Queen's 90th

Subject: Queen's 90th
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:52 AM

Looks like a busy weekend if you want to celebrate The Queen's 90th. Could be equally busy for fellow Republicans trying to avoid it.

I found much general reassurance by listening to one of the UKs finest singer-songwriters on all issues social and political - LeonRosselson: http://www.leonrosselson.co.uk/ I say 'general reassurance' because many of his songs just trip you up here and there - and so it should be. Thanks Leon.


His website

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 11:04 AM

Her 90th. That's sooooooooooooooooooo sweet.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:34 PM

It's a good weekend for gigs - a double header on Saturday and a double header on Sunday for me. Lots of places are having fairs, and lots of institutions are holding celebratory dances because of the 90th birthday. So, thanks for being 90 and being the queen.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM

Well I wish the woman well, but I'm not going to be celebrating the long life of an extremely pampered woman who has travelled the world in luxury in order to get crowds of cheering natives to wave plastic union jacks at her from behind ropes under the gaze of watchful armed guards and who milks the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family. Yep, it's going to be a great weekend for leaving the telly off. Happy birthday whatever your pet name is, missus.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:41 PM

I've never met her, I have absolutely no reason to like or dislike her as a fellow human being, and she has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever. So, I wish her a very happy birthday, exactly as I would wish any other 90-year-old.

In fact, she's been 90 since 21st April 2016.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:20 PM

I'm quite comfortable financially in my retirement, Steve. I'd far rather pay 67p p.a. (which I don't miss anyway) for her than for President Camoron, or President Osborne, or President Bo-Jo who do, or would, affect my life in oh-so-many ways! 👍

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:27 PM

Ah, but the lesser-of-evils argument still don't make a thing right!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:36 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

As the bible says:
"Whose likeness is on that coin?"
"Then render unto Caesar . . ."

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:59 PM

Good point, Nigel. If she had every coin and note with her fizzog on it, she'd even be able to afford Pedigree Chum for the corgis.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:44 PM

"Ah, but the lesser-of-evils argument still don't make a thing right!"

Generally I imagine most people would go for the lesser of two evils, unless there are other choices.

The right thing is to opt for the least evil of whatever choices are there.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:01 PM

Quite so. But you've hardly negated my point.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:26 PM

The thing is, you can pretty well guarantee that any system they'd introduce for appointing a President would land the country with some superannuated politico, like the ones mentioned.

Given it's supposed to be a purely ornamental job, I've sometimes thought it'd be an idea to appoint a horse. That way we could still have the Trooping of the Colour. Maybe a Royal could be kept on to look after it, and ride it on such occasions. The Opening of Parliament could be fun. They'd have to modify the arrangements for the Queen's Speech, I suppose.

Short of that, I'd as soon stick with the present arrangements.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:50 PM

Dunno. A horse could well represent some kind of intellectual advance on what we have now.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:27 AM

If we no longer have the grace to wish a happy birthday to someone who has reached 90 then we no longer have a society worth saving.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:40 AM

Agreed, Megan.

Steve -- ❤-y congratulations on what must be the nastiest & most stupid post to appear on this site for quite a while. You really did surpass even your previous efforts in vulgarly fatuous obloquy; which really took some doing. "... a horse" eh; wow, there's a world·shatteringly witty & brilliant aperçu!

...{or am I missing that oh-so-masterly 'sarcasm' again?
Eheu!}


LoL in ♠♠

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:44 AM

& I hope you observed my own use of supremely subtle sarcasm; which will probably, acc to my own predictions above, leap up to bite me on the ɷ ...

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:01 AM

I agree with the comments made by both Megan and by MGM-Lion in relation to Steve Shaw's post, or should that be posts, to this thread.

The following - Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM - in particular demonstrates a degree of ignorance that is downright astonishing in magnitude. Hardly surprising really he normally does argue on most subjects from total ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:26 AM

Perhaps the essential aspect of hereditary monarchy that makes its retention morally dubious, is once it has become decorative rather than exercising power is that involves a form of slavery. The person destined to fill the role is marked at birth and held as a kind of national toy figure throughout their life. And incidentally subject to obtuse insults like that from Steve just then.

Very well rewarded slaves, it is true. But chains of gold are still chains.

We live in a system where there are ridiculous and offensive variations in wealth, far more deserving our attention than the hereditary monarchy.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:34 AM

Absolutely spot-on, Kevin - couldn't agree more.

And welcome back, BTW!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:44 AM

"I agree with the comments made by both Megan and by MGM-Lion in relation to Steve Shaw's post,"
Somewhat hypocritical from a coule of people here who have no problem in slagging of the "gullible" Irish, the French who have never won a war and the appalling dress-sense and sexual perversions of Muslims!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:38 AM

What "coule" of people wrote that "I {singular} agree with....."?

Trouble is Jim you simply do not read things, you do not understand them, with the result you tend to get things wrong damn near all the time.

I have no problem at all slagging the leaders of various Irish dissident groups who have elected to take violent action and who were conned and spurred into action by vague promises of support from dubious "allies" solely because it suited their purposes at the time, and I would say that "gullible" is the right adjective to describe those leaders belief in such promises given previous track record.

I have "slagged" the French have I? When was that then Jom? I would ask for an example of me doing so but this will just be ignored and we will have yet another example of a piece of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - Same goes for the "appalling dress-sense ....Muslims" crap.

Kevin, any reigning monarch has the right to abdicate whenever they choose - so hardly slavery.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:58 AM

"Trouble is Jim you simply do not read things, you do not understand them"
Read them all and respond to Teribus - those arguments have no place here.
I'm just commenting on the ludicrous nature of those who have no problem slagging of nations, races and communities but leap for the nearest chair, skirts above knees, when someone takes a pop at 'Our Madge'
"I have "slagged" the French have I?"
Who said you have? - you're not the only tiddler in this pond
"Jom"
Infantile name-calling again - must have been another Teribus who has just been giving someone 'down the banks' for calling that nice Mr Farrage childish names?
I'm sure her Maj is a very nice if uninteresting lady, but as a species it really is time she was extinct.
Wonder if Charlie will wish her, "many happy returns"!!
Hilarious cartoon in the Times this morning showing an apoplectic Duke of E. reading a tabloid which has the headline "Migrants Flood to Britain from Greece" and spluttering "Bloody foreigners coming here taking our jobs"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: banjoman
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:00 AM

I have no problem in wishing a happy birthday to any person who reaches the grand age of 90 and I have no issues with the queen as a member of the human race.
However, I just cannot accept the concept of a hereditary monarchy, constitutional or not, where privilege and position are purely based on ones ancestral line. The least we can say for Messrs Cameron, Corbyn, Clinton or Trump is that the electorate does have a say in their appointment or demise. I take some concern at the comments from commentators such as " Loved by all her subjects"
I am not a subject of anyone and do not LOVE the Monarchy or the Royal Family although I do have respect for some as individuals

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:35 AM

Hmm. I appear to have got the response that you might have thought I'd wished for (though I don't really post here "wishing" for specific responses). I'd just remind the royalist sycophants who have crawled out of the woodwork to bash me of three things: first, there is a considerable body of opinion in this country, not a majority, of course, which quite legitimately opposes the monarchy on a number of grounds. Second, you do not have the monopoly of opinion on the matter, so if you come along to sing her praises I'm equally entitled to state the opposite. You have no right not to be offended (nor, indeed, has the lady in question) and I have no right to immunity from excoriation in return. The bad grace you've so far shown, three of you, speaks volumes about your intolerance of demurral and of your sycophancy.   

