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

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-02-20 12:41 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-18 8:11 PM................Please excuse me if I am wrong but the comment made was:My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist, not the true patriot.is that which causes one to interpret the intent as being that as taken by StuartO.....to me it is insulting, inflammatory and what one would expect from a rabid (citizen of the world) liberal who feels that patriotism holds no place in the 'global world' of today.  However I agree yes there is occasion when ones 'country' get's it wrong.  This then is the opportunity to voice ones displeasure.....for example Blair taking us into an illegal war, lying to Parliament in order to justify going to war etc etc.  One can criticise and disagree most heartily but to call it the 'refuge of the jingoist' is in my opinion not just a step too far but a leap and is a sad indictment of the posters attitude towards ones own country.

No need to seek excuse, Roger, though I'm a bit unsure why the liberal (surely the most mild mannered of all politicos) should also be rabid! But, there lies the rub. "My country, right or wrong", implies, as Violet suggests, that those having such a mindset will always meekly fall into line behind whatever venture one's country embarks upon. To me, that would be an insult, because it implies that when the conduct of one's country falls below the standard one expects, one should merely stay quiet - presumably in the belief that those in power know best. To that idea, I simply say "phooey"! To risk arrogance, I was born with a brain, and I'll use it! You illustrate this well with your reference to Iraq (which you describe as the "illegal" war). It was, of course, at the time, dressed up as legal by a legally elected government. That, surely, is the point. "My country right or wrong" would demand that one supported that war, whether or not one regarded it as legal. If that idea is unacceptable, then criticism of government is legitimate and, as governments dictate what one's country will do, criticism of one's country must, also, be legitimised. (Fortunately for democracy, it is, so we need not worry too much on that score. :-))To me, one cannot have "my country right or wrong" and, in the next breath, as it were, declare Iraq as an illegal war. Either one's country is always right (which I hold to be jingoism), or one retains the right to criticise when it does wrong (i.e. entering an illegal war). Otherwise, one falls into declaring all criticisms with which one does not, one's self, agree with, as "unpatriotic", while reserving "patriotic" for those supportive comments that coincide with one's own point of view. So, with my apologies, I simply cannot reconcile these two conflicting ideas.

..........as has been said a number of times on various topics:

"What one writes is not that which is necessarily read by those viewing"....

and it appears to be relevant now.  I apologise for taking an incorrect inference to the comment...."My country right or wrong is the refuge of the jingoist".   Maybe had I taken an 'educational' view of the comment it would have conveyed the meaning...."My country right or wrong etc....discuss". I agree and said so in my previous comment..."However I agree yes there is occasion when ones 'country' get's it wrong.  This then is the opportunity to voice ones displeasure" so you see we agree.  One should most certainly hold one's country to account when it's actions are questionable....and the most glaring example of that is Gulf War 2 where the motives were most certainly that.

 I don't recall ever saying 'my country right or wrong'.  With regard to the 'illegal' war B'liar got us into yes there is most certainly grounds for disagreement and protest.....but aim it at those responsible....NOTthe troops who are doing their duty as some appear to do.  That takes into the position Vietnam Vets found themselves coming home to.  Blame and prosecute for atrocities or crimes committed during conflict but IMO one should never ever denigrate, decry or disabuse those doing their 'duty' as one feels has been done here on occasions.

As for those 'rabid' liberals comment one was attempting to convey that there are those with such strong liberal leanings that anything other than looking at the world as 'my brother and sister' and wanting to please everyone is simply unacceptable instead of facing reality.  For example those who feel that Merkel was right to open the immigration floodgates, those who decry anyone who faces reality and knows 'we' can not help 'everyone' are examples of my meaning....similarly there are those who decry the attempts of the Gov't to bring into being measures to stop health tourism.  There are those who feel that health care should be provided to those who want it regardless of their entitlement.  Try that in other European countries, the USA, Morocco, Russia, Ukraine, Canada etc etc.

I feel the following conveys my meaning quite adequately:

(I have emboldened the last portion to convey that it represents my feelings exactly).

