BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:22 AM

And that was 300

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:38 AM

I love the way Don "doesn't belittle anybody" in his posts. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 10:53 AM

"3. Tory=Posh, avaricious and dishonest."

Not quite correct Don:

Tory = Selfish, truculent, mistrustful.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 12:40 PM

Just as bad Jack, and equally inaccurate.

I could as easily claim that Tory = intelligent enough to know that every Labour government since Attlee left the scene has done its best to destroy the country and come bloody close to succeeding, while the Tories have had to spend the first two years of every term clearing up the Labour quagmire, except for poor old Heath, who was handed the poison chalice of all time, and had no chance at all.

That, incidentally, is what Brown intended for Cameron, but the LibDems got in the way.

As for belittling people, I was referring to those human beings who exhibit some vestige of basic good manners.

Sorry Steve, but you don't qualify, and will get no more responses from me, though I can't promise there'll be no oblique digs such as you regularly employ.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 01:00 PM

"Yes, 242 is bigger than 7.9 (though your figure should be 32, not 7.9, but we'll let that pass for now)."

Hell as like we'll let it go Steve because you are wrong again of course.

The Cost of the Royal Family is as you say £32million - how is it made up??

£7.9 million - Civil List Payment
£24.1 million - From the gross profit from the Duchy of Lancaster and from the gross profit of the Duchy of Cornwall, plus whatever the Government have to chip in to THEIR buildings and property in order.

All profit from the Crown Estate goes to the Exchequer which by the way is NOT YOUR MONEY - That accounts for £230million

The net profit from the Duchy of Lancaster goes to the Exchequer which by the way is NOT YOUR MONEY - There's another £4million

The net profit from the Duchy of Cornwall goes to the Exchequer which by the way is NOT YOUR MONEY - There's another £8million

Then of course you have the personal taxes paid at 50% by a group of very rich people. What was the figure again about 5% of the population (the wealthiest) in the country pay about 45% of all tax collected

OK shagger what did you pay in tax last year??
How much did you raise for Charity??

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 04:10 PM

God Save the Queen, and bring back Empire Day!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 05:41 PM

don - you are right,of course some rich people are clever and some poorer folk are dim. but with the royal family, despite having the 'best' education money can buy and every possible advantage they just don't seem particularly bright, have few original opinions or have any particular talent. i don't want to knock them, they are just folk getting by with their lives - but i don't feel they deserve wealth, power,adulation and millions of sycophantic subjects devoted to them. well, no more than any of us deserve it.

i wouldn't choose the adjectives mentioned to describe the tories - but if you are well-off, you know they will look after your interests at the expense of everyone else - so greedy comes into it.
for the rest of people who don't have anything to gain financially by voting for the bosses' party, well - stupid is the word that comes to mind. we all need decent schools, a proper health service and will at some points in our lives rely on a good pension and a supportive welfare state. i'm not saying that labour can be relied on here but to vote tory in these circumstances is like the proverbial turkeys voting for christmas.
it seems for some people voting tory will make them feel more 'posh' - just deluded.
i could add mean-spirited, xenophobic, little england racists,though that may be a little harsh. However, if you are a tory these days -you are highly likely to be english -or lonely. scots certainly never bought that thatcherite nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:21 PM

The profits from those estates is really our money because those estates were once land owned in common by the British people, later to be stolen by force by the ancestors of the people who own it now. Another point is that those estates are run very inefficiently by people just playing around with their ill-gained power. The profits are shamefully low, and would be far greater were the land to be run efficiently by people with real personal investment in it, instead of by rich playboys who are far more interested in horses, foxes, grouse and pheasants than they are in real people.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:33 PM

I could as easily claim that Tory = intelligent enough to know that every Labour government since Attlee left the scene has done its best to destroy the country and come bloody close to succeeding