Third and last, I did actually wish the woman a happy birthday. Perhaps the red mist prevented you from seeing that, Megan.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:47 AM

"..... although I do have respect for some as individuals"
Perfik - B
When we were recording Travellers in London, one of them, our friend, Kerry Traveller, Mikeen McCarthy, set up a collection around the local sites in Hackney for the Save the Children Fund.
It was duly noted by the organisers who contacted him and said their President, Princess Anne, would like to visit the site to thank him personally,
The Lord mayor of Hackney got wind of the visit and decided it would be good opportunity for a publicity photo-shoot so, on the day of the visit he turned up at the site, which was surrounded by a high wire face, closed off by a gate, in full regalia, mayoral chain and all, accompanied by a photographer and a reporter from The Hackney Gazette.
The Royal entourage had placed a couple of dinner-suited bouncers on the gate to stop intruders - they told his worship to sling his hook, so he made his way around the fence, attracted the attention of a Traveller child inside and asked her to tell H.R.H. that The Lord Mayor would like an audience with her.
The child ran off, popped her head into Mikeen's caravan and yelled "Hey, missis!"
We cherish the photos we were given of Mikeen and Nonie sitting in their caravan chatting to "the nice lady"
We also cherish the old copy of the Hackney Gazette bearing the front page headline "Hey, missis!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 09:44 AM

Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM

Well I wish the woman well, but I'm not going to be celebrating the long life of an extremely pampered woman who has travelled the world in luxury in order to get crowds of cheering natives to wave plastic union jacks at her from behind ropes under the gaze of watchful armed guards and who milks the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family.

Well Shaw you are about what? At least 20 years her junior? You would not last one week in her shoes and she has been doing that for over 64 years. Those cheering natives elected representatives on gaining independence actually chose the Queen as their Head of State, they didn't have to - their choice. Your rather fanciful notion about the armed guards was rather amusing and I cannot remember ever seeing any official state visit by any head of state where the military and armed security were not present.

Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

Well No Shaw she doesn't, she doesn't cost you or any other tax payer a single penny. The 67p per annum is a figurative cost not an actual cost. So much for your milking of "the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family".

Up until the Civil List payment ended in 2011 the payments had been the same for 20 years - how many people do you know who have not had a pay rise for twenty years Shaw?

Since the demise of the Civil List the costs of our Head of State are paid for out of the profits from the Crown Estate.

The upkeep of Royal Residences which are buildings that form part of the Crown Estate but are used for official state functions are also paid from the Sovereign Grant.

Not a penny of tax payers money has ever been spent on any of the Monarchs family even in the days of the Civil List payment. Costs of the members of the Royal Family with the exception of the Prince of Wales and his family are met from the profits from the Duchy of Lancaster, separate from the Crown Estate.

All costs related to the Prince of Wales and his family are met from the profits from the Duchy of Cornwall, separate from the Crown Estate.

After having paid for all this the Treasury receives in full the remaining 85% of the profits of the Crown Estate plus the normal tax on the profits from both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall - in short a collective contribution to the Exchequer of something between £250 and £300 million per annum.

The "cost" of our Head of State is about two-thirds the cost of the President of a country like France and far, far cheaper than say the costs associated with the President of the United States of America.

We only have to pay for one Head of State at a time and there is no pension whereas with time limited term Presidents you have to pay the costs, the wages and the pensions of Presidents past and present. Costs of state functions remain the same irrespective of whether the Head of State is a Monarch or an elected President.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 10:27 AM

So our prime minister comes free just because he's not called Mr President? Garn, pull the other one! 😂

Landed gentry such as the royals possess their wealth as a result of their ancestors' stealing land from the rest of us. All their profits are ill-gotten gains. We can only hope that they at least put them to good use for the benefit of their tenants. Unlike many of the latter, they do seem to have rather pleasant lives, no five-day forty-eight hour weeks with just four weeks' holiday for them! And how do you know I wouldn't last a week in her shoes (given that they are size tens, wide fitting)? Oh yes, I forgot: she has to go around on the bus and fly Ryanair, then when she gets back to her mansion of choice after having those flags gruellingly waved at her as she asks people "hellay, and what do YOU do?" she has to put the washing up away, cook the tea, make the beds...

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 11:44 AM

Ehmmmm I don't think any of "us" were around in those days, and no their profits are not ALL ill-gotten gains if you are headed back that far. They provided protection and justice of the sort was around in those days to let others get on with their lives service was a two way street back in feudal times.

You wouldn't last a week Steve because the Queen has to go around constantly being "nice" to people of all sorts, she has to appear interested in whatever they are saying whether she agrees with it or not, she always has to be immaculately turned out and never ever late. That is just the outside engagement programme she has to cope with. Then there is the "office" work all those Red Dispatch Boxes, and yes she does actually have to read that lot and do what is required of her, then of course the State commitments and charity work on top of that - you and your wide fitting size tens if you started on the Monday morning would be running down the drive by Tuesday lunchtime. Five day 48 hour weeks would be a breeze for her - almost like a holiday. As for holidays, how many are you forced to take with a list of guests that you cannot stand being imposed on you without option - just think about it, a beautiful breakaway from it all up at Balmoral in the company of Tony and Cherie Blair.

Couldn't quite seen what you were driving at regarding the Prime Minister - President is the Head of State most countries that have them also have Prime Ministers or someone else in their role/function equivalents - point being put across was Presidents are far more expensive than a Monarchy and you did not manage to counter the point.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:39 PM

"you do not have the monopoly of opinion on the matter, so if you come along to sing her praises I'm equally entitled to state the opposite. You have no right not to be offended" ···

Indeed so, Steve. I will gladly drink to all that.

& add moreover: tu quoque & same·right·back·2U·with·brass·knobs·on; & so ad·∞ ...

So why this preternatural & extraordinary air of pained offence that we're not all grovellingly agreeing with Great·Big·Steve, eh?!

