#Royalty…
57 messages in this thread
yeah i was lying a bit, no Australian was attempting to kill Charles,
but still it's all rather amusing – the press over here had a field
day with it all (like a second by second account of the shooting –
pointless..)
gandy (Gandi?) you must have heard of him, stood up against british
rule in, urm, um, Africa? or maybe India, bald guy who walked around
in sandals and a white robe <vbg>
As for the royals denying a PM decision, well i think that if the
Government wanted to stay in powr it would have to let it go…
As for moving to ramblings, pazowee… we are there….
Long live the Republic of Australia!
So, are ya'll gonna learn Jappo now?
Jes' kiddin' b-{>
Isn't that kind of a mouthful.. Republic of Australia.. Sounds
revolutionary<g>
Enjoy your independance when it comes <g> it's actually real weird
here coz there are no where near as many people saying that you
shouldn't leave as i thought.. (hmm did that come out right?) what i
mean is i thought that the papers would be up in arms about all we
have done for you etc.. etc.. etc.. trying to drum up a public
outcry – and the public in general has given a damn <g> oh well i
guess we too are finding little use for royalty at the moment, still
they are good for a laugh <g>
Having said all that the press made such a BIG thing about Keating
putting his arm round the queen, he he he, if only the press here had
somthing serious to do they might leave the unimportant stuff
alone….
>Having said all that the press made such a BIG thing about Keating
putting his arm round the queen, he he he, if only the press here had
somthing serious to do they might leave the unimportant stuff
alone….
Actually, I consider that fairly fortunate condition. If only there really
were no important problems that needed addressing. Of course, since sixty
percent of the population seriously considers Prince Charles' love life an
important factor in world affairs, I expect to see that and other equally
insipid subjects begging to occupy our attention
-Vree from VA
I personally am fed up with the press over here, it seems to me that they
pick someone and try and hasten their downfall – eg Tory MP's I know a lot
of them are reallydoing dodgy deals and have numerous lovers but I think
that the opposition parties have just as many… also it was interesting
that just after David Mellor was about to implement curbings on the Press
to help protect privacy, the press managed to find out about his affair
with some actress and latched onto it for the weeks after – effectively
killing any chance he had of retaining his job…
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Hmmm… Well it is a fact that the press can make or break a politician
(or anyone for that matter). If a potential politician did not hit it off
with the press right away, forget it. And pity the politician that angers
the press in some way. Seems kind of limiting the amount of choice that a
populous can make if it needs to rely wholly upon what the press would be
reporting about someone. Objective journalism indeed! (Please note that
I rank reporters just slightly above lawyers as the lowest forms of
life<g>).
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
Reporters, lawyers – no difference…..
Still when you realise that the average man in the UK reads The Sun or the
Mirror both of which are completely tabloid and sensationalistic
(EXCLUSIVE: Prince charles buys new pot plant style of thing….)
it's kind of scary when most of the population read a newspaper with an
active vocabulary of 300 words…!
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Hmmm..
–>when most of the population read a newspaper with an active vocabulary
of 300 words
is that the population or the paper?
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
>is that the population or the paper?
Hmmm…
I think it's both…
Bob Comer — Cruising the nets on Autopilot!
Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A.
Bob,
All I can say is thank whoever for CIS, as this service has forced me
to improve my grammar and typing (not to mention my spelling) skills
in order not to seem a bumpkin when replying<g>.
I've been on line in various places for a while and it seems that the medium
has given me a forum for improving my verbal sophistication. My speech has
improved as well, but the delay involved in thinking up an erudite response
had _better_ be worth it. It usually is.
-Vree from VA
Umm, i could get in rael trouble answering that <g> well the tabloids
DEFINATELY are about 300 different words per issue, as for the population
– well it could be less <g>
This message is caffeine free.
>>it's kind of scary when most of the population read a newspaper with an
active vocabulary of 300 words…!
