John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now?. Keep things out of the press, like Prince Andrew living with a paedophile which we only find out about from the press in another country. Their Official Secrets Act doesn't apply in other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Appoint the judges that silence the press. Like the one that awarded Establishment Crony and Serial Liar Lord Archer over 40 times the average house price in damages against the Daily Star. Just for truthfully printing he had given money to an honest working girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 8:33 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Stop the railway 10 miles short of Balmoral to keep the plebs away You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. Balmoral just happened to be a few miles away from Ballater station. If the Royal Family had insisted that the train went all the way to Balmoral you and your ilk would have been whining even more about them using their privileges to ensure their convenience. Do you have any evidence that the train was meant to go to Balmoral and the royals somehow vetoed that? As for keeping the plebs away, do you Scots not know about roads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 8:48 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now?. Keep things out of the press, like Prince Andrew living with a paedophile which we only find out about from the press in another country. Their Official Secrets Act doesn't apply in other countries. Do you have any evidence that a D Notice was issued or that the Royal family was able to pressure newspapers to suppress anything regarding Prince Andrew? If this is the case are you suggesting that the Guardian for instance, is willing to suppress news stories about the royals just because that's what the Queen would like? I would have thought that the latest bloodletting should be proof to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the British press cannot be muzzled just because a story involves a prince. However, is this the best that you can do when asked what the Royal Family will not be able do do at Balmoral should Scotland become independent? Scraping and barrel come to mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 10:19 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Appoint the judges that silence the press. Like the one that awarded Establishment Crony and Serial Liar Lord Archer over 40 times the average house price in damages against the Daily Star. Just for truthfully printing he had given money to an honest working girl. The queen doesn't approve judges personally, she simply rubber stamps the recommendations of the prime minister who himself receives recommendations from a select commission. A select commission of judicial experts which recommends those it considers the most able. Even you should know that judges can only act on the evidence presented at the time and must also act on the decision of the jury. There are many cases where evidence has come forward later to exonerate someone or the opposite. You of course, in this deranged world that you live in, where your entire existence seems to be finding the most ludicrous and dishonest ways to discredit the monarchy, can only see a huge conspiracy where anything that can be remotely connected to the Queen is concerned. Seriously, you need help. Also, your naivety is exemplified when you state that the Star truthfully printed its allegations is astonishing. Do newspapers always print the truth? Have there never been successful claims against the press for printing outright lies? But you're not that naive are you? You just ignore anything that doesn't suit your rabid narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 8:39 AM So BoJo isn't out for himself then and has our best interests at heart *-) The only true thing that you've said lately. Of course he has our best interests at heart. All politicians do because they want to be reelected. Boris like me, truly believes that the best way to make everyone better off is with free enterprise. Corbyn believes its Marxism. But both of them want to do what they believe will make the country stronger and richer for everyone. Fortunately, history is on my side. Corbyn is a deluded, poorly-educated fanatic who is happy to lay a wreath on the grave of a terrorist who castrated and murdered Olympic athletes just because they were Jewish. Corbyn is an anti-Semite, like most of the hard left, who look at every jew and don't see the scientist, or doctor or musician, they just see Shylock. Fortunately, since 2017 the public have learned who the real Corbyn is and voted accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:13 AM John52 - 2020-01-03 8:33 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Stop the railway 10 miles short of Balmoral to keep the plebs away You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. Balmoral just happened to be a few miles away from Ballater station. If the Royal Family had insisted that the train went all the way to Balmoral you and your ilk would have been whining even more about them using their privileges to ensure their convenience. Do you have any evidence that the train was meant to go to Balmoral and the royals somehow vetoed that? As for keeping the plebs away, do you Scots not know about roads? You've missed the obvious point again It could have gone on to Aberdeen, which would have made it a lot more used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:17 AM John52 - 2020-01-03 8:48 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now?. Keep things out of the press, like Prince Andrew living with a paedophile which we only find out about from the press in another country. Their Official Secrets Act doesn't apply in other countries. Do you have any evidence that a D Notice was issued or that the Royal family was able to pressure newspapers to suppress anything regarding Prince Andrew? If this is the case are you suggesting that the Guardian for instance, is willing to suppress news stories about the royals just because that's what the Queen would like? I would have thought that the latest bloodletting should be