Just asking...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:42 PM

I'm very nice to everyone face to face. I'd let you buy me a pint any time. Anyway, what's your real name - Nicholas Witchell? 😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:43 PM

Michael, the day I take any kind of offence at what the madmen in this forum say is the day I have meself committed. And I hope you know who you all are.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:49 PM

Not much point arguing so rationally & cogently, Teribus: those as ignorant and prejudiced as the likes of S Shaw & his cohorts are impervious to logic & reason. And to think they are the ones who are always lifting ☝☟ in horror & crying out that grotesque cant word "bigoted"! Anyone ever known anyone else as bigoted as Shaw 'n' that lot!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:22 PM

Whether one is in favour of the Monarchy or not, the Queen chose to accept the role, and vowed publicly to dedicate herself to it lifelong.
No-one could disagree, surely, that she has fulfilled her vow admirably, and stuck to her duty through good times and bad for 63 years.
At the age of ninety she is remarkable in that she continues to perform her duties conscientiously.
I disagree that she has had a cushy life. She may not have had any domestic duties, but the terrible strain of maintaining her composure in the full glare of the media at all times, through all personal sorrows and worries and minor indispositions, must have been enormous. And she has had virtually no freedom. All her activities and pursuits are watched obsessively. She has never been able to saunter outside without the whole circus following her, including her own detectives etc. It's a life I would have absolutely detested, but she has endured it nobly.
I wish her a very Happy Birthday indeed.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:41 PM

Good post senoufou , IMO.   I,m not particularly royalist but I think the queen is doing a good job.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:22 PM

Rubbish. She has had the freedom to abdicate whenever she wanted, and no doubt she wouldn't exactly have been a pauper had she done so. Of course she's had a cushy life. Her travel arrangements are all made for her by someone else, she needn't worry about the cost of them and she travels in the lap of luxury. No Easyjet for her, no mixing with the unhygienic hoi polloi. She has stylists and wardrobe assistants travelling with her and I severely doubt that she has to bother packing her own knickers and bras. She stays in exclusive residences wherever in the world she goes, no worries about airport transfers, etc., and she's looked after by armies of servants, and her transactions with the flag-waving public are brief and highly restricted. The only hassles she ever has in her life are the ones brought on by her feckless and disreputable family members, such as her son having it off with his mistress the night before marrying Diana, messy inevitable divorces brought on by cynical exploitation of gullible young society women (yes, and watch that space...), her foul-mouthed, ignorant, racist husband and her grandson, of doubtful heritage in any case, who allows pictures to be published of his naked self shagging a young woman from behind in what we northerners call a "standing-up one." I'll allow that the dear old queen herself has managed (by keeping her mouth shut, mostly) to maintain a modicum of personal dignity. But she is the captain of, to a man, a ship of fools. And I have a suspicion that she knows it, so kudos to her for toughing it out. Happy birthday, whichever one it is, missus.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:47 PM

But Steve, her travel arrangements and stylists, luxurious places to stay and servants packing her underwear are not to any great extent under her own control. She is more or less 'sent' on engagements, wearing what her stylists decide is appropriate. Can you not see that it's a gilded cage? You sound a bit jealous of her wealth and her opulent surroundings, but I'm almost sure you'd be driven crazy in a couple of months by such a restricted way of life. I enjoy very much my freedom to go out for a simple stroll in the park, wearing comfortable clothes of my choice, munching on a Wispa bar and nattering to a neighbour. No amount of servants, dressers, chefs, chauffeurs or personal secretaries would suffice to compensate me for the lack of freedom which as an ordinary person I relish.
Regarding the other Royals, this thread as I understand it, is about the Queen's 90th Birthday, not the behaviour or shortcomings of her family.
(And I think I'd prefer to pack my own knickers to be honest!)

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 07:01 PM

Well it sounds like you live your life rather similarly to the way I live mine. I have no need to feel jealous of the royals, in fact, as you seem to be implying, in many regards they are probably to be pitied rather than envied. Maybe she does get "sent," etc., but she's 90 fer chrissake and she could decently have butted out twenty or twenty-five years ago if she'd really wanted to. This talk of gilded cages, her bring trapped, etc., is a load of hooey. And if she wants a stroll in the park, why, she has a bloody great big park at the back of her humble London abode, as well as a rather huge one up in Scotland, and she would never have to worry about being forced to mix with the plebs in either as she strolled around them. In fact, her only worry would be to avoid stepping in some occasional corgi shit.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:32 PM

The heredtary monarchy is a pretty trivial and insignificant matter. Getting rid of it would change nothing significant to even dent, let alone eliminate the gross inequality that disfigure our society.

Which is the more egalitarian society, the United States or Norway? Which one has no hereditary monarch, and which has one?

Ranting on about the Royals is a distraction and an irrelevance.

And it only too easily descends into the kind of stuff Steve has been throwing up in this thread. Troll talk, liable to make the most dedicated republican incline towards royalty.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:32 PM

The heredtary monarchy is a pretty trivial and insignificant matter. Getting rid of it would change nothing significant to even dent, let alone eliminate, the gross inequality that disfigures our society.

Which is the more egalitarian society, the United States or Norway? Which one has no hereditary monarch, and which has one? I don't mean to suggest a connection, but rather the reverse.

Ranting on about the Royals is a distraction and an irrelevance.

And it only too easily descends into the kind of stuff Steve has been throwing up in this thread. Troll talk, liable to make the most dedicated republican incline towards royalty.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:58 PM

Ah, another royalist! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 09:39 PM

But seriously. The monarchy is no trivial matter. It is the culmination of many centuries of unearned privilege to which we are supposed to doff our caps and wave our union jacks. Of course it hasn't necessarily increased inequality, but it has legitimised it and made it far more difficult to counter. That's exactly what privilege does and is intended to do. There is a massive media machine protecting and promoting the royals. Even that can't prevent the more discerning among us (not including Kevin, evidently) from detecting the fact that they are a bunch of people of rather average intelligence and often dubious morality who are detached from reality by virtue of their inherited wealth and the non-requirement of them ever to do an honest day's work. It's hardly "troll talk" to have the temerity to point this out. In fact, if Kevin were to get his way and such talk were to be suppressed (presumably that's what he'd want with a troll), then we wouldn't be living in a democracy worthy of its name. I don't need to go comparing us with other nations who are unlike us in all manner of ways to see that we'd be a damn sight better off without this bunch of spoiled parasites. Happy birthday, anachronism!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Megan L
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 01:17 AM

Are you equally critical of overpaid primadonna football players

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:01 AM

Of course the elected president of any republic does all his own decorating. His wife does all the housework & cooking. They have to rush to the station for fear of missing the train when they go anywhere, and nobody helps them with their luggage or keeps a look out just in case there might be some joker around who wishes them a bit of no·good ...

Poor old Steve. Eaten up by class-envy & inverted snobbery. To paraphrase the perceptive barrister in the play You Never Can Tell by his distinguished late Irish namesake: "He thinks he isn't but he is".

"Carry on, Steve", as the old catchphrase regarding your late distinguished jockey namesake Donaghue used to go. It's a real caution, the way you chunter so furiously and obsessively on at the way the world wags.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 04:23 AM

I don't imagine that, with the intensive 'indoctrination' the Queen has been subjected to from early life, she is even capable of considering Abdication. The more I think about it, she really is a sort of prisoner. The 'walk in her enormous garden' isn't all that different from a spot of fresh air in a prison exercise yard, but with grass.
I genuinely admire her steadfastness and loyalty to her position. And it seems to me she has been blessed with a tremendously 'noble' character.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm actually coming to believe that the Monarchy is an anachronism nowadays, and needs radically paring down to a very simple, low-key role (similar to the Dutch perhaps). And it's quite true that most of the other 'supporting cast' are a bunch of spongers with dodgy personalities and lifestyles. I could name several that I would pension off with a shilling if it was in my power.
It will be interesting, when the time comes, to see how Charles deals with his kingship. He appears to have some rather radical ideas and may introduce sweeping changes in the System.
I would never curtsey to anyone, royal or not. (Except my parents-in-law in Africa, since that is the tradition and I don't mind doing it as they're sweeties and totally delightful!)

