globebuster Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Indeed you have John - sadly yours have been nothing to be proud about though....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-05-24 10:36 PM John52 - 2017-05-24 10:28 PM Yep. France and Germany have a state pension 4 times as much as us, but they must really envy us still having a monarch, and wish they could spend it on theirs *-) Really?......So Frogs and Krauts OAP's get £400+ per week? 8-) ....... No wonder Corbyn thinks there is a money forest (lol) ....... Who wouldn't think there's a money forest when they see all the palaces and security outside? But it isn't just the cost of that is it? For society to function well, people generally need to feel that they have a fair chance of success through their ability and efforts. The more entrenched hereditary elites we have, the less likely people are to feel that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvin marvin Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I'll be happy when he permanently retires from being a parasite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 starvin marvin - 2017-05-26 9:22 AM I'll be happy when he permanently retires from being a parasite. Plenty more Heirs and Spares to take his place. We could do a lot worse than Elizabeth and Phillip. In which case how could we get rid of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-26 6:37 PM Plenty more Heirs and Spares to take his place. We could do a lot worse than Elizabeth and Phillip. In which case how could we get rid of them? The democratic way. You form a British Republican Party and persuade the majority of people to vote for it. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 malc d - 2017-05-26 7:44 PM John52 - 2017-05-26 6:37 PM Plenty more Heirs and Spares to take his place. We could do a lot worse than Elizabeth and Phillip. In which case how could we get rid of them? The democratic way. You form a British Republican Party and persuade the majority of people to vote for it. ;-) And then they can ask Her Unelected Majesty's permission to form a Government *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-26 9:33 PM malc d - 2017-05-26 7:44 PM John52 - 2017-05-26 6:37 PM Plenty more Heirs and Spares to take his place. We could do a lot worse than Elizabeth and Phillip. In which case how could we get rid of them? The democratic way. You form a British Republican Party and persuade the majority of people to vote for it. ;-) And then they can ask Her Unelected Majesty's permission to form a Government *-) As I understand it she wouldn't have much choice ;-) .......but it gives our resident republicans something to bitch about, as they know they haven't got a chance of being elected >:-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-05-26 9:46 PM John52 - 2017-05-26 9:33 PM malc d - 2017-05-26 7:44 PM John52 - 2017-05-26 6:37 PM Plenty more Heirs and Spares to take his place. We could do a lot worse than Elizabeth and Phillip. In which case how could we get rid of them? The democratic way. You form a British Republican Party and persuade the majority of people to vote for it. ;-) And then they can ask Her Unelected Majesty's permission to form a Government *-) As I understand it she wouldn't have much choice ;-) .......but it gives our resident republicans something to bitch about, as they know they haven't got a chance of being elected >:-) ........ She refused to allow the elected Harold Wilson to form a Government until Edward Heath had finished trying to cut a deal with the Liberals. When push comes to shove whoever controls the armed forces controls the country. Despite supposedly 'serving their country' the armed forces don't swear allegiance to their 'country', or our elected representatives. The armed forces swear their allegiance to the unelected monarch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-26 11:11 PM The armed forces swear their allegiance to the unelected monarch No oaths of allegiance required in the Royal Navy ;-) ........ Although I do recall we used oath's all day long :D ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-26 11:11 PM When push comes to shove whoever controls the armed forces controls the country. Despite supposedly 'serving their country' the armed forces don't swear allegiance to their 'country', or our elected representatives. The armed forces swear their allegiance to the unelected monarch Now you've got me really worried John. Do you think it's likely that the queen will to tell her armed forces to attack the U.K. ? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 Only North Yorkshire malc....so relax :-D Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 malc d - 2017-05-27 9:02 AM John52 - 2017-05-26 11:11 PM When push comes to shove whoever controls the armed forces controls the country. Despite supposedly 'serving their country' the armed forces don't swear allegiance to their 'country', or our elected representatives. The armed forces swear their allegiance to the unelected monarch Now you've got me really worried John. Do you think it's likely that the queen will to tell her armed forces to attack the U.K. ? ;-) It wouldn't be the first time that armed forces have been used to keep an unelected ruler in power would it? Elizabeth and Phillip haven't been too bad, and I don't see much public appetite to get rid of them. The real worry is what will future monarchs be like? and