces were used against those who won our freedoms and Her Majesty never lifted a fnger to help us.

 

Fact.

 

 

/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

malc d :

 

From what I have recently read about the Peterloo Massacre - it took place in August 1819.

 

Victoria was only 3 months old at the time,( and wasn't queen ) - so it's not surprising that she didn't help.

 

We had no organised national police force at the time, so it seems, the local establishment sent in some militia to sort out the opposition to their ' feudal ' system.

 

:-|

[Muswell]

And the result was a national police force, which was unarmed.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AM

 

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

 

Which one would you want next to you in a foxhole, with the enemy charging towards you though Brian? ;-) .........

 

 

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AM

 

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

 

I wonder if its something to do with military training. If one thinks too much about the issues, one either wouldn't fight, or fight in a half hearted manner and therefore lose. Wheras if one sees everything in black and white, either good or bad, one stays focussed on the 'enemy' and has a better chance of winning :-S

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-16 2:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AM

 

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

 

Which one would you want next to you in a foxhole, with the enemy charging towards you though Brian? ;-) .........

 

 

Rather than create that situation I would prefer to avoid it.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-16 3:22 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-16 2:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AM

 

Interesting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

 

Which one would you want next to you in a foxhole, with the enemy charging towards you though Brian? ;-) .........

 

 

Rather than create that situation I would prefer to avoid it.

 

If there's anything I know about the human race...... those that start the wars don't fight in them *-) .......

 

If you don't believe me ask Mr Blair >:-) .........

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2017-02-16 2:49 PM.....................Which one would you want next to you in a foxhole, with the enemy charging towards you though Brian? ;-) .........

Prefer my own foxhole, thanks, Dave. :-D

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AMInteresting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

I take it the 'less measured terms and 

Measured fashion?  Is that what passes these days for 'measured fashion'!  Offering in support of ones outlook on today something that happened decades and often centuries ago.  Measured fashion?  The only thing measured about comments emanating from another party is the depth of irritation and (seemingly) hatred felt towards the holders of office in the here and now.  If that individual is so anti-monarchy it is a wonder they don't pour all their scorn on those who centuries ago had the opportunity of demolishing the Monarchy.  After all it seems they are to blame for the individual living in a state of freedom and under a monarch that in reality wields no political power....is merely a figurehead and one that has served this country unswervingly, and unselfishly for decades.

As for equally extreme opposing views......with regard to my comments I have merely stated that the disrespect, the denigration of aspects of what makes this country great shows:

1.  The individual concerned has no real time grasp of the here and now.

2:  The individual concerned takes every opportunity, no matter how tenuous to sleight most everything related to 'The State' they live so freely under.

3: Appears to have no respect of today's Armed Forces or indeed those gone before having made the ultimate sacrifice in order for said individual to avail oneself of freedom of expression/speech.....which I consider said individual abuses.

4: Drawing parallels between this country and N Korea etc in a pathetic attempt to besmirch further those things that make this country what it is.

......and lastly now introduces The Duke of Westminster into the argument and harps back to William the Conqueror......history is what it is....there is cause and effect, there is blame and counter blame.  Goodness me had the Vikings been more successful my proponent might be happy with the outcome ....or the Romans remained and imposed their idea of civilisation (no Monarch).....whatever occurred back in the annals of time there is one thing for certain my main respondent in this thread would find something to pass criticism on.

As for your opinion of one emerging diminished and the other not.....I really couldn't care less.  All I know is one can not change history, much as it seems that the other party wishes one could.  There are things I despair of in this country but one thing is certain....this country is what it is for which I am grateful, grateful to those of whatever persuasion, whether under arms or otherwise who have been instrumental in forming the framework of our society as it stands today. 

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-16 3:18 PM

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-16 11:28 AMInteresting thread, this. Its gone way OT, but it is not that which interests, or the arguments deployed (or the apparent male "horn locking" :-)), but the fact that one proponent of somewhat extreme views studiously avoids attacking his opponent - countering his opponent's arguments in measured fashion from a broad knowledge base - while the proponent of equally extreme opposing views more often attacks his opponent instead of the views he holds, and counters in less measured terms based on his personal experiences. Neither "wins", neither is (ever!) going to agree with the other, but one emerges from the fray somehow diminished, the other not. An object lesson to us all in how to conduct a written jousting contest? Draw? I'll get me own coat and hat! :-D

I wonder if its something to do with military training. If one thinks too much about the issues, one either wouldn't fight, or fight in a half hearted manner and therefore lose. Wheras if one sees everything in black and white, either good or bad, one stays focussed on the 'enemy' and has a better chance of winning :-S

Military training?....and would one have it any other way?  Military training is there to turn individuals into a cohesive, supportive, adaptive, effective fighting force.  There is no call for judgement as to cause, that is up to the 'politicians' that employ force of arms (NOT THE MONARCH). One simply does ones duty.  However your post suggests you are implying that there is a lack of intellect in the military......should this be the case you could not be further off the mark.