I heard this one on "Politicaly Incorrect" today, "In a gallup poll of 2000
Americans it found that none of knew what they were talking about."
-Vree from VA
LOL!!!
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
LOL….
Yes a survey out today says that 20% of all statistics are in fact 40%
incorrect. <g>
Or how about a 1 in a million chance turns up 9 times out of 10 <g>
He he, Statistics and polliticians go together wonderfully <g>
———————————
.loop BTST #6,$BFE001 BNE.S .loop
On surveys:
I remember rolling on the floor a few years ago while watching an episode of
The Two Ronnies, an 80's British TV show. During their regular fake newscast
skit, they reported on a survey asking people how they pronounced the word
"either". (From this point, I'll spell it phonetically) 27% said "eether"; 45%
said "ayther" 12% said "neether eether nor Ayther"; 8% said "ayther eether nor
nayther ayther nor eether"; 1 person said "ether"; and so on. Made no ligical
sense, but when spat out at a rapid clip, it was a witty bit of comedy.
(No replies, please — I don't want to start a thread on BritComs)
Blaq!
Ghandi, the bald guy<LOL!>!! He didn't play fair tho.. All his
people just sat down and let everyone beat them.. Hmmmm… First
sit down protest<g>..
–>well i think that if the Government wanted to stay in powr it
would have to let it go
I do not know about that.. I think it would throw the country into
a Constitutional crisis.. Be interesting too as the armies Commander
in Chief is the sovereign, but all the control lies with the Minister
of Defence.. This kind of puts all the big guns on the sovereigns
side.. Wonder if the people would go along? You know this is kind
of fun to think about<g>!!
'Ghandi, the bald guy'
Well i thought it was better than the old, bald, geezer in a towel <g>
Hmm wonder if his technique would work today ? somehow i think that if the
all the Croatians just sat down they would still be massacared…
depressing huh ?
Hmm what i am thinking is that if the royalty said no to somthing the
PM had wanted, it would be a very public humiliation for him – and no
matter what most people say in the UK, we still hold the integral
members of the royal family as important ones.. (till the queen gets
smeered next week <g>) and i think the PM in question would have a
hard time winning the next election if he pushed it.. still i think
any PM who's gonna get into the situation were advisers from the
queen and civil servants have not made it clear that the bill would
get passed would probably take control of the military anyway.. then
of course your other problem arises as you stated – who controls the
military.. in name the queen but in practice the government i
think…
BTW Glad you enjoy thinking about britains decline into civil war <g> at
least we haven't go to speak French (arrr no please no french…) <vbg>
Alternative uses for floppy disks, Number Infinity-1:
Shuriken
Well there is a neat legal loophole that all officers hold Queen's
Commissions. What this basically says is the the person named on the
commission is allowed to command "the Queen's troops" (reading that
directly from my commission sheepskin). So, if it ever came to
military intervention, officers that went against the sovereign's
orders would be in direct violation of their commission (not to
mention that they would be in direct violation of the Queen's
Regulations. Stated within the regs is a small law that states if
any insult is made by an officer with reference to the sovereign,
said officer could expect 5 years in a military prison and a
dishonourable discharge<g>).. Best not to fool around with the
Queen..
Now if only Francis would have been ousted by an outrage populace in "To
Play the King"<g>.
Trent
Flying near the Pole in the Great White North
Hmm i suppose there are laws saying the queen is the ultimate controller
BUT in a time when the PM openly opposes the Royal Family i think that it
is unlikely that it would make any difference wether you had sworn fealty
to the throne or not.
Top play the king and co…. well it's interesting how you end up rooting
for the bad guy isn't it <g>
"I've got a little black book with my poems in"
"I've got a bag with a toothbrush and a comb" – PF
Just ingrained loyalty and me coming from a military family (too much
discipline?). God Bless the Queen (but I wish we had a King)..
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
Give it time….
"Son she said, have i got a little story for you"
"What you thought was your Daddy, was nothing but"
Kind of like taxes right?
