BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 02:17 PM

Well, we do have elections I suppose.


China is on the road to boom and bust. Their overseas markets, which their boom crucially depends on, are in severe decline, and China is trying to build an economy that relies on them less. The "success" of China's economy, I hate to remind you, is predicated on the large, state-owned companies, but as times get hard this is going to be a millstone, as capitalism always intends it to be. The Chinese are slashing interest rates as demand falls. Where have you heard that before? As I say, ask the question again in a year's time. I'm hoping to be still here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 12:39 PM

Ah but Sugarfoot old son Chinese workers have never had any of those things, they grew up and still live in a Communist State that is making money through the adoption of capitalist principles. Slowly but slowly the lot of the average Chinese citizen is improving.

Feeling the chill eh Steve?? Chinese growth down to what just under 9% what are the growth rates predicted for the West and the rest of the developed world Steve? They are measured in points of a percent the best performer around 2.5% I'd take China's chill any day - If the UK report a growth rate of 9% it would hailed as a bonanza.

Yes Steve, Governments get their money from Taxpayers and once the Government have got their hands on it it no longer belongs to the Taxpayer, and the Taxpayer has got absolutely no bloody say regarding what the money is spent on.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 11:19 AM

"Those taxpayers were people who had paid their taxes to the Exchequer and believers in the capitalist system . . ."

Er, do you have a choice whether you pay your taxes (unless you're Vodaphone etc)?

So this statement is wrong; you don't have to be a taxpayer to be a believer in the current version of the capitalist system.


"Very nicely thank you".

Because our workers are not paid too much, have no rights, and very little control over their own lives. Paradise for the rich capitalist, hell for the worker.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 11:09 AM

Well, I don't know where you imagine governments get their money from if not from taxpayers. And, last time I checked, paying tax was not optional, whether you were a "believer" in capitalism or not. As for getting our money back, well we certainly won't be getting two billion of our money back, neither taxpayer nor exchequer, from the Northern Rock bailout, and that's just for starters.

I'm a fan of "bail" in this context, not "bale", despite my earlier post.

Ask the Chinese in a year's time how their capitalism is doing. They are already feeling the chill. By the way, don't forget to ask the ordinary Chinese in towns and villages.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: meself
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 11:01 AM

Well - that's the answer you'll get from those Chinese for whom Capitalism IS working very nicely ....

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 09:47 AM

Those taxpayers were people who had paid their taxes to the Exchequer and believers in the capitalist system who knew damn well that everybody would lose everything if the banks had been allowed to fail.

Besides I do not believe that the money put in was a gift - Now tell who will get it back when it is repaid - individual taxpayers or the Exchequer.

We are right back at the beginning of your nonsense about the Royal Family costing the taxpayers of the UK millions they don't, just in the same way the taxpayers of the UK did not lend a brass razzou to the banks, the Government did after you had all paid your taxess to the Government - you have no say whatsoever in what they spend it on - they decide that for themselves. Possibly one day that will sink in.

Mind you had you been a believer in that "communist" lunacy we would have all gone bust, having endured a life of poverty, about twenty years ago. Ask the Chinese how "Capitalism" is working for them - the answer you will get back will be, "Very nicely thank you".

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 09:39 AM

I'm looking forward to the Gloucestershire Festival of Polo tomorrow, it will give my new Raynox Telephoto Lens Converter a good test! Unfortunately Luke Tomlinson is not playing in the England team, his brother Mark is of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 08:56 AM

You capitalists haven't got anything. We taxpayers had to bloody bale you all out when you failed, remember?


"Capitalist: thief with short memory..."

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 08:28 AM

We don't need an ironic comedian. They don't hold a candle to The Duke of Edinburgh...

We capitalists have to hold on to what we have you know! Gawd Bless her!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 15 Jun 12 - 03:09 AM

president wouldn't have to be bliar or any other politician - we could have a comedian like the mayor in london - how about billy connolly jo brand, bill bailey -or even better -president keith richards

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 12:12 PM

Heheh!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

me too, it's just a lazy affectation. or maybe i am subconsciously refusing to accept that one letter is better than another -they are all equal. or maybe it's because i'm an anti-capitalist

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 12:00 PM

I know about capital letters too.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:59 AM

also going to watch the footy- c'mon the republic!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:57 AM

Yep - Windsor Castle is owned by the The Crown Estate

So, pray tell, why didn't the obscenely-wealthy Crown Estate stump up after the fire? actually, you need to check your facts here.