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 05:42 AM

I've noticed that the people who express outrage and indignation over the existence of a hereditary monarchy almost always do so in terms and on the grounds of the cost, their 'pampered lifestyle', the servants and attendants seeing to their every need, the 'free' travel, and compare all that to the way we have to conduct our own lives.

Then, having pissed and moaned about the 'good life' enjoyed by the royals but not by the rest of us, they try to pretend they're not envious!

They think they aren't, but they are. Or they're a bunch of liars.

I've also noticed that they never actually manage to put forward any kind of proposal for a workable alternative arrangement that (a) would cost less than the current arrangements and (b) where the head of state (presumably a president and his/her family) wouldn't benefit from all the goodies that the royals get but the rest of us don't have.

So - come on, raise your argument out of the gutter, put your money where your big mouths are. Tell us precisely how you would replace the monarchy, precisely what the financial savings to the nation would be, and precisely how you would ensure that they don't benefit from the pampering and freebies that the rest of us don't get.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:08 AM

"And it's quite true that most of the other 'supporting cast' are a bunch of spongers with dodgy personalities and lifestyles. I could name several that I would pension off with a shilling if it was in my power." - Senoufou - 12 Jun 16 - 04:23 AM

Who are the "supporting cast" members sponging off Senoufou? They do not cost the tax payer a penny.

In terms of charities and good works think of them as "force multipliers" instead of only having your Head of State acting as Patron and encouraging good works you have a whole team whose ages span generations so that they can connect so much more effectively.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: banjoman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:36 AM

Just been told that the contract for the Patrons Lunch was given to her Grandson, Peter Philips, for an undisclosed fee.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich perhaps?
The whole argument, for me, is nothing to do with her finances or property or her role as head of state. Its only about the right of her son & his heirs to inherit simply on the basis of who their parents are. The sooner we adopt a democratic election of Head of State the better.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:38 AM

I am neither a liar nor am I even remotely envious, thank you. My beef with royalty is that they represent the pinnacle of the pyramid of privilege which works relentlessly counter to any drive towards fairness and equality in society, supported by a huge public relations machine and sycophantic media, the Beeb included to its discredit. In fact, they legitimise unearned privilege and inequality. They encourage patriotism of a rather mindless, "wot makes Britain great" kind and they appear to have the ability, rather like religion, to persuade people to temporarily abandon their critical faculties, as we've seen in abundance this weekend. I call it the Nicholas Witchell syndrome. I must say that I admire the woman's longstanding ability, unlike anyone else in her tawdry extended clan, to retain a smidgeon of dignity. She's done it not by being "remarkable" but by keeping her mouth firmly shut except when reading speeches written by someone else. As for Charles, that country squire who pontificates inanely about subjects he doesn't understand, talks to his flowers, who is a homeopathic nutcase and whose private life has long been littered with some very dodgy morality, he represents by far the greatest threat to the continuation of the monarchy, and for that we should be grateful.

Incidentally, good joke, that one, you know, the one comparing a walk with the corgis in a usurped vast Scottish private estate with a stroll round the prison yard. Yep, I enjoyed that one! 😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:52 AM

The Patrons Lunch is a massive publicity stunt, attended by carefully selected people from charities closely linked to the royal family. Peter Philips, as you say, is not doing it, er, for charity. It costs £150 a head to attend for the 10000 attendees. If you haven't got a ticket you won't be able to walk along a street that is normally open to you. It's all about the left hand definitely knowing exactly what the right hand doeth.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:03 AM

"I am neither a liar nor am I even remotely envious, thank you."

Then don't keep posting in terms which clearly suggest you are.

So...you're still pissing and moaning - where is the cheaper, fairer proposal I asked about. Come on, tell us, tell us, do...

As an aside, I'm personally of the opinion that there ought to be a better alternative to an hereditary monarchy, but I'm buggered if I can come up with a better, cheaper, non-political alternative and nobody else here seems able to either.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:23 AM

I would appreciate it if you could avoid calling me a liar. The normal riposte of pro- monarchists to anti-monarchists is to accuse them of being jealous. It's a rather brainless, kneejerk reaction, a gagging manoeuvre, and you have no evidence that I want what they have. It should be sufficient for you when I tell you straightforwardly that I don't. My arguments against the monarchy are predicated on a wish to see us moving away as a society from unearned privilege. That much is crystal clear from my posts. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:24 AM

The sooner we adopt a democratic election of Head of State the better.

Why? It would cost us a great deal more, for what gain?

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:30 AM

It's the system we happen to have. Other countries have had similar ones and got rid of them; or tried doing without & going back [including us, 1641-60]; others have modified it to fit their ambiences, like Scandi countries [& indeed have we too, to an extent]. But none has devised a system which doesn't involve some sort of figurehead; and it is arguable that the chief administrator and the figurehead being different people works generally better than their being embodied in the same person, as in many admins.

I am always accused, when involving myself in this sort of thread, of being a 'royalist' or 'monarchist' or some such. To which I rejoin that I am rather an 'if-ain't-broke-don't-fixit·ist'. It's what we've got; why not just live with it? You don't even have to bow or curtsey if you don't want; it's traditionally regarded as a courtesy, but no-one would shoot you if you didn't. And whoever said above that she would never curtsey to anyone -- what; not even if she was performing in a play or concert and acknowledging the audience's applause at the end? -- another traditionally expected courtesy.


≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:38 AM

" a bunch of people of rather average intelligence and often dubious morality"

Like the rest of us.

It is perfectly fair to point out reasons why abolishing the hereditary monarchymight be very advantageous. But it is totally unecessary to regurgitive a stream of personal insults. Far from strengthening the case it severely damages it.

And it is extremely unpleasant. It's a kind of pollution of the thread.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:50 AM

See it as an tiny antidote to the mountains of sycophantic, mindless nonsense we've been overwhelmed with over the weekend. I haven't heard you complaining about that. Would you accuse me of "personal insults" if I ridiculed George Bush or Donald Trump? There's been a ton of that here and you didn't utter a word of criticism about that. You've also seen me called a liar because I won't admit to being jealous (if I did, that would make me a liar). A personal insult. Whaddya think, Kevin?

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 08:53 AM

Matthew 12:37

No, Steve, you weren't 'called a liar'. That's your interpretation. My comment to your protestations is, Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2, 230.

You're still pissing, moaning, and bellyaching in terms that strongly suggest that you're envious of the monarchy, their wealth, and the things they benefit from that you don't.

Grow a pair of balls and either admit that which you deny, or COME UP WITH A VIABLE, CHEAPER, NON-POLITICAL ALTERNATIVE.

When I worked (in a real job, in industry), we had a good rule for meetings - nobody was allowed to bring a problem to the meeting without also having a proposal for solving it. It saved a lot of the pissing, moaning and bellyaching that's going on on this thread.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:22 AM

Oh do carry on Steve.....it's so entertaining ! This comedy could run and run !      I have had to revise my opinion of the "hangers on " in light of teribus explanation of their financing.   Not very good role models ( agreement with Steve there) , but apparently not draining the public purse .

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:27 AM

Sorry, mate, but you clearly got out of the wrong side this morning. I've been cutting and sarcastic about the royals, pretty cheerful about it actually, whereas you've been the one doing all the pissing and moaning, several times now, about me, apparently without irony.

