Queen's 90th

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

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: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 16 - 11:11 AM

But does he love you?

≈M≈

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 08:14 AM

Head between the knees works wonders
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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 03:15 AM

Feckin' keyboard - should read "smug" - satisfying to repeat though
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 - 03:11 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 08:01 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:51 AM

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