I actually took you to be very old, Don, but you're clearly not old enough to remember that it was Labour who gave us the NHS (OK, Atlee, but the bloody Tories would never have done it!), Labour who gave us comprehensive education, Labour who developed the welfare state, Labour who, even under Blair, not exactly my favourite man, slashed hospital waiting lists, revolutionised nursery education and introduced the minimum wage. And that it was the Tories, under Thatcher, who destroyed the industrial base of this country, threw millions on the scrapheap, wrecked whole communities in working class areas and deregulated the banks in a move that sowed the seed for the present crisis. Oh yes, Labour didn't exactly put it all right, but the analysis represented by your sentence above is, well, a quaint view of recent history, to put it mildly.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 12 - 08:55 PM

OK shagger what did you pay in tax last year??

Heheh. "Shagger." I paid in tax last year exactly what the tax rules said I should pay. No accountant has ever reduced my tax bill. As for what I give to charity, something you've attempted to raise several times now, the answer is that I give what I give and, not only is it nowt to do with you nor this thread, even my left hand knoweth not what my right hand doeth. Why don't you go along to some homeless blokes under Waterloo Bridge and ask them what they paid in tax last year or how much they gave to charity? When they tell you how little it is, you can then tell them that, as it isn't enough, or it's less than you or the Queen give, they are not entitled to their opinions! Would you like us all to pass a minimum tax-paying threshold before we can post/write letters to papers/vote? In other words, what are you on about?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 12:33 AM

1: The profits from those estates is really our money because those estates were once land owned in common by the British people, later to be stolen by force by the ancestors of the people who own it now.

When were those estates owned in common by the British people?? Answer to that of course is NEVER, the land always "belonged" by those who defended it.

When were those lands "stolen" by force from the British people??
As an answer to that please, please, please come back and tell us all about the Norman conquest - on that point in terms of fact and history I will bury any idiotic argument you put forward.

What British people are you referring to??

2: "Another point is that those estates are run very inefficiently by people just playing around with their ill-gained power."

Wrong again Steve, those three concerns number amongst the best run property management and business porfolios in the country - fact. To establish that all you have to do is look at their balance sheets, look at how the worth of those estates have grown. Oh by the bye the Royals do not "run" those concerns and have no say in who does. You really should educate yourself with regard to the subject you are discussing. Try approach it from knowledge, not ill-informed tooth-sucking envy.

3: "I paid in tax last year exactly what the tax rules said I should pay."

How public spirited of you - The Royal Family pays more - and those who are legally not obliged to pay tax pay it voluntarily.

4. 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.

5. "they are not entitled to their opinions!"

The homeless under Waterloo Bridge are perfectly entitled to their opinions and are free to express themselves - The Royal Family on the other hand are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 03:55 AM

"As an answer to that please, please, please come back and tell us all about the Norman conquest - on that point in terms of fact and history I will bury any idiotic argument you put forward."

Gawd, who'd a thought it? Teribus, great defender of the Norman invaders? I thought you were on our side?

Pray enlighten us in what way the Normans were right to invade a sovereign nation with a named and chosen successor, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few knights, and most importantly (don't duck this one Tezza lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*




*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:02 AM

The homeless under Waterloo Bridge are perfectly entitled to their opinions and are free to express themselves - The Royal Family on the other hand are not.

Just one point here: Prince Charles has expressed his many and varied opinions openly on many an occasion - architecture, medicine. He also actively, and behind the scenes, sends of many letters - sometimes several a week to government ministers, advocating his point of view on this and that. This has been documented and recorded in the press on several occasions. Whether his opinions are acceptable or make any sense I leave to others to comment on. The point is that he is abusing his position as a prominent member of the Royal Family in doing so. Interference in plans for the building on the Chelsea Barracks site is one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:29 AM

3: "I paid in tax last year exactly what the tax rules said I should pay."

How public spirited of you - The Royal Family pays more - and those who are legally not obliged to pay tax pay it voluntarily.

Abiding by the law of the land and not trying to evade tax, as the royal estates endeavour to do, what with their armies of accountants, is not "public spirited": it's just what normal people do.