Today’s liberals differ widely about how the wealth and opportunities of a market economy should be shared. What none of them question is the type of market globalisation that has developed over the past three decades. Writing in Tribune in 1943 after reviewing a batch of “progressive” books, George Orwell observed: “I was struck by the automatic way in which people go on repeating certain phrases that were fashionable before 1914. Two great favourites are ‘the abolition of distance’ and ‘the disappearance of frontiers’.” More than 70 years later, the same empty formulae are again being repeated. At present, the extreme liberal mind can function only to the extent that it shuts out reality.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-19 4:27 PM

Heads of State forced on us?  Clarification would help one understand if you are referring to the United Kingdom or some foreign field?

 

In the United Kingdom the Head of State and Armed Forces is forced on to the people without an election. Wheras in many foreign countries the people get a choice. In my opinion the people don't always make the best choice. But its their choice, and every few years they get another choice. They are not stuck with someone they have not elected, plus their extended family and hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus all their descendants extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore. When that person is head of the armed forces, the armed forces does not guarantee our freedom because they swear their allegiance to her, not to her subjects. :-(

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-20 8:25 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-19 4:27 PMHeads of State forced on us?  Clarification would help one understand if you are referring to the United Kingdom or some foreign field?

In the United Kingdom the Head of State and Armed Forces is forced on to the people without an election. Wheras in many foreign countries the people get a choice. In my opinion the people don't always make the best choice. But its their choice, and every few years they get another choice. They are not stuck with someone they have not elected, plus their extended family and hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus all their descendants extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore. When that person is head of the armed forces, the armed forces does not guarantee our freedom because they swear their allegiance to her, not to her subjects. :-(

John you are missing the point....you said:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

I am not aware that we have ever had a 'Head of State' forced upon us by their armed forces......at least within a time scale that bears any relevance whatsoever.  Yes there is always cause and effect but that is the way of the world.  One can not pass the blame...or indeed praise back to infinity in order to support ones point of view.

As usual you are letting your 'hatred'? for that is what comes across, of the Monarchy to colour the truth........add to that the rest of your offerings and once again you hark back to the anals of time and are blind, or so deeply entrenched in your hatred of the Monarchy, that you really do offer some unbelievably inane.....nay even insane reasoning (oxymoron methinks in this context).  By using your premise of times past on which to foist (selective) blame for the ills of today one might as well blame the Tripolye people of modern-day Ukraine for inventing the wheel and the Arabs for letting the West get hold of it's oil because wheels and oil are certainly at the bottom of the cause of most of the ills of today.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-20 9:14 PM

John52 - 2017-02-20 8:25 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-19 4:27 PMHeads of State forced on us?  Clarification would help one understand if you are referring to the United Kingdom or some foreign field?

In the United Kingdom the Head of State and Armed Forces is forced on to the people without an election. Wheras in many foreign countries the people get a choice. In my opinion the people don't always make the best choice. But its their choice, and every few years they get another choice. They are not stuck with someone they have not elected, plus their extended family and hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus all their descendants extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore. When that person is head of the armed forces, the armed forces does not guarantee our freedom because they swear their allegiance to her, not to her subjects. :-(

John you are missing the point....you said:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

I am not aware that we have ever had a 'Head of State' forced upon us by their armed forces......at least within a time scale that bears any relevance whatsoever.  Yes there is always cause and effect but that is the way of the world.  One can not pass the blame...or indeed praise back to infinity in order to support ones point of view.

As usual you are letting your 'hatred'? for that is what comes across, of the Monarchy to colour the truth........add to that the rest of your offerings and once again you hark back to the anals of time and are blind, or so deeply entrenched in your hatred of the Monarchy, that you really do offer some unbelievably inane.....nay even insane reasoning (oxymoron methinks in this context).  By using your premise of times past on which to foist (selective) blame for the ills of today one might as well blame the Tripolye people of modern-day Ukraine for inventing the wheel and the Arabs for letting the West get hold of it's oil because wheels and oil are certainly at the bottom of the cause of most of the ills of today.

But how could her subjects get rid of her?

[John52]

The above was one of five questions Tony Benn spent his life asking.

But, of course, she refuses to answer questions and is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Quote from Tony Benn;

'Ask the powerful five questions:

What power have you got?

Where did you get it from?

In whose interests do you exercise it?

To whom are you accountable?...

How can we get rid of you?

Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no-one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it; including you and me, here and now.' Tony Benn

 

[RogerC]

John you really do appear unable to grasp the simplest of questions, either that or you are deliberately avoiding the question arising from your ridiculous statement.  I will ask again:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

So in attempting simplicity, and in capitals to enable you to read more clearly,  to enable you the opportunity to understand and answer the question arising from that which you posted without prevarication and waffle, to deliver a reply devoid of irrelevance please answer your comment that follows:

In recent relevant times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

I ask because the statement is fatuous......the only possible response to such a ridiculous presumption is that one can in all honesty 'never' predict the future.  Your comment implies that such an event is relevant to the United Kingdom which, in terms of relevance to modern day protocols and behaviours, is unlikely to put it mildly.

..................so in order that one might have a small, no matter how small, chance of understanding your premise I ask again please be so kind as to answer this time.  Thank you.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-20 10:24 PMJohn you really do appear unable to grasp the simplest of questions, either that or you are deliberately avoiding the question arising from your ridiculous statement.  I will ask again:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

So in attempting simplicity, and in capitals to enable you to read more clearly,  to enable you the opportunity to understand and answer the question arising from that which you posted without prevarication and waffle, to deliver a reply devoid of irrelevance please answer your comment that follows:

In recent relevant times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

I ask because the statement is fatuous......the only possible response to such a ridiculous presumption is that one can in all honesty 'never' predict the future.  Your comment implies that such an event is relevant to the United Kingdom which, in terms of relevance to modern day protocols and behaviours, is unlikely to put it mildly.

..................so in order that one might have a small, no matter how small, chance of understanding your premise I ask again please be so kind as to answer this time.  Thank you.

I have answered your question by pointing out it is Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces that stop her subjects from getting rid of her. Hence they are forcing her on to her subjects.Now are you going to answer any of Tony Benn's 5 questions *-)

[John52]

The fact that the ultimate control of Her Unelected Majesty's armed forces is under the control of one unelected hereditary person, whatever they turn out to be like, is a far greater threat to our democracy than whether we maintain Europe's most expensive armed forces. However much we cut benefits and increase rough sleeping to pay for them, they can never be any better than the person they swear allegiance to.

But its simply glossed over and ignored.

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-21 9:05 AM

 

The fact that the ultimate control of Her Unelected Majesty's armed forces is under the control of one unelected hereditary person, whatever they turn out to be like, is a far greater threat to our democracy than whether we maintain Europe's most expensive armed forces. However much we cut benefits and increase rough sleeping to pay for them, they can never be any better than the person they swear allegiance to.

But its simply glossed over and ignored.

 

Really? ........and there was me thinking it was Tony Blair who started the illegal war in Iraq, when in fact according to you it was the Queen all along? 8-) ..........

 

 

[StuartO]

John52 - 2017-02-21 9:05 AMThe fact that the ultimate control of Her Unelected Majesty's armed forces is under the control of one unelected hereditary person, whatever they turn out to be like, is a far greater threat to our democracy than whether we maintain Europe's most expensive armed forces. However much we cut benefits and increase rough sleeping to pay for them, they can never be any better than the person they swear allegiance to.But its simply glossed over and ignored.

 

There is inevitably some risk in allowing any individual to exercise power, even an elected individual, as perhaps Trump's finger on the US nuclear trigger demontrates.  Balances and checks on power are necessary to ensure it doesn't get abused.  There is only a theoretical, in extremis, risk that our Queen would ever take an initiative to step in but I think it's useful that it's there.

 

So I think it's useful that our constitutional monarch has the titular role of head of our armerd forces and I think this does remind our military that they work for the Country, as the Queen does, and not, if push comes to shove, for the ruling political party's nominee.

 

I suppose if fate had thrown up Prince Andrew as our monarch I might be a bit more worried but Her Maj, Prince Charles and Prince William cause me no worry.

 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-02-20 3:50 PM....................."Today’s liberals differ widely about how the wealth and opportunities of a market economy should be shared. What none of them question is the type of market globalisation that has developed over the past three decades. Writing in Tribune in 1943 after reviewing a batch of “progressive” books, George Orwell observed: “I was struck by the automatic way in which people go on repeating certain phrases that were fashionable before 1914. Two great favourites are ‘the abolition of distance’ and ‘the disappearance of frontiers’.” More than 70 years later, the same empty formulae are again being repeated. At present, the extreme liberal mind can function only to the extent that it shuts out reality."