Frankly, using Windsor Castle as your private home in every possible sense, including housing 500 of your staff there, holding state banquets there, using it as her weekend retreat, frequently entertaining foreign big-knobs in it, allowing the state to pay for its upkeep, yet wringing your hands when it get damaged and letting other people pay for it, is a bit like keeping most of your fortune offshore. All of the benefit, none of the responsibility!


Opening up Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to the public and charging an entrance fee paid for the rest.

Tight-fisted gits! Yet they won't open them all the year round, which would raise even more revenue. Odd that The White House manages to do it.


So, not taxpayers but tourism which, according to ""Detractors 'r Us"" is a myth put about to hide the robbing of taxpayers.

If that's supposed to mean me, I didn't say that tourism was a myth, simply that it has never been demonstrated that tourism is increased by the existence of the royals. Windsor Castle is the only royal connection in the top 20 tourist attractions, coming in at a miserable 17th place, and France, which has no monarchy, gets almost three times as many tourists as we do.

To quote www.republic.org.uk, which see, There is a great deal of confusion in the media, and in public perceptions, about what property belongs to the Queen and what belongs to the taxpayer. The royal rule of thumb is simple: it's theirs when they want to use it, it's ours when someone has to pay for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:37 AM

Tezza, I'm pretty sure you see my point. I'm not arguing whether Harold had cleaner hands than anyone else, just that William was a brutal thug who ignored whatever system was in place (which, like it or not was the English way of doing things), put christ knows how many to the sword, starved thousands more to death simply for not accepting occupation by a foreign invader. How many hundreds of years after the invasion was French the language of court?

Anyhow, methinks thou ist playing devil's advocate here. I don't believe anyone in the world is as unquestioning as your good self appears to be. Impossible. Not natural.

Off now to support Ireland in the footy. Fare thee well!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 11:30 AM

"When they are reduced to relying on Philip's loose tongue, they are really getting desperate."

Fnarr fnarr.

Anyhow, the main problem with replacing the monarchy as head of state is who to replace them with. A fixed-term president is a good idea, but the old monarchists retort of "President Blair" is enough to make even the most ardent republican wince.

Anyhow, Kings, Queens, Presidents, Lord Protectors all come and go. It's the ordinary people that endure, carry the treasury of our cultures, who protect the land and it's heritage. Long after House Windsor is just another name on a royal genealogy, the people will be playing our music, singing our songs and remembering our common causes and coming to terms with our common failures.

William the Bastard tried to get rid of us, but here we still are. Except now we're more diverse and are a glorious collage of cultures, beliefs and languages, and we will prevail. We always have.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 10:59 AM

i'm sure the law of the land anywhere these days depends on how strong your military is ( or was) and how many followers you have - it was always thus. doesn't make it right or lawful - unless you want to accept some really dodgy political ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 10:54 AM

And the "rightful law in the land" when the Saxons invaded was what?

The Witan:
The Witan was the term used to describe the council summoned by AngloSaxon kings. These meetings of aldermen, thanes and bishops discussed royal grants of land, church matters, charters, taxation, customary law, defence and foreign policy. The succession of a new king had to be approved by the Witan.

The composition of the Witan was not set and the size of the assembly depended on what was being discussed and where it was held. For example, meetings were larger during religious festivals and when the king was resident in one of his palaces.

Sounds a bit of a "stacked deck" to me, the constitution of this "rightful law of the land" can be composed to deliver whatever result is required - True??

Harold Godwinson from the same powerful Saxon aristocractic family that had fought and schemed against Edward throughout his reign. As representative and head of the most powerful family in the land it is little wonder that the Witan (which on this occasion consisted of 60) voiced their support for Harold, whose hands were not exactly clean eh Sugarfoot:

"In 1063, Harold led an English army into Wales - an area that had never been overly respectful of English power. Reports from the time indicate that his army killed every adult Welsh male they came across. His campaign of terror left parts of Wales depopulated."