with no election how could we get rid of them? (and their extended families and hangers on, and all their descendants and their extended families and hangers on etc) if they turn out to be tyrants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-30 12:49 PM It wouldn't be the first time that armed forces have been used to keep an unelected ruler in power would it? Elizabeth and Phillip haven't been too bad, and I don't see much public appetite to get rid of them. The real worry is what will future monarchs be like? and with no election how could we get rid of them? The armed forces ( or local private militias ) were used by the establishment in the days before we had a police force. As I said previously - if you want to get rid of the monarchy you simply organise a British Republican Party landslide government, who would change the constitution and abolish it. I just hate to think of what we would get in its' place 1 ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM As I said previously - if you want to get rid of the monarchy you simply organise a British Republican Party landslide government, who would change the constitution and abolish it. Whats to stop the Unelected monarch keeping the Elected Government out of power like she did the Elected Harold Wilson( for 48 hours whilst the defeated Ted Heath was trying to cut a deal with the Liberals) malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM I just hate to think of what we would get in its' place ;-) Could be worse than we have got at the moment. But the point is it would be the people's choice, and most important of all they would get another choice in a few years time. They wouldn't be stuck with all their descendants, extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM change the constitution ;-) What constitution? We don't have a written constitution, so the Head of the Armed forces can make it up to suit herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-30 3:20 PM malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM As I said previously - if you want to get rid of the monarchy you simply organise a British Republican Party landslide government, who would change the constitution and abolish it. Whats to stop the Unelected monarch keeping the Elected Government out of power like she did the Elected Harold Wilson( for 48 hours whilst the defeated Ted Heath was trying to cut a deal with the Liberals) malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM I just hate to think of what we would get in its' place ;-) Could be worse than we have got at the moment. But the point is it would be the people's choice, and most important of all they would get another choice in a few years time. They wouldn't be stuck with all their descendants, extended families and hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, for evermore. The British monarchy will only survive if they demonstrate that they are our servants and not our masters. I think the Queen understands this more than Charlie boy whose pontificating sticks in my craw. It is a pity that centuries of inbreeding has produced an intellectually challenged individual with a distorted sense of his own worth and capabilities. I suspect HMQ is determined to outlive him and I wish her every good fortune in that endeavour. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJ Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-30 3:20 PM Whats to stop the Unelected monarch keeping the Elected Government out of power like she did the Elected Harold Wilson( for 48 hours whilst the defeated Ted Heath was trying to cut a deal with the Liberals) The Queen took advice and allowed Heath to try to form a coalition that would have a working majority. In that election the Conservatives actually got more votes than Labour but Labour won more seats. Wilson attempted to form a government but any fair-minded person would agree that in this case Heath had every right to be allowed a couple of days to attempt a deal with the Liberals. He couldn't do it so Wilson was then given the green light. As usual you either twist things or actually lie to try to denigrate those institutions for which you have a vicious hatred. You make what was a perfectly reasonable action into some kind of attempt by Her Majesty to subvert the will of the people. Total nonsense! Your other utter stupidity is constantly whinging about our 'unelected' Queen. Don't you know what a Constitutional Monarchy is? In a few days I shall vote for the Tories. I'll do this because their policies include several things I hold dear, which are: democracy, the Monarchy, free enterprise and capitalism and freedom from the dreadful EU. Every major party holds many of these same ideals. In fact Corbyn himself has just stated that Labour has no intention of abolishing the Monarchy. So on June 8th the Queen will once again be confirmed by the voters as our head of state. How much more democratic can that be? As has been said, if you dislike the Monarchy why aren't you and your Fellow Travellers organising a Republican Party and putting your policies to the country? We all know why of course. You won't do it because you're scared to death of being annihilated, losing your deposits and showing the country what a bunch of bitter and hateful losers you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-30 3:22 PM malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM change the constitution ;-) What constitution? We don't have a written constitution, so the Head of the Armed forces can make it up to suit herself. If it's not written down it's even easier to change ! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-05-30 3:55 PM Charlie boy whose pontificating sticks in my craw. It is a pity that centuries of inbreeding has produced an intellectually challenged individual with a distorted sense of his own worth and capabilities. Veronica Perhaps because he's spent his life surrounded by sycophants who want something from him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 DavidGJ - 2017-05-30 4:17 PM Wilson attempted to form a government but any fair-minded person would agree that in this case Heath had every right to be allowed a couple of days to attempt a deal with the Liberals. He couldn't do it so Wilson was then given the green light. As usual you either twist things or actually lie to try to denigrate those institutions for which you have a vicious hatred. You make what was a perfectly reasonable action into some kind of attempt by Her Majesty to subvert the will of the people. Total nonsense! Nope - you have missed the point entirely. The point is that the unelected queen had the power to keep the elected Harold Wilson out of power. Whether it was justified in that case is irrelevant. You are twisting that round to suit your agenda. DavidGJ - 2017-05-30 4:17 PM the Queen will once again be confirmed by the voters as our head of state. How much more democratic can that be? At the risk of stating the obvious it would be more democratic if she were elected *-) DavidGJ - 2017-05-30 4:17 PM As has been said, if you dislike the Monarchy why aren't you and your Fellow Travellers organising a Republican Party and putting your policies to the country? We all know why of course. You won't do it because you're scared to death of being annihilated, losing your deposits and showing the country what a bunch of bitter and hateful losers you are. Do I have to repeat it again? If we won the election she has the power to keep us out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 malc d - 2017-05-30 4:18 PM John52 - 2017-05-30 3:22 PM malc d - 2017-05-30 2:56 PM change the constitution ;-) What constitution? We don't have a written constitution, so the Head of the Armed forces can make it up to suit herself. If it's not written down it's even easier to change ! ;-) Exactly - if a future Monarch and Head of the Armed Forces abuses her power there is nothing the people can point to and say you can't do that. The Government can churn out thousands of pages of legislation every year, but not one page of written constitution. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-05-30 3:55 PM....................... It is a pity that centuries of inbreeding has produced an intellectually challenged individual with a distorted sense of his own worth and capabilities . .............................Veronica Ahem! :-D My italics above. Getting rid of the monarchy in favour of an elected president would not ensure removal of that particular character flaw from the scene, though, Veronica. Current shenanigans over the election seem to suggest it is a flaw common to a worrying number of our politicians. It seems almost as big a shambles as the referendum was. Wonder whose fault that might be? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-05-30 10:10 PM Violet1956 - 2017-05-30 3:55 PM....................... It is a pity that centuries of inbreeding has produced an intellectually challenged individual with a distorted sense of his own worth and capabilities . .............................Veronica Ahem! :-D My italics above. Getting rid of the monarchy in favour of an elected president would not ensure removal of that particular character flaw from the scene, though, Veronica. Current shenanigans over the election seem to suggest it is a flaw common to a worrying number of our politicians. It seems almost as big a shambles as the referendum was. Wonder whose fault that might be? :-D I agree Brian. Last night was a bit painful at times, today was worse. Paxman also has more than a few of Charlie's failings IMO. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 The Royal Family don't have to earn a living or get involved in politics. They can avoid all the controversial things that offend people. Their job is just to be nice. If you believe everything that gets past Buckingham Palace press office the Queen, at least, seems to make a reasonable job of that. Just the odd gaffe like talking to her subjects in Latin (annus horribilus etc). Otherwise her spin doctors make a pretty good job of presenting her with a middle class image, despite them all living in palaces with flunkies to put the toothpaste on their toothbrushes because their own time is too valuable for that *-) The most worrying thing is that if a future head of the armed forces turned out to be a tyrant, how could his subjects get rid of him :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 John52 - 2017-05-30 9:29 PM Violet1956 - 2017-05-30 3:55 PM Charlie boy whose pontificating sticks in my craw. It is a pity that centuries of inbreeding has produced an intellectually challenged individual with a distorted sense of his own worth and capabilities. Veronica Perhaps because he's spent his life surrounded by sycophants who want something from him? Sounds just like Corbyn >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.