I disagree with the concept of a God too, but there is absolutely no obligation on me to put up a CHEAPER, MORE VIABLE, NON-RELIGIOUS ALTERNATIVE! 😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:29 AM

You see? Even Pete is enjoying the fun! Take a chill pill, BWM!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:29 AM

"Eaten up by class-envy"
Thought you never used this term Mike!!
Nobody is "envious" of anything here, just aware of the archaic ridiculousness of a medieval institution still occupying the position it does in the 21st century.
Shame on you for resorting to such overused and discredited Tory arguments.
Fair play to Maj - if she has done no good, she hasn't done much harm - which is more that you can say for her Nazi-supporting predecessors.   
She and her ilk are there to remind us of the place we occupy in society - that has been the role of the monarchy for some time now.
If the economy goes belly-up, or inflation or unemployment gets beyond a joke.... lets have a Royal wedding or knock out another rug-rat to keep the plebs cheering.
Nobody envies their pampered, goldfish-bowl lifestyle or their appealing taste in fashion - who chose that awful dayglow-green jacket for her the other day? - no, I'm not a Royal Watcher - you could hardly avoid the wall-to-wall sycophancy of the last week.   
The least said about Phil the Dinosaur, the better - far from envying them, you have to sympathise their having to put up with such a walking embarrassment.
You want to defend this lot, do so, but you're far better than "class envy" or you should be considering some of the people you've rubbed shoulders with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: ripov
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:34 AM

I suppose there are those who think if the monarchy were abolished, the duchies would be parcelled up and everyone in the country would get a personal plot of land in cornwall or somewhere? Some hopes!

I'll stick to paying my 67p a year. She is good entertainment, after all, and that's less than you'd give to a busker (provided they weren't amplified).

Anyone know what Cameron, and cronies (or any previous bunch of rogues) cost us a year? Just what's on the books, not counting the cost of the increase in stress due to punitive uncaring legislation and reduction of services that we've paid for?

My only wish is that she'd send at least one bill a year back to the house, refusing to sign it till it made sense. But she'd break the mould doing that. And maybe, so the books say, provoke a constitutional crisis, whatever that is.

Incidentally - and this was my first thought when MIL put the telly on - did you notice they've pinched all the tunes that we play in the pub?

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 10:51 AM

Sorry Steve, as we say here 'oop north', "Yer all teeth and trousers".

Put up, or shut up. Stop the smart-arse bitching, bellyaching, pissing and moaning, or provide a solution.

You can't do either of those things

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 11:40 AM

You're the one pissing and moaning, old chap. The solution is that we neither need the buggers nor do we need a substitute. My guess is that, as long as he survives mum by a decade of two, Charlie will screw things up up so much for the royals that he will provide the ideal solution all by himself. By the time I get my free telly licence the monarchy will be a laughing stock. As a matter of fact, I strongly suspect that mum is determined to hang on for as long as possible in order to stop him getting the crown, at least until he's a gibbering, bezimmered wreck, by which time he'll be able to do no harm.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 11:51 AM

Or it could be that I read too much Steve Bell. 😈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 01:42 PM

Now you're getting ageist again Steve.

You don't provide an antidote to rubbish by adding to it. Hate speech never helps any argument, and that's what it amounts to Steve.

You're very likely right in predicting that the fashion for royalty may have dispersed in a few years. But that kind of talk does not forward that process, it delays it. It's the opposite of an antidote.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:28 PM

Oh, rubbish, Kevin. Hate speech my arse. I've never hated anyone in my bloody life.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:49 PM

Read what you've written, Steve. I could list stuff, but I'd sooner watch the football.

Hate speech does't have to require that the person using it is actually motivated by hate.
Rather like racist speech, defined by the audience it appeals to rather than by the personal sentiments of the speaker,

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 04:44 PM

Have it your way, Kevin. I hope you enjoyed all today's royal telly. If you think I peddle hate speech, well quite frankly you're as mad as a box of frogs.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 07:59 PM

Read what you've written with a critical eye.

I didn't watch any of the Royal Telly today. Better things to do. From your comments about that kind of stuff it sounds as if you must have seen a fair amount.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 08:12 PM

Nope. You appear to be rather good at making unjustified assumptions.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 08:46 PM

Well, going on about the colour of the Queen's clobber suggests you must have been looking in on her. And it's the easiest thing in the world to avoid "the awful Royal sycophancy of the past week". I've nothing particular against the lady, but I don't seem to have actually seen much of it on telly. Not my kind of stuff.

"Don't go scratching it, it only makes it worse" is good advice in relation to quite a lot of sore spots.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 09:13 PM

"Read what you've written, Steve"

"Read what you've written with a critical eye"

Well, Kevin, I've read what I've written with a critical eye, and nowhere have I gone on about "the colour of the Queen's clobber." Neither have I used the expression that you put into speech marks, as if it was a verbatim quote, "the awful Royal sycophancy of the last week."

Time to go and hang your head in shame.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 01:56 AM

The fact that, despite your inaccurate assertions, I didn't mention envy last time, Jim, doesn't mean that I can't mention it on this thread if I want to, does it? Not too sure what you on about there. It just seems to me that a fair bit of that unworthy emotion does seem to me as rearing its head in this thread.

The point also needs making again, as always on this thread which we are repeating for the umpteenth time, that papers print what their readers want to read, or they wouldn't sell any copies. If you don't want to read those bits, you can just turn the page over -- just as I do when I get to the racing page, coz I don't happen to be interested in racing. But the page wouldn't be there if there weren't a lot of readers who do want it. So turn over the royalty pages if you don't like them, and just leave them to the readers who do. I just love [let's say it again] the way all you self-proclaimed 'democrats' spend so much time & energy denouncing what so many of the δεμος actually want.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 04:33 AM

"doesn't mean that I can't mention it on this thread"
You can, of yours, Mike, if your mind runs along those lines (bit of a single track railway, it strikes me, but there you go)
The problem with you Tories is you seem to have an appalling grasp of the English language - you can't tell the difference between "envy" and "fairness", or "need" and greed - words that are constantly being misused by your lot.
Nobody "envies" this lot, but the ludicrousness of maintaining such institutions when so many people in Britain are struggling to keep their heads above water and a roof over those heads, seems to occurred to some people but not others - it's sort of like having your noses rubbed into your situation.
That's not envy - it's justifiable resentment.
The same happens when a strike occurs and "greedy" workers attempt to maintain (not better) their situation to cope with rising prices, threats of homelessness and insecurity of employment.
Usually the dyslexia sufferers are those who don't need to be arsed with these inconsequential incidentals.
Did you people go to a special college (possibly founded by Norman Tebbitt) to learn such misuse of English - or did it come with the silver spoon?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 06:52 AM

"That's not envy - it's justifiable resentment."
.,,.
Indeed a very tenable pov, Jim; but we happen to perceive the same phenomenon a bit differently. A bit like those old 'irregular verbs' they used to ask for in New Statesman competitions & so on -- I think I won one for such a verb once: things like

'I am firm. You are obstinate. He is a pig-headed idiot.'

So in our present instance

'I justifiably resent unearned privilege. You think you have as good a right to respect. He is green with envy.'