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
I wonder which came first, government or taxes <g> …
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Og god no, chicken before egg arguements. ACK!
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
>>Og god no, chicken before egg arguements. ACK!
^—- Damn why that put that damn H key so near the G <g> still Og God
sounds pretty cool <g>
This message is caffeine free.
taxes, which arrived with the priesthood. Government arose later.
Oh yeah, blame religion now<g>.
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
Seems to me that Religion could almost be considered as a form of
Government back then… after all nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION
Etc…… <g>
This message is caffeine free.
Certainly if the Queen actually tried to wield any of the powers she might
technicly possess it would be ruled unconstitutional by parliament.
-Vree from VA
Voila, yet the question is how many of the people would rally on the
Queens side (he he urban gurilla warfare in the UK, sounds kinda fun
NOT!)
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Good question, but would it really come to a shooting war? Or would it be
a power struggle between two bodies (the Parliament and the Monarchy)?
Wonder if it would just become a choice between two evils? On one hand
the Monarchy who have not really done anything productive in a long time
except cause interesting pap for the tabloids, or the Parliament who seems
to have a major type scandal once every 10 years (and throwing the country
for a loop in the process). At least with the Monarchy continuance would
be maintained.
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
I don't know, although if anything along the lines of what FU did where to
be brought to public attention then i think there might be a few people
who would enjoy taking militant action + the IRA would probably dive into
the turmoil….
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Hmmm.. Has the IRA every attacked (other than Lord Mountbatten)
anyone in the immediate Royal family? Weren't the ones who blew up
the boat turned in by their compatriots? Remember reading a
statement by a man in Siegn Feigh<sp?> (the political arm of the IRA)
that the Royals would never be attacked as that would force the
British gov't (from public pressure) to take serious and drastic
action upon the IRA itself. I would think that the IRA would sit out
a action such as this as it would be to their benefit NOT to do
anything.
Trent,
Sinn Fein, and yes, I seem to recall such a sequence of events.
"You do trust me, don't you? Of course you do."
— "To Play the King" (BBC)
I think your right – as far as i know the IRA have stayed away from the
royal family but i get the distinct impression that the IRA is no longer
in complete control of itself.. i think various bombings in the last few
years have not been 'authorised' and have definately not protrayed the IRA
in a good light. Still i reckon that any madman will go for a memebr of
royalty – just for the hell of it…
Actually it's weird about the IRA — you think it's always gonna be
somewhere else – then suddenly you find you left the area in Oxford five
minutes before they found a bomb there… can't say i am that personally
all that impressed with the IRA (as in i can't stand them…) I've got a
few freinds in both Northern and Southern Ireland -most of the southern
guys don't give a damn about being independant from the Uk as a whole (in
fact just about every irish person i know hates their native language!) so
the southerners (small sample i must admit) appear to be pretty mellow
about the whole thing – then you go to northern ireland and there is a
higher proportion of my freinds who are completely PRO UK… Then you of
course have the PRO Ireland people… i think the words i am looking for
are somewhere along the lines of: STALEMATE.
This message is caffeine free.
Yet how could it be ruled unconstitutional if it requires the signature
from the Crown to be considered valid? Even if the parliament ruled it to
be unconstitutional, it would be only upon the forebearance of the Crown.
That's the idea behind a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy still
retains it's old powers, it is just the parliament who wields them.
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
The argument could be given that it would be unconstitutional because
it violated common law, as defined by common practice.
Of course, I'm not a British legal scholar, just well-rounded.
-Vree from VA
Well, not really. Lets see. Parliament enacts a bill that is then voted
upon. If it passes it would then go to the Monarch to be signed into law.
This law then becomes binding. What has been happening is that the
Monarchy has become a rubber stamp to the parliament in that the Monarchy
will sign in to law any bill passed by the parliament. The parliament (in
theory) enacts the will of the people, but the Monarchy enacts (and
upholds to an extent) the laws.