John Gray: New Statesman, 3 November 2016. http://tinyurl.com/zynzk83

A long article, worth reading, though, inevitably, one philosopher's view.

 

No need for apologies, Roger. One inevitably reads as one finds which, as you say, is not always what the author hoped!

 

But, having read what Gray says, I think we are straying (probably inevitably) into the realms of current politics, which have much to do with an individual's background and core beliefs, as anything. But, as you say, it seems we broadly agree that criticising one's country is not a sign of a fundamental disloyalty.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2017-02-21 9:10 AM

 

Really? ........and there was me thinking it was Tony Blair who started the illegal war in Iraq, when in fact according to you it was the Queen all along? 8-) ..........

 

 

The elected prime minister is granted extensive powers by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen under the royal prerogative. Which ensures she retains his support

We can't be precise about these things because we have no written constitution. They prefer to keep it vague so they can interpret it to suit themselves.

For example we have no list of what belongs to her, and what belongs to us. Windsor castle paintings apparently belonged to her until the Windsor Castle fire. But they belonged to us when the £30m repair bill arrived Now they belong to her again - because we are not allowed to see them unless she lends them out to a gallery - accompanied by a plaque saying they are on loan from her..

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2017-02-21 2:54 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-02-21 9:10 AM

 

Really? ........and there was me thinking it was Tony Blair who started the illegal war in Iraq, when in fact according to you it was the Queen all along? 8-) ..........

 

 

The elected prime minister is granted extensive powers by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen under the royal prerogative. Which ensures she retains his support

We can't be precise about these things because we have no written constitution. They prefer to keep it vague so they can interpret it to suit themselves.

For example we have no list of what belongs to her, and what belongs to us. Windsor castle paintings apparently belonged to her until the Windsor Castle fire. But they belonged to us when the £30m repair bill arrived Now they belong to her again - because we are not allowed to see them unless she lends them out to a gallery - accompanied by a plaque saying they are on loan from her..

 

You deffo need to get out more John......in the real world :D .......

 

 

[John52]

StuartO - 2017-02-21 9:17 AMI suppose if fate had thrown up Prince Andrew as our monarch I might be a bit more worried but Her Maj, Prince Charles and Prince William cause me no worry.

What if a future King is worse than Prince Andrew. How could his subjects get rid of him?

[malc d]

John52 - 2017-02-21 4:30 PM

StuartO - 2017-02-21 9:17 AMI suppose if fate had thrown up Prince Andrew as our monarch I might be a bit more worried but Her Maj, Prince Charles and Prince William cause me no worry.

What if a future King is worse than Prince Andrew. How could his subjects get rid of him?

Vote for Republican M.Ps. :-|

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-21 8:59 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-20 10:24 PMJohn you really do appear unable to grasp the simplest of questions, either that or you are deliberately avoiding the question arising from your ridiculous statement.  I will ask again:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

So in attempting simplicity, and in capitals to enable you to read more clearly,  to enable you the opportunity to understand and answer the question arising from that which you posted without prevarication and waffle, to deliver a reply devoid of irrelevance please answer your comment that follows:

In recent relevant times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

I ask because the statement is fatuous......the only possible response to such a ridiculous presumption is that one can in all honesty 'never' predict the future.  Your comment implies that such an event is relevant to the United Kingdom which, in terms of relevance to modern day protocols and behaviours, is unlikely to put it mildly.

..................so in order that one might have a small, no matter how small, chance of understanding your premise I ask again please be so kind as to answer this time.  Thank you.

I have answered your question by pointing out it is Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces that stop her subjects from getting rid of her. Hence they are forcing her on to her subjects.Now are you going to answer any of Tony Benn's 5 questions *-)

So now it is the Armed Forces that 'FORCE' THE MONARCH ON US IS IT??  Strange I never once in my 28 years of service realised that part of my duty was to suppress the population of the UK.  Next time I am at the Military Defence Academy I will ask one of the learned academics (usually visiting Government secretaries/University lecturers or indeed 'old' campaigners usually of Brigadier or General rank....so quite well versed in their duty) if part of the military contract is to keep the public in line and under fear of military action and to accept whomsoever they feel inclined to 'plonk' on the throne. 