Wish I actually had this 'silver spoon' you keep saddling me with btw!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:01 AM

"but we happen to perceive the same phenomenon a bit differently"
Perhaps we're approaching it from different perspectives Mike.
Perhaps if you tried not to trivialise the arguments in an attempt to denigrate them and not have to face them head on it might help a little.
I find myself in the present position of worrying about a much-loved younger sister who, having been all-but-blinded by misadminitered medication, has been put on an unspecified waiting list before anybody can even begin to treat it.
You might describe the fact that I resent extremely wealthy people strutting round in funny hats because one one of them has been there for a long time, as "envy" if you wish - your prerogative.
That type of thing is a stark reality for a large and growing number of people in Britain today.
It's not as if this lot has done very much to deserve the adulation that is expected from us - don't think I'd include having a grandson who struts his stuff in a Nazi Uniform at a drunken rave-up on my C.V.
These people, in general, are a waste of space - the best that can be said of the majority of them is that they are harmless, yet even then, you have to remember that their raisons d'etre is to perpetuate a status quo of inequality and remind us where we feature in the order of things   
A couple of months ago we celebrated the 100th birthday of a dear friend who was born during Easter week, lived through a War of Independence and a Civil War, fought through all her younger days of marriage to keep her family from having to emigrate, worked to maintain a small mountainy farm in boggy and rushy land through most o her life, became an expert in rare breeds of bulls, yet remaines "ordinary" and not particularly well-off.
She is, at 100-plus, an interesting and pleasure-giving joy to be around - we're looking forward to our next visit.
That for me, is well-worth celebrating - beats being pampered an cosseted for 90 years hands down.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:25 AM

"if you tried not to trivialise the arguments in an attempt to denigrate them and not have to face them head on" ....

I do not think I am doing any such thing. And I think it rude of you to suggest that I am.

Your 'chalk & cheese' fatuous comparison arguments -- you know a 100 year old who has not had the fortune that her lifestyle deserves, so no-one else has a right to be fortunate in any way whatsoever -- are merely illogical, irrational & altogether foolish [& trivial!] imo.


≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:46 AM

"I do not think I am doing any such thing. And I think it rude of you to suggest that I am."
And I think it's rude of you to dismiss actual arguments as "envy£ - so there you go!
"no-one else has a right to be fortunate "
I've never suggested that anybody should have no right to be fortunate - on the contrary - I believe we should all, as human beings, have that right.
I do object to having to live in a society that is designed to serve only the fortunate and reward that fortune with yet more unmerited fortune.
We live in an incredibly unequal world and that inequality is accelerating.
Those benefiting from that inequality, far from attempting to redress the balance are doing everything in their (your) power to alter it (the very definition of the term 'Conservative'.
You've decided which side you are on are happy to dismiss those of us who wish to change things by insulting us with your "envy", don't be surprised when we hope your well-buttered bread chokes you.
I never was a fan of the Reign of Terror of 18th century Paris, but talking to some people often insipres me to go out and buy a tin of 3 in 1 for the blade.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:35 PM

& a bloody lot of good it did the French, innit!

You are back in that mode of that Higher Point·Missing at which you are so adept, I fear Jim. Such that I don't know quite where to start.

Let's start with:- Even if envy is not the motivation, which I am quite ready to concede, how is insisting on fixing a system, which all-in-all ain't broke, with all the unpredictable upheaval that must always accompany such a procedure, going to help to bring about that equality for which you strive -- in which. in comparison with most countries, we do pretty well at that, even if our figurehead, which all countries have, happens to be elective rather than hereditary -- as many royal houses have been in any event thruout history for that matter: see Hamlet, in which Claudius became king when he "popped in between the election and Hamlet's hopes", and finally "the election falls on Fortinbras"?

I am afraid I am finding your thought processes circuitous and
unfathomable.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 03:11 AM

" fixing a system, which all-in-all ain't broke"
Really - recessions more regular than 49 buses (though there will be another one along in a minute), rising unemployment with no guarantee of job security, no sign of homelessness peaking, a massive swing to the right throughout the world, (we've just narrowly escaped from the returm of a fascist government in Hitler's old stamping ground) permanent warfare, religion inspired terrorism on the rise, ecological crises by the dozen...... "Iceberg, what iceberg?"   
Is this the world you envisaged for your children - certainly not mine?
The gap between rich and poor is now higher than it has ever been and accelerating daily, oour politicians and bankers are now so openly corrupt that is has become an unchangeable standing joke.
Sure the system isn't broke.....in my arse it's not.
You attitude oozes self-satisfied complacency Mike - every time you put finger to keyboard.
As far as the royals are concerned, it's all immaterial anyway, they are not part of the real world - at best they are pretty pictures to divert our attention from what is happening around us, at worst, they are pampered, arrogant examples of a divided and unjust society.
Of course you love the royals, they insulate you and yours from the problems the majority of us have to face.
Your smugness is palpable, as is your lack of human understanding.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 03:13 AM

Nice (is somewhat sung) to concede that I might not be envious though - thanks for that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 03:15 AM

Feckin' keyboard - should read "smug" - satisfying to repeat though
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 04:11 AM

Jim Carroll - 14 Jun 16 - 03:11 AM

Good heavens Carroll what are you wittering on about?

Again you read and demonstrate plainly that you are just incapable of understanding any point being made. Makes one wonder if in conversation you ever use your ears.

" fixing a system, which all-in-all ain't broke" - MGM-Lion

The "system" being referred to is having a Monarchy as a means of providing a Head of State. And Michael is correct it ain't broke it works magnificently and is a great deal cheaper than any elected Presidential system would be.

As for the rest of this spittle flecked rant of yours:

Recessions - Nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of Head of State;

Rising unemployment - Although ours appears to be going down have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of Head of State;

Guarantee of job security - Non-existent, there never has been any and most certainly nothing that any Head of State could do anything about.

Homelessness - Not the problem of any Head of State, that like most of your list is a problem for the elected politicians and their governments and as the split since the Second world War has been pretty much 50/50 Conservative/Labour then it would appear that they are as bad as each other, although financially the country appears to do better under one rather than the other.

Swings to the right - That I believe has got something to do with the electorate of the various nations throughout the world, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our Head of State.

permanent warfare - Our country has not suffered, or had to live under a state of war since 1945, ask our current Head of State and her husband she lived through it and he fought in it. As far as I am aware she has declared war on nobody - so again nothing whatsoever to do with her.

religion inspired terrorism on the rise - How coyly put Jim, But at the moment the good ol' CofE is terrorising no-one.

ecological crises by the dozen - Really - don't we all share blame in that as being part of the human race - don't we all have to do something about it? So why does that end up at her door.

the gap between rich and poor is now higher than it has ever been and accelerating daily"

And doesn't Her Majesty know it, she is now only the 320th richest person, or is it woman, in the United Kingdom.

Our system is so unbroken that hundreds of thousands are scrambling across the length and breadth of Europe to reach our shores just so that they can get in on the act, unless of course that you view them as all being masochists.