4. 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.

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.   

5. "they are not entitled to their opinions!"

The homeless under Waterloo Bridge are perfectly entitled to their opinions and are free to express themselves - The Royal Family on the other hand are not.

Except that homeless people have no platform for expressing their opinions, of course, unlike the royals, whose every pronouncement is lionised in the media. As I said before, the Queen, for all her stunted intellect (not to speak of stunted personality) at least has the good sense to shut up and stick to the script. This can hardly be said for her buffoon son, or her husband, much-lauded for his "acerbic wit," which, translated into honest language, comes out as boorish ignorance tinged with a healthy dose of irony-free xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 05:48 AM

It's a waste of time sorting out where to start in demolishing this total bullshit, represented as fact without one iota of evidence to back any of it up.

It is pure fantasy emanating from a stunted personality whose bias is equalled only by the size of his ego.

Teribus, it's all yours mate, and good luck with it. You would get more reasoned responses conversing with a brick.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 06:32 AM

'"acerbic wit," which, translated into honest language, comes out as boorish ignorance '

.,,.,.

Tu quoque, Shaw. Something of a know-thyself post there, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 09:02 AM

Well, the, I never claimed to possess acerbic wit and I don't claim it now. As for boorishness, anyone here can see for themselves, if they have time to waste, that the insults emanating from the keyboards of yerself and dear old Don far outweigh mine. Cast out the plank from thine own eye!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 10:56 AM

"Pray enlighten us in what way the Normans were right to invade a sovereign nation with a named and chosen successor, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few knights, and most importantly (don't duck this one Tezza lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here. - Sugarfoot Jack

Really Sugarfoot??

Pray enlighten us in what way the Anglo-Saxons were right to invade sovereign kingdoms with named and chosen successors, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few to create the Heptarchy as they undeniably did, and most importantly (don't duck this one Sugarfoot lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here.

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? But to get back to the point you raised -

Pray enlighten us in what way the Romans were right to invade sovereign kingdoms with named and chosen successors, steal the land (as is the way with conquerors) and re-distribute it amongst a few regional Governors and annex it all to Rome, and most importantly (don't duck this one Sugarfoot lad) how the slaughter of innocent people and the laying waste of parts of the country was justified*

*Remember - these were the people that actually lived and farmed here.

There you go Sugarfoot we are now back to about AD 43 - do you want me to go on???

Will Fly Thank goodness the PoW does even although strictly speaking he is not "allowed" to in public - stating something to a third party in private correspondence that is subsequently "leaked" is not airing or expressing your opinion to the world and its dog, different thing altogether.

Steve Shaw "Abiding by the law of the land and not trying to evade tax, as the royal estates endeavour to do"

I sincerely hope that you have proof to back up that outrageous accusation?? Remembering of course that Tax evasion is a crime and subjects the guilty party to fines or even imprisonment.

"tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade the payment of taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as underdeclaring income, profits or gains; or overstating deductions)."

The dealings of those who administer the three entities I mentioned must be the most closely audited enterprises I know off a fact that you appear to be blissfully unaware of.

Being the conscientious citizen that you are Steve no doubt you have reported your suspicions to the Tax Authorities and the Police (There is a reward you know for turning in Tax evaders - 10% of the sum owed), your accusation of course must have been accompanied by your irrefutable evidence. No of course you haven't because as with most of your comments to this thread you are talking from a degree of total ignorance that would amaze and astound any rational human being.

By the way Steve hows this for inefficiency when it comes to running and building a business (and tax evasion when it comes to it):

1990 - Income to the Exchequer from The Crown Estate £55million

2001 - Income to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate £148million

That despite the fact that the actually value of The Crown Estate went from £2.4billion in 1990 to £1.7billion in 1993 then recovered to the value of £4billion under these inefficient criminal bastards in 2001. The value of The Crown Estate by 2004 was £4.6billion and today it is worth something like just over £7 billion.