At risk of being brought to account for a direct comment......but.....

John you really do have the most severely warped idea of reality. Whatever is driving your clearly warped idea of reality I should think medical science can help you. 

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-02-21 4:45 PM

John52 - 2017-02-21 8:59 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-20 10:24 PMJohn you really do appear unable to grasp the simplest of questions, either that or you are deliberately avoiding the question arising from your ridiculous statement.  I will ask again:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

So in attempting simplicity, and in capitals to enable you to read more clearly,  to enable you the opportunity to understand and answer the question arising from that which you posted without prevarication and waffle, to deliver a reply devoid of irrelevance please answer your comment that follows:

In recent relevant times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

I ask because the statement is fatuous......the only possible response to such a ridiculous presumption is that one can in all honesty 'never' predict the future.  Your comment implies that such an event is relevant to the United Kingdom which, in terms of relevance to modern day protocols and behaviours, is unlikely to put it mildly.

..................so in order that one might have a small, no matter how small, chance of understanding your premise I ask again please be so kind as to answer this time.  Thank you.

I have answered your question by pointing out it is Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces that stop her subjects from getting rid of her. Hence they are forcing her on to her subjects.Now are you going to answer any of Tony Benn's 5 questions *-)

So now it is the Armed Forces that 'FORCE' THE MONARCH ON US IS IT??  Strange I never once in my 28 years of service realised that part of my duty was to suppress the population of the UK.  Next time I am at the Military Defence Academy I will ask one of the learned academics (usually visiting Government secretaries/University lecturers or indeed 'old' campaigners usually of Brigadier or General rank....so quite well versed in their duty) if part of the military contract is to keep the public in line and under fear of military action and to accept whomsoever they feel inclined to 'plonk' on the throne. 

At risk of being brought to account for a direct comment......but.....

John you really do have the most severely warped idea of reality. Whatever is driving your clearly warped idea of reality I should think medical science can help you. 

I answered your question and asked if you would answer any of those posed by Tony Benn;Ask the powerful five questions:What power have you got?Where did you get it from?In whose interests do you exercise it?To whom are you accountable?...How can we get rid of you?Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no-one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it; including you and me, here and now.' Tony BennSince the military swear to defend Her Unelected Majesty could you at least answer the one about how her subjects could get rid of her?But all I got was the diatribe above. Does that mean you can't or won't answer?

[John52]

malc d - 2017-02-21 4:35 PM

 

Vote for Republican M.Ps.

 

:-|

 

How could our Elected MP's get rid of her Unelected Majesty after being forced to swear allegiance to her?

They had to swear allegiance to her before they were allowed to take their seat in Parliament, work in her Armed Forces or the Law, or Government departments etc etc.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-20 9:41 PMThe above was one of five questions Tony Benn spent his life asking.But, of course, she refuses to answer questions and is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.Quote from Tony Benn;'Ask the powerful five questions:What power have you got?Where did you get it from?In whose interests do you exercise it?To whom are you accountable?...How can we get rid of you?Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no-one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it; including you and me, here and now.' Tony Benn

Power?  Read on.... http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069

Where did you get it from?  Well as you so delight in offering historical links....the power devolves from William the Conqueror so quite a number of years of precedence methinks.

In whose interest.....?  Actually it is in the interest of the country as a whole as the Monarch, if involved in any activity linked to the running of the country, acts in accordance with the advice (read determination) of the government of the day.  To do otherwise would cause a constitutional crisis which to my knowledge last occurred back in 1936 with Edward VIII abdication.

Accountable to?  That is a more difficult one.  One might say 'The Country'.  As Monarch  (Royal Family) there is a duty of....well I will let you read the list and it's explanations here...  

http://bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarchy/the-queen/duties-rights-and-powers-of-h-m-the-queen/

How can we get rid....?