By the way how do Royals insulate us from the problems the majority of us have to face? Just dying to hear your explanation of that.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 04:53 AM

"Good heavens Carroll what are you wittering on about?"
Will you ******* stop this - who the hell do you think you are and who do you think yo are talking down to?
Your inability to address anybody who disagrees you politely, is indicative, not only of your insecurity, it totally undermines any chance you have of making a point.
Grow up - once again - how old are you?
The inanity of rest of your points accentuate the fact that it is you who have either not read nor have not understood the points being made.
If you can't behave like an adult, at least leave the discussion to adults.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 04:57 AM

Before you attempt to capitalise on my double-negative, that should read "or have not understood"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

Who do I think I am? I know who I am Jim.

I am the chap who has directed you to the fact that the system that MGM-Lion was referring to related to the system we in the UK have for determining who our Head of State is - a point that seemed to have passed over your head at about 40,000ft. And as you have elected to live elsewhere I see no reason as to why you should concern yourself as to who we who live in the UK have as our Head of State.

I am the chap who pointed out to the world and its dog your spittle flecked rant with no connection whatsoever to the subject matter of this thread - a thing you do constantly.

Do you have an answer as to how "Royals" insulate us, or not Jim? Or was that just another of your inane utterances that you felt you had to get out of your system until the next time.

I am the chap who if you spout complete and utter rubbish I will tell you so, and explain to you and anyone else who cares to read why it is I think you are spouting rubbish. It is not my fault that you tend to deal in "myths", fiction and fairy tales whereas I tend to deal in fact, logic and reason.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM

Your contribution to this forum, particularly of late, has been somewhat catastrophic from your point of view and from those of us who have tolerated your belligerence and bothered to read what you have had to say
You have attempted to bully and bluster your way through subjects you obviously know nothing about - you had one supporter for your recent racist campaign and you ended that same one supporter.
Everything you claim is entirely based on your own opinions, you provide no backup whatever to what you say but arrogantly expecting the rest of us to to take your'facts' at face value - on examination they fall apart like sandcastles, so your bulling bluster gets louder and more hysteria.
Your somewhat feeble efforts at self-control last no more than a couple of posting and then the real you sneers through,
Like all bullies and blusterers, you are the first to point the finger and complain when people react to your behaviour
Bad manners is a sign of bad breeding - you appear to have been born with a sneer on your lips as others have been born with silver spoons in their mouths.
Personally, I have no objection to your behaving as you do, it puts your credibility rating where it is and where it belongs.
You want to talk to and be taken serious by adults, behave like one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 08:03 AM

Coffee just came down my nose..

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 08:14 AM

Head between the knees works wonders
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 08:24 AM

Very difficult to put your head between your knees when you're pissing yourself laughing.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 08:53 AM

Suppose I should show a degree of sympathy - It can't have been east having to make your way through life with your head rammed firmly up your arse.
Someone stop me..... this really isn't me, but anything to put a stop to this abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 09:39 AM

What was it you were saying about behaving like an adult?
Pretty rich, coming from someone with your diabolical record of puerile behaviour.
Time to STFU, Jim, you're making a fool of yourself.....yet again.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 09:45 AM

A 1000 years under the Norman Yoke and still no sign of getting rid of the parasites. What a drag.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 10:03 AM

If they're biting, Stu, I recommend 'Frontline' - works great on my dog.
I thought the RF were Greek-Germans nowadays?
BTW, who's Norman Yoke - some sort of alternative comedian?

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 10:47 AM

Funny thing, when old Sunny Jim is on one of his finger-pointing, holier-than-thou rants, its absolutely fine, but the moment someone pokes a bit of fun at him to try to bring him to his senses and stop him pontificating and ranting, it's 'abuse'.

Nothing I said was as abusive as "Suppose I should show a degree of sympathy - It can't have been east having to make your way through life with your head rammed firmly up your arse.", was it Jim?

What was that about motes and beams?

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 12:30 PM

Jim Carroll - 14 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM

What's up Jim running out of spittle?

Always a bit sceptical about people who bang on about being tolerant and accuse others of racism and then use phrases and terms such as "Blow-In Newcomers", and are only too willing to show that they support political interference in how subjects are taught in schools and that it is perfectly acceptable for minorities to be coerced at gunpoint to knuckle under to something they are bitterly opposed to and believe to be against their own interests further demonstrating that the right to self-determination can only be applied selectively.

"You have attempted to bully and bluster your way through subjects you obviously know nothing about - Obviously demonstrated that on those subjects I know a great deal more than you.

"you had one supporter for your recent racist campaign and you ended that same one supporter."

Oh dear yet another unsubstantiated allegation? Shall I throw it in the bin with all the others?

Everything you claim is entirely based on your own opinions, you provide no backup whatever to what you say but arrogantly expecting the rest of us to to take your'facts' at face value

Oh I don't think so Jim, links, sources and quotations all given with an accurate dateline and chronology - the fact that you do not accept or acknowledge that speaks volumes about you in terms of your lack of honesty and integrity.

"- on examination they fall apart like sandcastles"

Really Jim? Care to give us some examples of that.

You Jim Carroll are the one who has had to resort to inventing false statements and attributing them to your chosen victims - Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" examples of you doing so are legion on this forum.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 02:45 PM

"Pretty rich, coming from someone with your diabolical record of puerile behaviour."
We are all prone to becoming abusive at times - no one here apart from Teribus permanently talks down to people as he does I suuggest you work your waty down the Easter Week thread, then try the W.W.1. threads
Then the Homs thread
Then the famine threads.
I can give and take with the rest of them, but when virtually posting is delivered with sneering contempt it wears a little thin.
I do not accept being permanently talked down to by anybody - not on a forum what is supposed to be a friendly and informative exchange of ideas.
This guy has been requested to stop - both of us were requested by Joe to lay off the name-calling - I did, this guy seems incapable
Go nad look at the threads I've named and come back and tell me it'snot the case, if it isn't I'll be happy to apologise.
"Blow-In Newcomers"
Which was a humorous (I though) comparison to your claim that Ireland had no right to a United Ireland becaue it hadn't been so prior to the Normans and it was aimed at your claims that the Protestant Unionist who were deliberated planted by Britain, who evicted the Irish to make room for them, yet had a right to demand the partitioning of Ireland - the irony of your argument doesn't appear to have sunk home yet.
Neither does it seem to have occurred to you that I am a blow in - I've been referred to as a blow-in (in a friendly way) and am happy to be regarded as one because that's what Pat and I are - even have a tee-shirt with it on somewhere.
You are grasping onto a passing comparison I made to score some sort of a point - I have never begrudged anybody living here - just those who threaten civil War if their demenads of partition weren't met.
I am not Irish, but my friends, neighbours and relatives are, so when you describe the Irish as gullible, hate-filled and brainwashed people who have no concept of their history and only demanded independence because they were conned into doing so by foreigners, it is them you are insulting - you compound your insults by refusing to persistent proof of your racist claims. Nor did I go to an irish, or even a Catholic school - but again , may family, many of my fiends and neigbhours dis so and their children still do - so when you describe the Irish as "brainwashed for generations to keep hate alive" they are the ones you are describing. The irony of your claims is that you might prove have proved them by providing an example of how that hate manifested itself - neither of you will.
I have no intention in taking up a subject you have already fouled up with your bad behavior - I was happy to debate elsewhere until you refused to desist with your behaviour.
"Shall I throw it in the bin with all the others?"
you could try answering it for a change.
"sources and quotations all given with an accurate dateline and chronology -"
Simply not true - you provide virtually no links, you actually refused to do so aying the facts were there if we care to look them up for ourselves.
A coule waved vaguely at rule books and Government documents, not tying up with anything you claimed, and your "chronology" was one that had been put up earlier to prove the opposite that is about the sum total of your links - though you are very welcome to prove me wrong.
"Really Jim? Care to give us some examples of that."
I have done, over and over again - all dismissed as "made up Carroll shit" or "irrelevant", despite the fact that every single one was linked or sourced to actual research without exception.
Your entire technique was to simply deny what didn't suit - you classic was to misquote a linked book that you didn't even understand the purpose of, let alone its contents.
I have "invented" nothing everything I claimed was carefully linked - virtually nothing of our was - easily provable one way or the other if you wish to do so.
I have no intention of making this a John Ford-like western streert brawl, wandering from thread to thread and leaving a trail of wreckage behind us.
I was prepared to continue with this on the original thread until it proved useless by using Keith's technique of rehashing subjects that had long been established (couldn't help but notice that you have resurrected he murder of the Rebels, condemned by the army and the British authorities as being illegal and so above board that the details a still inaccessible a century later, contrary to the British laws on disclose).
That sort of repetitious dishonesty becomes mind-numbingly pointless after a time.
As I said - bring your proof and I'll happily withdraw my accusations, otherwise, let's allow these people to get on with discussing her maj
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 02:47 PM