proof to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the British press cannot be muzzled just because a story involves a prince. The Official Secrets Act makes it an offence to divulge so much as whether he takes sugar in his tea. And I have already made the point about ludicrously high damages awarded to Establishment figures for revealing the truth about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 11:41 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:13 AM John52 - 2020-01-03 8:33 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Stop the railway 10 miles short of Balmoral to keep the plebs away You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. Balmoral just happened to be a few miles away from Ballater station. If the Royal Family had insisted that the train went all the way to Balmoral you and your ilk would have been whining even more about them using their privileges to ensure their convenience. Do you have any evidence that the train was meant to go to Balmoral and the royals somehow vetoed that? As for keeping the plebs away, do you Scots not know about roads? You've missed the obvious point again It could have gone on to Aberdeen, which would have made it a lot more used. I'm not missing any point. A branch line from Aberdeen to Ballater, was constructed between 1853 and 1856. How are you doing with the proof that the train company wanted the line to go to Balmoral and that the royals were able to veto it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 11:43 AM The Official Secrets Act makes it an offence to divulge so much as whether he takes sugar in his tea. And I have already made the point about ludicrously high damages awarded to Establishment figures for revealing the truth about them. More lies. I was also unaware that only 'establishment' figures received large damages in the courts. Thank you for that little gem! Why is the Official Secrets Act not being used now to silence all the speculation about Prince Andrew? You really do spout the most preposterous lies. Your hatred has warped your mind, it really has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:52 AM Why is the Official Secrets Act not being used now to silence all the speculation about Prince Andrew?. *-) I'll try and explain it again Its already in the foreign press that is outside of their control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:52 AM I was also unaware that only 'establishment' figures received large damages in the courts.. Can you find anyone else awarded over 40 times the average house price in libel damages just for suggesting the Lying Lord had given money to an Honest Working Girl? (After taking the word of the Lying Lord over that of the Honest Working Girl?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 12:40 PM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:52 AM I was also unaware that only 'establishment' figures received large damages in the courts.. Can you find anyone else awarded over 40 times the average house price in libel damages just for suggesting the Lying Lord had given money to an Honest Working Girl? (After taking the word of the Lying Lord over that of the Honest Working Girl?) It was the jury that believed Archer and the damages awarded reflected what at the time was considered a very damaging libel. Cases are often overturned when fresh evidence comes to light. But Archer was a lord, so in your eyes even if he'd been innocent you'd think he was guilty. I remember gloating Lefties banging on about the Dolphin Square sex gangs and how Ted Heath was involved in child murder! Sometimes lords are innocent! You don't have to be 'establishment' to get a large libel settlement. https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/08/heather-mills-awarded-highest-libel-settlement-uk-history-phone-hacking-10131015/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 12:36 PM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:52 AM Why is the Official Secrets Act not being used now to silence all the speculation about Prince Andrew?. *-) I'll try and explain it again Its already in the foreign press that is outside of their control. Utter tosh. The Official Secrets Act has never in recent times been used to stifle reports on the behaviour of minor royals. But once more, what has any of this got to do with whether the Queen continues to use Balmoral should Scotland become independent? Have you found the proof yet about your claims that the Royals vetoed the railway line going to Balmoral? Or is just just another of your deliberate lies to smear the institution that seems to gnaw at your very bones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 10:41 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:13 AM John52 - 2020-01-03 8:33 AM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-02 7:41 PM What would the Royal Family not be able to do what they already do now? . Stop the railway 10 miles short of Balmoral to keep the plebs away You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. Balmoral just happened to be a few miles away from Ballater station. If the Royal Family had insisted that the train went all the way to Balmoral you and your ilk would have been whining even more about them using their privileges to ensure their convenience. Do you have any evidence that the train was meant to go to Balmoral and the royals somehow vetoed that? As for keeping the plebs away, do you Scots not know about roads? It could have gone on to Aberdeen, which would have made it a lot more used. Read the first line in my link. http://www.royal-deeside.org.uk/RDattract/station.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Giggle :D ........ I see John52/Peter/What's his name, unaltered ego has gone off on one (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM It was the jury that believed Archer after Mr Justice Caulfield’s description of Archer’s wife, Mary. “Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?” FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM and the damages awarded reflected what at the time was considered a very damaging libel. 