Perhaps the "rightful law of the land" in Wales approved, or perhaps it didn't. I tend to think that "the rightful law of anywhere" in those days depended proportionally on how strong your sword arm was and how many followers rode at your back.

That being the reality of life in the 11th century and according to recorded history on the 15th October 1066 at Hastings, Duke "A promise is a promise" William of Normandy he and his Army proved themselves to be "the rightful law of the land".

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 10:40 AM

the busiest tourist attraction i ever went to was versailles palace- i queued for hours to get in. it was fascinating and beautiful (in an over the top way) and access all areas. the louvre was just too busy. i don't think post-revolutionary france has any problem with attracting tourists. were the many artworks acquired by the crown put on permanent display in -say, leeds, glasgow or giggleswick -then that would really be a great gift to the nation and a far better tourist attraction than entry to half a dozen functional rooms in buck house for a tenner or whatever.

hi don -it was me with the musical son. i don't mean to say that he is better than william or anyone -i'm sure i could have put that better. we are all worth plenty in different ways (i am better than no-one and no-one is better than me being the obvious cliche) in general terms i'm saying that music is of more value than monarchy or military. i have actually needed rescuing (from a flood) and since have always given money to cockermouth mountain rescue. while you wouldn't want a bunch of musos turning up in a disaster zone - nor would you want to see a load of squaddies (or royals) at a music festival - thankfully we are much more likely to need the music! and you don't get thousands of musicians turning up in other countries and causing widespread death and misery (in the name of the monarch or leader (of any country) of the day)

peace, love and peaceful revolution -pete

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 10:01 AM

""Opening up Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to the public and charging an entrance fee paid for the rest.""

So, not taxpayers but tourism which, according to ""Detractors 'r Us"" is a myth put about to hide the robbing of taxpayers.

Teribus, you are really making it very difficult for these guys....Do keep it up!

When they are reduced to relying on Philip's loose tongue, they are really getting desperate.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 06:56 AM

1: "Are you trying to tell us that Windsor Castle is not, de facto, in every possible practical sense, the Queen's?"

Yep - Windsor Castle is owned by the The Crown Estate and is an "Official" Residence - it is not the Queen's. The private residences of the Queen are Sandringham and Balmoral both bought not stolen.

2: "I think I'll invent a quango, sign over the ownership of my house to it and make it responsible for decorating it, maintaining the fabric, doing the garden, restoring the run-down bits, rebuilding it in the event of fire (because I won't be insuring it, of course) and, not least, looking after my artwork (a twenty-quid bust of Beethoven in my case)."

Please do, won't do you any good of course as no-one would put any money into it, so you would end up bearing all the costs yourself and on your death, because you have signed it away, the property would revert to???? The Crown Estate.

3: Finally semi-right about something - the Queen did not pay for the repairs and restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire she merely chipped in £2million towards the costs. Opening up Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to the public and charging an entrance fee paid for the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 06:43 AM

"Edward the Confessor's preferred choice of successor was Duke William."

Only according to The Bastard himself, and the Witan didn't agree, and as they were the rightful law in the country at the time. Being such a stickler for the establishment I'm surprised you view the act of invasion, laying waste of the land and subsequent theft and dividing up of land to his cronies as being so worthy of defence. But then that would require a curious, questioning personality and perhaps you are not made that way (in the same way I simply don't believe everything I'm told and question the truth).

William himself seemed to recognise his own failings, as his deathbed confession suggests:

I tremble my friends/ when I reflect on the grievous sins which burden my conscience, and now, about to be summoned before the awful tribunal of God, I know not what I ought to do. I was bred to arms from my childhood, and am stained from the rivers of blood I have shed... It is out of my power to count all the injuries which I have caused during the sixty-four years of my troubled life. Source

So perhaps his appalling, murderous treatment of the English was niggling his conscience. Let's hope so.

Gnu: "The Duke? Why are you drifting?"