2011 - Income to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate £230.9million

Oh Steve and here is the real "kicker" for your argument - the vast bulk of The Crown Estate lies in URBAN property bought and sold in exactly the same way that anyone else buys any property. Crown Estate lands in Scotland were practically all bought, those that weren't came from reversion of Church Lands owned by the Episcopacy. Land bequeathed to the Church which reverted to the Crown so no robbery there either.

What British people were you claiming were robbed again??

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 11:20 AM

Charles frequently airs his opinions publicly - and wrongly for someone in his constitutional position.

The content of his urgings to governmental departments have not been leaked - so we don't know what they are - but the fact that they cause annoyance and irritation to people in government is well documented. Again - unconstitutional. What will he do when he's king? Keep his mouth shut, I hope.

I repeat, as I've said before, that I'm not anti-monarchy, but the Prince can't have it both ways. He either accepts his constitutional position and desists from passing public opinions on all all and sundry, or he opts out of that position - in which case he's as free to speak as the next man.

To say, "Thank goodness" is not an argument, merely an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 11:28 AM

"You may be right, but I'd hate to tell a casualty 2000 feet up Capel Curig that I was sending out a guitarist and a DJ to rescue him."

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 11:41 AM

I sincerely hope that you have proof to back up that outrageous accusation??

Why, do you suppose they'll be round in a minute to chop off my head?

And I sincerely hope that you have proof to back up that outrageous
suggestion that I give very little to charities or just put a few coppers in tins, or whatever it was you accused me of, just because you didn't agree about something totally unrelated. It's very hard to take you seriously after that.

The urban bits of the Crown Estate are soulless places. Southernhay in Exeter, for example. There's no soul because the people who work, live and shop there don't own any of it. The people who own it don't give a fig about anything other than making money out of it by virtue of the hard work of others. 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. As for efficiency and those profits, I repeat: that dough is rightfully not theirs. They made it by exploiting what once belonged to all of us and which their ancestors took by force.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 11:53 AM

I stated above that I am not a Royalist.

Also, on another thread, I stated that reading these threads has in the past caused me to change my opinion from time to time.

Well, I may not be a Royalist but reading some of the shite above leads me nearer to defending the present system if its detractors have nothing to offer but envy and distorted figures.

I have a gong, been to four garden parties and escorted members of the Royal family around hospitals and still never called myself Royalist.

But you know what? Anybody reading some of the diatribe in this thread would be hanging the bunting out before they got half way through it. Some people seem to mistake feeling sorry for themselves (in the guise of sticking up for those they don't give a shit for) for egalitarianism.

Might take a leaf out of Bridge's book before he got old and confused, and become a one nation Tory.... Al least they have something to fight for, what with the Westlothian question etc. And one thing about agreeing with the Tories, you don't actually have to change your mind on anything, as they are the broad church Wilson used to claim Labour was.

Tally Ho!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 02:38 PM

What I fail to understand is why anyone who disagrees with us anti-royalists thinks that we are so because of envy. Now it seems that we also "feel sorry for ourselves." Not only that, because I'm an anti-royalist, I hate charities or something, at least according to Teribus. It's all rather amusing. I'm just waiting to be accused of having three heads. Or of possessing a very tiny penis. Who knows? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: meself
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 02:46 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 02:53 PM

just try and forget the accusations of envy or whatever else you tory guys. seriously-what is your problem with a fairer, more equal society where everyone is treated with an equal amount of respect, whatever their origin? why be so abusive to those you don't agree with? you do come across as mean-spirited and angry on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:06 PM

Excellent carriage procession on Tuesday, with all those hundreds of thousands of republicans lining The Mall!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Tunesmith
Date: 12 Jun 12 - 04:32 PM

A bit off the current tack here, but is the Queen's role as head of the church of England simply a meaningless title, or is she able to speak out about matters relating to the church.
For example, could she air her views on the latest clash between the government and church over the proposed legalisation of gay marriages?

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!

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 - 04:40 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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.