40 times the average house price just for suggesting he gave money to a working girl. Are you serious *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-01-03 2:04 PM Giggle :D ........ I see John52/Peter/What's his name, unaltered ego has gone off on one (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Yep I've been out with the losers enjoying Scotlands free facilities, paid for by your taxes, that you winners have to pay for :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 5:32 PM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM It was the jury that believed Archer after Mr Justice Caulfield’s description of Archer’s wife, Mary. “Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?” FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM and the damages awarded reflected what at the time was considered a very damaging libel. 40 times the average house price just for suggesting he gave money to a working girl. Are you serious *-) Oooh double copy & paste :D ....... He's got the hots for you Mr Fun ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-01-03 2:04 PM Giggle :D ........ I see John52/Peter/What's his name, unaltered ego has gone off on one (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Yep I've been out with the losers enjoying Scotlands free facilities, paid for by your taxes, that you winners have to pay for :D Not for much longer as you're all going to vote to Leave the UK and ask the EU to keep you :D ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:13 AM You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. I did not say the railway line was constructed just to go to Balmoral so who's lying *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-01-03 5:41 PM John52 - 2020-01-03 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-01-03 2:04 PM Giggle :D ........ I see John52/Peter/What's his name, unaltered ego has gone off on one (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Yep I've been out with the losers enjoying Scotlands free facilities, paid for by your taxes, that you winners have to pay for :D Not for much longer as you're all going to vote to Leave the UK and ask the EU to keep you :D ......... The EU will keep us by giving us the same deal you have got now and are about to lose. So whats left of your productive industries can stick two fingers up to F*ck Business BoJo and come here where their business is welcome :D PS: You can try making a living selling Royal souvenirs, and flipping each other crummy houses at ever increasing prices *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 6:32 PM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM It was the jury that believed Archer after Mr Justice Caulfield’s description of Archer’s wife, Mary. “Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?” FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 11:52 AM and the damages awarded reflected what at the time was considered a very damaging libel. 40 times the average house price just for suggesting he gave money to a working girl. Are you serious *-) Hilariously you quote the Archer case as an example of the unaccountability of the 'privileged' but you mustn't have noticed that, when further evidence proved that Archer lied, he was convicted and jailed. Our justice system is blind. And once more you spew blatant lies. Do you just make things up and hope that no one will challenge your figures? According to the Nationwide House Price Index the average price of a house in the UK in 1987 was over £40,000. Archer was awarded £500,000 which is about twelve times the average house price not 40! Lies and more lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 5:46 PM pelmetman - 2020-01-03 5:41 PM John52 - 2020-01-03 5:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-01-03 2:04 PM Giggle :D ........ I see John52/Peter/What's his name, unaltered ego has gone off on one (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Yep I've been out with the losers enjoying Scotlands free facilities, paid for by your taxes, that you winners have to pay for :D Not for much longer as you're all going to vote to Leave the UK and ask the EU to keep you :D ......... The EU will keep us by giving us the same deal you have got now and are about to lose. So whats left of your productive industries can stick two fingers up to F*ck Business BoJo and come here where their business is welcome :D PS: You can try making a living selling Royal souvenirs, and flipping each other crummy houses at ever increasing prices *-) Yeah I can see big business heading to Scotland to be midge bait :D ......... Not to mention those farmers who depend on support from the UK taxpayer to provide our grub ;-) ........ Fortunately Boris has confirmed their funding will continue after we leave the EU whilst we sort out a sensible farming policy B-) ......... BTW.......Has FartPart said he's moving his UK taxpayer funded via the EU business yet ? ;-) ........ As I'd hate to miss the opportunity to wave bye bye (lol) (lol) (lol) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunsterJohn Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 John52 - 2020-01-03 6:41 PM FunsterJohn - 2020-01-03 10:13 AM You have no shame do you when it comes to outright lying? The railway line wasn't constructed just to go to Balmoral. I did not say the railway line was constructed just to go to Balmoral so who's lying *-) I asked you what the Royal Family wouldn't be able to do at Balmoral if Scotland seceded. You replied:'Stop the railway 10 miles short of Balmoral to keep the plebs away.' This clearly implied that the Royal Family had used its influence to stop the further progress of the line which ended ten miles away at Ballater. The line would then have gone no further then Balmoral! This is more of your blatant lies. I have asked you twice for evidence that the Royals used their influence to stop the line from going to Balmoral and so far you have, as usual, diverted or ignored the question, proving that you have no evidence and that it's yet another lying smear against the monarchy. You also seemed to believe that there was no train to Inverness! Are you sure that you live in Scotland? You seem to know very little about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.