If you need to ask that question, you're not understanding what we're discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 05:31 AM

Are you trying to tell us that Windsor Castle is not, de facto, in every possible practical sense, the Queen's? Oh yes, I forgot: it belongs to "the nation!" Then pray tell me exactly who is allowed to go in there, rustle up some nosh and go for a dump in the lavvy just before getting their head down for a kip. Why, I think I'll invent a quango, sign over the ownership of my house to it and make it responsible for decorating it, maintaining the fabric, doing the garden, restoring the run-down bits, rebuilding it in the event of fire (because I won't be insuring it, of course) and, not least, looking after my artwork (a twenty-quid bust of Beethoven in my case). The setup that looks after the palaces gets a cool fifteen million a year from the taxpayer, even though the badly-run palaces manage to make millions more by opening up occasionally to let us in, at great cost, to see our property. Ah, the advantages of "holding the palaces in trust for the nation!" All of the benefits and none of the responsibility! D'you think my new quango will be awarded a couple of grand for fixing my roof? Why should I pay?

And, in case anyone has been deceived into thinking otherwise, the Queen did not pay for repairs to fire-damaged Windsor Castle out of her own pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 12 - 03:50 AM

"If my house catches fire I pay to get it rebuilt. Given providence, I would be insured, which I also pay for." - SS

And if it is NOT your house??

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:28 PM

I'm not drifting. I responded to Ian, who typed" Yeah but to be frank, I'd rather give it to them rather than you mate. They behave rather less vulgar...

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: gnu
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:09 PM

Brokering deals on the world stage is not politics? I am remiss.

The Duke? Why are you drifting?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:18 PM

The last bit of my post should have read as follows:


Equality is a word used on this thread without the benefit of exhibiting it.

Not a word used in this thread by me, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:14 PM

Yeah but to be frank, I'd rather give it to them rather than you mate. They behave rather less vulgar and are more deserving of respect.

Well, I didn't ask for it, Ian. Is this another of those "all anti-royalists must be dead jealous" posts? As for less vulgar, well here's a small selection of the oh-so-erudite Duke of Edinburgh's more choice offerings:

To female sea cadet: "Do you work in a strip club?"

To a tourist in Budapest in 1993: "You can't have been here long, you haven't got a pot belly."

To a British trekker in Papua New Guinea, 1998: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

Peering at a fuse box in a Scottish factory, he said: "It looks as though it was put in by an Indian." He later backtracked: "I meant to say cowboys."

To a woman solicitor: "I thought it was against the law for a woman to solicit."

To the Aircraft Research Association in 2002: "If you travel as much as we do, you appreciate the improvements in aircraft design of less noise and more comfort – provided you don't travel in something called economy class, which sounds ghastly."

To then Paraguay dictator General Stroessner: "It's a pleasure to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people."

To Scottish driving instructor, 1995: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?"

To a fashion writer in 1993: "You're not wearing mink knickers,are you?"

To Susan Edwards and her guide dog in 2002: "They have eating dogs for the anorexic now."

To Aboriginal leader William Brin, Queensland, 2002: "Do you still throw spears at each other?"

To black politician Lord Taylor of Warwick, 1999: "And what exotic part of the world do you come from?"

To wheelchair-bound nursing-home resident, 2002: "Do people trip over you?"

"I don't think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing."

To female Labour MPs in 2000: "So this is feminist corner then."

To newsreader Michael Buerk, when told he knew about the Duke of Edinburgh's Gold Awards, 2004: "That's more than you know about anything else then."

To a British student in China, 1986: "If you stay here much longer, you'll go home with slitty eyes."

To journalist Caroline Wyatt, who asked if the Queen was enjoying a Paris trip, 2006: "Damn fool question!"

On smoke alarms to a woman who lost two sons in a fire, 1998: "They're a damn nuisance - I've got one in my bathroom and every time I run my bath the steam sets it off."

Ah yes, such a sensitive, witty and un-vulgar fellow!

If part of your family were involved in an acrimonious divorce then a horrific car accident followed by disgusting conspiracy theories, you might be somewhat disappointed to read some ignorant tosser using it as an example of why to hate them.