Constitutional reform.....but as we don't have a written constitution per se that would have the barristers and legal world in knots for aeons.  Alternatively revolution?  ...or as that bastion of political might the 'upcoming' (hehe) political heavyweight...'Republic'....well although it is 'political' it is in fact a registered company with approximately 5000 'members' all clamouring for the abolition of the monarchy.....looks like there's not much for the royalists to worry about just yet then....  :-)

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-02-21 6:57 PM

RogerC - 2017-02-21 4:45 PM

John52 - 2017-02-21 8:59 AM

RogerC - 2017-02-20 10:24 PMJohn you really do appear unable to grasp the simplest of questions, either that or you are deliberately avoiding the question arising from your ridiculous statement.  I will ask again:

Quote....."And we have no way of knowing what future heads of state forced on to us by their armed forces will be like.  Unquote.

So in attempting simplicity, and in capitals to enable you to read more clearly,  to enable you the opportunity to understand and answer the question arising from that which you posted without prevarication and waffle, to deliver a reply devoid of irrelevance please answer your comment that follows:

In recent relevant times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

I ask because the statement is fatuous......the only possible response to such a ridiculous presumption is that one can in all honesty 'never' predict the future.  Your comment implies that such an event is relevant to the United Kingdom which, in terms of relevance to modern day protocols and behaviours, is unlikely to put it mildly.

..................so in order that one might have a small, no matter how small, chance of understanding your premise I ask again please be so kind as to answer this time.  Thank you.

I have answered your question by pointing out it is Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces that stop her subjects from getting rid of her. Hence they are forcing her on to her subjects.Now are you going to answer any of Tony Benn's 5 questions *-)

So now it is the Armed Forces that 'FORCE' THE MONARCH ON US IS IT??  Strange I never once in my 28 years of service realised that part of my duty was to suppress the population of the UK.  Next time I am at the Military Defence Academy I will ask one of the learned academics (usually visiting Government secretaries/University lecturers or indeed 'old' campaigners usually of Brigadier or General rank....so quite well versed in their duty) if part of the military contract is to keep the public in line and under fear of military action and to accept whomsoever they feel inclined to 'plonk' on the throne. 

At risk of being brought to account for a direct comment......but.....

John you really do have the most severely warped idea of reality. Whatever is driving your clearly warped idea of reality I should think medical science can help you. 

I answered your question and asked if you would answer any of those posed by Tony Benn;Ask the powerful five questions:What power have you got?Where did you get it from?In whose interests do you exercise it?To whom are you accountable?...How can we get rid of you?Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no-one with power likes democracy and that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it; including you and me, here and now.' Tony BennSince the military swear to defend Her Unelected Majesty could you at least answer the one about how her subjects could get rid of her?But all I got was the diatribe above. Does that mean you can't or won't answer?

Diatribe.....diatribe?  Well I suppose the references to warped reality could be construed as such.  However you STILL, despite your protestations to the contrary HAVE NOT answered my question.

In recent 'relevant' times...

..... WHEN HAVE WE HAD THE  HEAD OF STATE FORCED ON US BY THEIR ARMED FORCES ????

This is what you said and as it is such a damning statement (implications of a military state behind the scenes as it were) I really would appreciate your answer because this (purporting to be an answer to the question) from you really is a complete and utter load of twaddle:

Her Unelected Majesty's Armed Forces that stop her subjects from getting rid of her. Hence they are forcing her on to her subjects.

When did the armed forces determine who would be on the throne??

When were those armed forces ordered against the populace to place someone on the throne?? 

(please don't harp on about Chartists/Suffragettes as they had no part in determining the monarch or monarchy).

So a clear unambiguous and relevant answer would be appreciated because I don't recall the armed forces being called out to quell an uprising back in 1952 at Elizabeth's accession or June 1953 at the coronation or were all those people lining the route and sitting at street tables, partying and dancing in 'reality' actually protesting and demonstrating against the big bad monarchy?  Equally strange is never having been aware of the military being called to arms in support of the monarchy, to suppress the republican uprising during the intervening years either....or did I miss that event?............over to you.

[malc d]

John52 - 2017-02-21 7:07 PM

 

malc d - 2017-02-21 4:35 PM

 

Vote for Republican M.Ps.

 

:-|

 

How could our Elected MP's get rid of her Unelected Majesty after being forced to swear allegiance to her?

.

 

 

They would change the law.

 

:-|