There you go - a bit more to pass off as "irrelevant" or "Carroll made up shit".
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 03:06 PM

This guy has been requested to stop - both of us were requested by Joe to lay off the name-calling

YOU might have been, I can believe that, as far as I am certain I HAVE NOT.

so when you describe the Irish as gullible, hate-filled and brainwashed people who have no concept of their history and only demanded independence because they were conned into doing so by foreigners

So when have I described the Irish people as such? Example please - I know I won't get one - yet another baseless accusation formed because JOM didn't bother to read what had been written:

Chief Hugh O'Neill was not the Irish people and he did not represent them when he tried to sell Ireland out to the Spaniards whilst seeking self advancement.

Wolfe Tone was not the Irish people and did not represent them when he tried to land with 14,000 French troops in the 1790s.

Robert Emmet was not the Irish people and did not represent them when he tried to organise the same stunt in 1803.

Pearse and the rest of the magnificent seven did not represent the Irish people in 1916 when they colluded with the Germans and destroyed the centre of Dublin.

Go back and check I specifically stated it was the leaders of these armed uprisings I described as gullible. I have described the "men of the gun" as hated filled. But c'mon Jim break the habit of a lifetime and provide us with just one example if you don't/can't them the entire forum will know that you are talking out of your arse.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jun 16 - 06:01 PM

I quite enjoyed what I got to see of the queens show on Sunday , apart from a few bits. Not that I,m particularly patriotic or royalist, but I reckon there's a bit of feel good factor for a lot of ordinary people who are not anti royalty.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 04:00 AM

"So when have I described the Irish people as such? Example please "
About time this was put a stop to - now!
We have argued the subject into the ground on the relevant thread - I have said what I said and stand by it and the information that came with it.
I stopped when I realised that it was pointless to continue arguing with two people who were more interested in driving an agenda than exchanging information.
The thread is there for people to pull up and read for anybody who wishes to make up their own mind.
This is the second thread on which you have attempted to continue this argument, this time on the Queen''s birthday, the last time on the Labour Party - it has no place on either - so stop it.
I protested here on you appalling attitude to other members, I see you are still in full swing on another thread.
We were all asked to desist from our childish name-calling by Joe - I have tried, you have just refused.
Maybe it's time we set up a perma-thread where we can deal with behavior like yours without constantly fouling up these threads.
Take your obsession elsewhere, you convinced nobody then and you are only making more enemies now by nausing up what they wish to discuss
Please go aawy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 05:45 AM

Our Queen has been part of my life. Whether she should have been there is a matter for conjecture. The fact is, I have enjoyed seeing her role as an ambassador for our country and watching her family grow to be ambassadors themselves. Anyway... whatever your views.... please take a look at her 90 years in a few minutes.... here    90 years in a few minutes.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 05:45 AM

I'm also of the persuasion that, in the 21st century, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a better arrangement than a hereditary monarchy, Pete, but still one with no political power. But I also enjoed some of the pageantry that was part of the celebrations - not because I'm a sycophantic royalist (before anyone starts foaming-at-the-mouth and finger-pointing), but because I enjoy a bloody good, well organised, spectacle. And it was.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 05:54 AM

"but I reckon there's a bit of feel good factor for a lot of ordinary people who are not anti royalty."

I think you're right, and despite being a republican myself it's hard to begrudge folk a bit of joy and a chance to feel part of something larger than themselves, something that has a long history that us and our ancestors are all part of.

Can't be a bad thing.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 05:59 AM

But Jim this thread was keeping pretty much on track until your contributions and general references to other threads, completely off topic:

Jim Carroll - 14 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM

Jim Carroll - 14 Jun 16 - 02:45 PM

If you persist in making baseless allegations then you should not be too surprised when you are challenged on them. High time you addressed the content not the person posting, high time you actually took the time to actually read what has been said and view it in context.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 07:50 AM

"High time you remembered yo are addressing people who know as much, if not far more than you"
I respand to what people say and how they behave, nothing else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 07:51 AM

"High time you remembered yo are addressing people who know as much, if not far more than you"
I respond to what people say and how they behave, nothing else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: JHW
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 11:58 AM

On Saturday I dined (my own provisions) at the Q90Bday Street Party in...Kirkcudbright... Scotland...wyb

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 16 - 01:04 PM

Jim Carroll - 15 Jun 16 - 07:51 AM

"High time you remembered yo are addressing people who know as much, if not far more than you"

No idea at all why that sentence above should be in inverted comas - it is not a direct quotation from anyone - Besides as that is directed at me from Carroll then I will grant when it comes to traditional singing he knows a great deal more than me. However, when it comes to anything to do with history, current affairs or the military he is handicapped by prejudice and an astounding lack of knowledge and understanding in comparison to most people on this forum.

"I respond to what people say and how they behave, nothing else"
Jim Carroll

Nine times out of ten you respond to what your prejudice makes you think people said (Example from this thread: The system {Head of State} MGM-Lion was actually talking about and the one you thought he was referring to {General political capitalist system}). You are one of the worst behaved people on this forum, firing off groundless unsubstantiated allegations like a scatter-gun then running for cover when challenged on them. Your trouble is Carroll that you are awfully good a dishing it out but not very good at taking it. You cannot stick to facts because you have no idea what a fact is, so then your default position is personal attack and invention to put words in people's mouths. Examples of you doing precisely these things are plentiful and I can and will provide them if need be - you having been asked to do so on far too many occasions to count and have been able to-date to come up with nothing.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 06:02 AM

"Yeah, yeah, yeah" as four of my fellow Liverpudlians once sang
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 11:11 AM

But does he love you?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 01:21 PM

Come on now, time to Let It Be... 😄

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 01:21 PM

Rhetorical question I assume Mike?
Ah well - you wine some, you lose some!
Jim Carroll