"Ignorant tosser?" Are you a member of the Teribus/Old Don/MtheGM school of debate, then? For "ignorant tosser," read "a chap who dares to disagree with me!" As for the acrimonious divorce, et al., Diana was a gullible, though not exactly innocent, victim of one of the most cynical, ruthless and manipulative families on the planet by a country mile. Begod, our future king was shagging his mistress just a few days before he married Diana! And I mean gullible. Starstruck would be a better word for it.



Not a word used in this thread by me, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 05:57 PM

"She does get involved "politically" when she meets heads of state and other royalty." No she doesn't. She acts as an ambassador for UK plc. She is not involved in any discussions over issues as such. The elected govt does that. She has residual political powers in the UK which are basically to make sure a govt is in place. After an election if there is a hung parliament the leader of the largest party would initially try to form a govt. If they are unable to form a majority and perhaps don't want to run a minority govt - then the monarch will approach someone else and ask them to try and form a govt. That is her residual role. The leading UK politicians collectively acknowledge that their responsibility is to try to ensure that she is never put in that position. It is an archaic system but kind of works despite that. The other supposed royal powers (for eg declaring war etc) are actually wielded by the PM of the day. She is more a symbolic Head of State than an actual political Head of State such as the US has.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:54 PM

""Don(Wyziwyg)T, I bet she'd be dead rubbish on answering any questions relating to modern pop music!
Inspite of having to endure hours of it last week!""

LMAO!   You're probably right Tunesmith, but most of us ancient folkies would be even worse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 03:53 PM

Yeah but to be frank, I'd rather give it to them rather than you mate. They behave rather less vulgar and are more deserving of respect.

If part of your family were involved in an acrimonious divorce then a horrific car accident followed by disgusting conspiracy theories, you might be somewhat disappointed to read some ignorant tosser using it as an example of why to hate them.

Equality is a word used on this thread without the benefit of exhibiting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 02:39 PM

If my house catches fire I pay to get it rebuilt. Given providence, I would be insured, which I also pay for. This business about the royals, among the richest people in the world, paying out for stuff "they don't have to," unlike the rest of us who pay out for everything, is a laugh a minute, frankly. It puzzles me that anyone would wish to compliment them for doing voluntarily what everybody else does compulsorily.

You asked me about my charitable giving and I told you, politely, to mind your business. Be assured that that was not an answer outlining whatever charitable giving I happen to indulge in. Now I've pointed out that the royal family spend vast amounts of their time hidden from view, shooting, hunting, fishing, riding, holidaying and getting killed on French jollies with playboys while nanny looks after the kids. "Working hard" for them entails having an army of servants preparing them in every conceivable detail for all their engagements, taking them there and bringing them home, often in Bentleys (which we gave them), private jets, royal trains or massive yachts. "Working hard" entails turning up, waving and going home again. The only hard work is done by that aforementioned army of servants.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 11:17 AM

So Steve you do not deny that you tried to put words into my mouth and attribute to me views that were not my own.

As to whether you give to charity or not matters not one jot and am not in the least bit interested I asked a question and got my answer, the point I was trying to make was that rather than do "nothing" the Royal Family works rather hard, charity and patronage of charities being undertaken in addition to their extremely hectic and busy round of "official" state functions.

Oh Sugarfoot was that the shipwreck were Duke William saved Harold's arse and in recognition of that fact Harold promised to renounce any claim he had on the throne when Edward the Confessor died. Edward the Confessor's preferred choice of successor was Duke William.

As to the rest?? What's done is done and what's won is won - Damn all I can do about it now. As a Serf you would have no better off, as I said before you either lived under a Saxon Lord whose forefathers had plundered and invaded, or you lived under a Norman Lord who had plundered and invaded. The modern day Royal Family bought and paid for what they actually own just the same as anybody else. They robbed no one. All else is owned by "The State" and it is quite right that "The State" should be lumbered with the running costs and maintenance of their property (It was the Queen, however, who paid for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire - she didn't have to).