So, lets say the parliament passes a bill that the Monarchy feels they
cannot moraly sign into law. Is the Monarchy violating the law? How can
they, when they MAKE the law.
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
I believed that under these circumstances (a Royal veto for moral
reaons) it would be allowed to stand, as the House of Lords wielded its power a
few years ago to strike down a law persecuting former nazis.
But there are still limits as witnessed recently in … the
Netherlands? when the king temporarily abdicated the throne to allow an
abortion act to pass without his signature. _He_ obviously believed his own
legal power was irrelevant compared to the "will of the people" as pronounced
by parliament.
The moral imperative of the monarch to act independently in what he,
the omniscient descendant of God, knows to be for the good of his country is
popularly acknowledged, especially in Britain (still!). But let's face it,
we're talking about the Windsors here, not Edward the Confessor. William Rufus
would be at home with this bunch. Of course, he'd have had me hung, too, and
at one of his wild parties I have no doubt.
Perhaps the Windsors aren't so bad after all. b-{>
-Vree in Virginia
Post Script (an artificial device in the electronic age, eh?)
I expect to be roving around the Welsh border in late April. Please
don't tell Her Majesty. b-{>
-Vree still in Virginia
P.P.S.
I was about to send this when I noticed that I had not completed my
argument.
Vetos I can accept, but who is going to follow the sovereign in a grab
for power? I once tried to come up with some plausible scenarios for a novel
but they were all rather tortuous, and obsolete these days without the second
world in power or much in the first world worth fighting for.
-Vree still still in Vriginia Beach, Virginia.
John,
Hmmm.. News to me vis a vis the House of Lords not passing a bill
proposing that nazi law. Then again, the House of Lords play an integral
part within the British gov't (they also provide a great deal of comic
relief<BG>).
–>But there are still limits as witnessed recently in … the
Netherlands? when the king temporarily abdicated the throne to allow an
abortion act to pass without his signature. _He_ obviously believed his
own legal power was irrelevant compared to the "will of the people" as
pronounced by parliament.
Bravo! He showed both courage and honour in doing what he did. But, I
do not see it as him believing that the legal power he was wielding as
being irrelevant. Quite to the contrary. I see it as him believing that
it would not be worth the constitutional crisis that it would throw the
country into if he followed his moral feelings upon that issue. The will
of the people through the parliament had spoken, and it was parmount that
he respected it, notwithstanding the moral issues. Taken in this light,
he appears to believe that he holds considerable legal power. The
question I have tho; would this then be a law if the king did not sign the
bill? I'm not entirely conversant with the Netherlands constitution,
while I am confident about the system as practiced by the British (I
should be as it is the same as that gov't system we have here in Canada).
This being the case, then by British practice it would _not_ be a law.
Hmmm… maybe ipso facto.
As to the Windsors. Well, the Queen Mother is great, and the Queen also,
but what I have trouble with are the actions of the Queen's children. All
of them (the children) show moments of promise and disappointment.
Let's just leave it at this point unresolved as, hopefully, we will never
see it. If it does happen tho, I'm on the sovereigns side (ingrained
training I guess<g>).
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
Gandi II, the sequel starring Sly Stallone, no more Mr Nice Guy, no more
passive resistance, Gandi strikes back.
LOL!!! Can just imagine the line that would be said to the then Gen.
Kirkland.. "Go on. Make my day.."
Trent
Flying near the Pole in the Great White North
Or to paraphrase a Segal line: Indians 2 billion, white guys 0.
Graham
On a quest to find the Holy Kalik
Segal ? who he ?
"I've got a little black book with my poems in"
"I've got a bag with a toothbrush and a comb" – PF
He's a Rambo/Terminator/Bruce Lee clone who's movies usually have a higher
body count than most major wars.
who he ? – Billy Connelly?
Inspector Morse, prefered Thaw in Sweeny, but his sidekick, sgt. ?, was
better in that series where he was the fall guy for Arthur Daly (I
think).