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 08:07 AM

So, Teribus (ignoring your insulting language for a minute!), you still haven't told us why my charitable giving, of which you haven't the remotest inkling (and never will have), is of even the remotest interest in this thread. It's reminiscent of the kind of aimless lashing-out that militant Christians come out with when confronted by the sheer logic of atheism. I suppose that hurling abuse is a substitute for shuffling uncomfortably from one buttock to the other...a sort of displacement activity...

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Tunesmith
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:45 AM

Don(Wyziwyg)T, I bet she'd be dead rubbish on answering any questions relating to modern pop music!
Inspite of having to endure hours of it last week!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:09 AM

Just to dispel one more widely disseminated ant-monarchy myth,

Elizabeth is a very well educated, well travelled and knowledgeable woman, and I'd bet money on her in any kind of general knowledge contest, especially if all she had to oppose were those on this thread who think themselves smarter than her.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 07:00 AM

""She does get involved "politically" when she meets heads of state and other royalty.""

You are misunderstanding the remit Gnu.

When she makes these foreign connections, she is representing the UK as a whole, and she is the only apolitical representative head of state.

What she cannot and does not do, is to represent any political party within the UK. She is above and outside of internal politics, so never represents government or opposition or their interests.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 06:54 AM

""In the country, they would rather make money out of fools who pay a fortune to shoot at silly birds, instead of rolling up their sleeves and farming the land productively for the benefit of all of us.""

Can't resist this piece of pure ignorance of land usage.

First, grouse moors are areas of land which don't support either arable or livestock farming. These are where the largest proportion of shooting occurs.

Second, when it comes to weekend shooting parties on farmland, the majority of participants are middle class stockbrokers and accountants, with a smattering of social climbing small businessmen.

Nothing wrong with that, but they hardly rate as either Royalty or aristocrats, and their shooting venues are in fact productively farmed throughout the year, though more for the benefit, as you might expect, of the owner than for "all of us".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 06:34 AM

""If I was a casualty I would be more concerned as to whether the pilot has been properly trained. I don't think his/her previous occupation would bother me.""

Since only a very small proportion of pilots actually have the aptitude to fly military helicopters at all, let alone with the absolute pinpoint precision required for rescue work, I think it is safe to assume that William has been trained to the highest standard and is an exceptionally able pilot.

My comment above was made in answer to an anonymous Guest, who seems to be of the opinion that his musician son is of more value to the community than "a useless........". He didn't finish the sentence, but the false assumption is abundantly clear.

Does anybody with half a working brain cell really believe that the military hands over twenty million quids worth of high tech machinery, along with the lives of crew and rescued civilians to dimwits?

GET REA!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 04:24 AM

"Oh by the way Sugarfoot was Harold Godwinson any blood relation of Edward the Confessor? Duke William of Normandy was - one has a "RIGHT" to inherit, the other DOES NOT. Under what agreement was he the named Successor?"

Saxon kings weren't chosen by succession. Claimants to the throne presented their case to the Witan and this group decided who was king. Once king, that was that.

Harold (who had been shipwrecked in Normandy and had save his own arse as well as family members held by the Normans), was brother to Edward the Confessor's wife, and Edward named Harold as his successor on his deathbed. Harold had been confirmed and crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury before the invasion.

So the 'right' to inherit was Harold's, not William's, who based his claim on an oath that was a) made under duress or b) never existed in the first place. Either way it's irrelevant, the king had been rightfully chosen and appointed according to English Law.

I note you did duck my question about the Harrying of the North and slaughter of it's inhabitants. Assuming you are defending The Bastard, do you defend his actions too?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 12 - 12:25 AM

Why was Charity raised?? I believe that was because some "Muppet" came out with the line that "they" did nothing - The "Muppet" was wrong of course they do a great deal to help the less fortunate not only in their own country but around the world in general.

"And they give generously of their time whenever they are not hunting/shooting/fishing/holidaying on exclusive tropical islands or on massive luxury yachts/getting killed on Parisian jollies/going to the races/playing polo/riding in the dressage/calling off engagements due to colds in the head."

Pure "socialist" envy there Stevie boy?? Or would you decry and deny anybody you disaprove of their hobbies and interests. Care to give us a breakdown of the year and time spent in those pursuits?? Because in addition to all of the above they carry out over 4,000 "official" functions every year works out at over 10 a day Stevie. Particularly liked this one:

"calling off engagements due to colds in the head."

Ah so they are not allowed to be ill eh? You ever pulled a "sickie" Steve?? Or are you too "noble" to do that? Oh I forgot you won't be able to answer that because one half of you doesn't know what the other half is doing.

I think Don T was right, talking to you is like talking to a brick - Only I think he got the last word there wrong - like most of your information on the Royal Family - wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:39 PM

And they give generously of their time whenever they are not hunting/shooting/fishing/holidaying on exclusive tropical islands or on massive luxury yachts/getting killed on Parisian jollies/going to the races/playing polo/riding in the dressage/calling off engagements due to colds in the head. Well, apart from that lot, they have plenty of time left over, so they might as well give it. God, some people are so easily taken in!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 07:32 PM

OK, Teribus. Kindly apprise us all of why you raised charity in the first place. You've gone on and on about it. Now tell us why my being an anti-royalist triggered in your brain a question about my charitable giving. Why, there's material for a whole psychiatric conference there!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: gnu
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 06:07 PM

"Her role is to stay apolitical and not get involved!"

Not many watched the TV programs it seems. Or read any history. Or understand the religious and corporate structure that she presides over. She does get involved "politically" when she meets heads of state and other royalty. Maybe her influence in these venues comes from the fact that she commands HUGE and VAST resources?

I'm just sayin. I am no expert. Just a thought or two to ponder. Fill yer boots. Piss and moan and decry her station as a silver spoon if you will. Just think about one thing... she could have you beheaded if you didn't pet her Corgis.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:58 PM

"Not only that, because I'm an anti-royalist, I hate charities or something, at least according to Teribus" - Steve Shaw

Care to back that up with any quote from anything I have written that even remotely suggests that - or are you falling back on the old trick of putting words into my mouth then acting like the victim to take me to task for them??

Occasions where Charity has been raised by me:

1: "How much did you raise for Charity??"

2: "As far as Charity goes you give what you give - well done. The fact that you cannot put a figure to it indicates like most you just throw a few coins or possibly notes into collecting tins every now and then. Collectively the members of the Royal Family give their names, time and money to over 3,500 Charities."

Ah - and here was your response:

"Well there's a nice spot of prejudice for you. You haven't the faintest idea what I give or how I give it (though I will declare that I don't stuff money into rattled tins). You disagree with me so you automatically suppose that I don't give. Actually, giving to charity is hardly what this thread is supposed to be about. I'm not about to tell you or anyone else what I give, to who and how. I might well be an atheist but I'm very Jesus when it comes to this. And, as with the taxes the royals so valiantly pay, what they give to charities is only money that they have no moral right to."

Pssst Steve the bit there picked out in Italic bold is the point that you attempt to put words into my mouth and attribute to me a view I do not hold.

"What they give to charity IS ONLY MONEY they have no moral right to" - Really?? They give quite generously of their time as well and through their Patronage they have encouraged others to raise hundreds of millions of pounds to help those who need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:04 PM

"could she air her views on the latest clash between the government and church" As far as I understand it she is titular head. Wouldn't that mean in title only! She has in theory the power to appoint bishops etc but in practise it is all done "at the advice of the PM" - which in other words means it is the govt itself which has the ultimate say not the monarch. She wouldn't be able to comment on what you suggest anyway because it involves politics. Her role is to stay apolitical and not get involved! During the Coronation Oath she must also swear to protect the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. She is a member of the said church and is guaranteed a seat at the General Synod if she wishes it - but is not welcome to comment on internal affairs or actually take part in any debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:40 PM

I'll try that penultimate one again:

I have a gong, but I've never called myself Chinese. (Is that helpful?)

Phil The Greek might have suspected you, out loud, of being slitty-eyed. This foreign chappie knows nothing of irony!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:38 PM

She wouldn't have a clue what it's all abite, Tunesmith.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:37 PM



Phil The Greek might have suspected you, out loud, of being slitty-eyed. This foreign chappie knows nothing of irony!