Graham
On a quest to find the Holy Kalik
Is this Steven Segal of 'hard To Kill, Niko' etc… fame ? if so – they
are a TAD unrealistic don't you think (although there sstill worth a
watch…) actually have you seen Waynes World 2 ? it's got a pretty funny
martial arts scene…
NO NOT Billy Connelly…. before he did that TERRIBLE Billy program i
considered him a pretty funny comedian… still the price of TV stardom..
Wow, you still get the Sweeny over there ? haven't seen that in donkeys
years… Dennis Waterman was very funny in Minder – i don't think it's
ever been the same since he left…
'I wave my genitals in your general direction you english pig dog…' <g>
"Long ago, for many years"
"White men came in the name of GOD" – Enigma
That's the guy, but since when has realty been an part of Hollywood, check
out his latest movie On Dangerous Ground, where after killing, maiming,
along with some mystic eskimo stuff thrown in for good measure, (Michael
Cain wearing enough oil on hair to cause another Valdez disaster) it
finishes up with a save our planet monologue.
Tried Billy once didn't like it, but I did manage to catch B.C. live, he
did an excellent 1/2 hr plus routine on jobbies.
As I mentioned before 600+ channels and nothing to watch, where do you
think they get the programming, I dare say everything that has ever been
produced is available somewhere. Try asking your grandmother about Ena
Sharples on Coronation Street, (I think its from the 50's), I do find
English soaps are hilarious, are they meant to be funny or am I warped.
Graham
On a quest to find the Holy Kalik
You know I live in a place that the population is ratio is 95% Inuit (the
Canadian Eskimo) and they don't have any secret rituals (unless you
consider getting drunk every Friday and puking your guts out a secret, but
white men do it too<g>)
Hollywood a portrayer of reality<LOL!>.. Well sometimes.. For a very
realistic movie go watch Schindlers List (from the same guy who brought
you ET – The Extra-terrestrial). Too realistic..
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
'mystic eskimo stuff'
Lol…
NO NO Not a film with a scary moral behind it, yuck…. i want
escapism…
B.C. Live is much funnier then that dire sitcom
Actually i don't know if UK soaps are meant to be Funny or not, Coronation
streeet is SOO bad, almost as bad as Dallas and co… but still i can't
stand soaps.. specially those lousy australian ones..
"Son she said, have i got a little story for you"
"What you thought was your Daddy, was nothing but"
The scary part about for me was, after taking out a multi-billion $ oil
rig/refinery etc. Killing/maiming and generally creating havoc, with the
FBI hanging around he stands up at the end of the movie and preaches about
big business ruining the environment, I can only assume that was the FBI's
punishment.
Aussi soaps, now that's an oxymoron.
Graham
There's no future in Time Travel
LOL, Steven Segal could really do with a few lessons in how NOT to hit
somebody <g> would save HUGE glass and pyrotechnic bills <g>
"hey God, i really don't know what you mean"
"seems like salvation comes only in our dreams" – NIN
Stephen Segal is a guy who is in movies which has as much violence as
possible, with a plot and acting ability in inverse proportion to the
violence. In short the only visible emotion I have seen Stephen Segal
actually show in a movie is constipation.
John
Ah, but have you seen his wife? No wonder he looks so bored on the
movies, he wants to get home<g>.
Trent
"Tracers work both ways"
LOL, yes Mr Segal does appear to lack in any form of emotion when his
pardner gets blown away by the baddies (like in the last 4 films etc…)
"Son she said, have i got a little story for you"
"What you thought was your Daddy, was nothing but"
>>Gandi II, the sequel starring Sly Stallone, no more Mr Nice Guy, no more
>>passive resistance, Gandi strikes back.
ROTFL… he he he but i thought it was… 'Gandhi II, after 50
years frozen on a drifting space ship he is about to return to his
deepest fear, yes the bitch is back…, Gandhi II, No one can hear
you scream in swahili <g>'