God save the queen her fascist regime. [Archive]

Skyryder

28th February 2009, 16:26

Just out of curiosity- does brenda have any hold over NZ beyond the purely honorific? I'm guessing there's no castles, vast tracts of land, tapayers money going towards upkeep of such etc...

Nothing becomes law until sighne by her rep the Governor General. It's the main reason that I am not a republican. They want another House etc and all the extra moolah that this will cost. The GG is a cheap option to ensure that all bills are passed constitutuionaly.

Skyryder

And for those that want to criticise my spelling this in advance:bash: i cna not be arsed to use a spell check.

Trudes

28th February 2009, 16:34

Hooray!!!
Rejoice!!
Now if that happened my study work load would be cut down by about half.... no Treaty to have to read and examine at length!!

Ixion

28th February 2009, 17:58

King. It's God save the King. King Francis, by God's Grace King of England, Scotland, France, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand ,Canada and other odds and ends. . Elizabeth II may be Queen de facto, but not de jure. She is a usurper.

Mom

28th February 2009, 18:01

Trudes

28th February 2009, 18:01

Mom

28th February 2009, 18:06

that image I am not allowed to quote

Apparently we have bling restrictions on the forum :laugh:

MisterD

28th February 2009, 18:39

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (puritan)
Born in 1599, died in 1658 (september)

http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/crom.jpg

The man with the right idea....and to all the Irish Catholics that believe the hype: :finger:

MisterD

28th February 2009, 18:41

The GG is a cheap option to ensure that all bills are passed constitutuionaly.

Did a bang-up job with the EFA that your lot rammed through eh? That's the kind of thing that shows we need an upper house...

MisterD

28th February 2009, 18:43

POWER TO THE PEOPLE:Punk:

http://www.tootingpopularfront.com/citizensmith.jpg

JacksColdSweat

28th February 2009, 18:47

Nothing becomes law until sighne by her rep the Governor General. It's the main reason that I am not a republican. They want another House etc and all the extra moolah that this will cost. The GG is a cheap option to ensure that all bills are passed constitutuionaly.

Further to this the one argument I have heard in favour of the monarchy that is an interesting one (not that I agree with it - it's just interesting) is that the advantage to the monarchy is that you have people who are trained in leadership

In essence (as I understand the argument) the monarchs experience a very long apprenticeship in leadership - they are often educated overseas, they spend time in developing nations assisting with those programs, they mix with the rich and famous - all the time being mentored by other monarchs and staff

the idea is that they see the whole world and they have intimate knowledge of various walks of life which leads them to be better leaders and decision makers

Take that away and you have people with rather narrow experiences making all our decisions for us... businessmen or former socialists... all pushing us in a narrow direction rather than a considered and broad one...

like I say - interesting - I can understand the argument - I don't know if I agree with it

EDIT: Skyryder we don't have a constitution... so the step to a republic would also need that to be drafted and written and debated endlessly

Ixion

28th February 2009, 18:57

Meh. Republic, reshublic. It's not like it hasn't been tried. Given a fair chance and it was a total flop. Now we're just getting over the ballsup, and you want to go and do it all over again.

Some people never learn.

MisterD

28th February 2009, 18:57

Take that away and you have people with rather narrow experiences making all our decisions for us... businessmen or former socialists... all pushing us in a narrow direction rather than a considered and broad one...

Yeah, but we're not talking about an executive position, we're talking about a figurehead for the country. I don't want some f-ing politician in the role, I want the Irish model.

Hands up who wouldn't rather have had President Hilary, Te Kanawa or Meads than HRH the occupier of Buck House?

**Edit**

I just re-read that and googled "irish model" and I stand by my "I want..." statement

http://i.pbase.com/g6/99/492199/2/74364008.WzF0o3fL.jpg

JacksColdSweat

28th February 2009, 19:04

Yeah, but we're not talking about an executive position, we're talking about a figurehead for the country. I don't want some f-ing politician in the role, I want the Irish model.

Hands up who wouldn't rather have had President Hilary, Te Kanawa or Meads than HRH the occupier of Buck House?

**Edit**

I just re-read that and googled "irish model" and I stand by my "I want..." statement

http://i.pbase.com/g6/99/492199/2/74364008.WzF0o3fL.jpg

I think the pro-monarchy people would argue it's even more important to have the monarchy in that figurehead position for the reasons I listed above

Meads et al are all too narrow and inexperienced would be their call

They would probably say look at the American Republic now.... politicians hamstrung by greedy lobbyists and devoid of vision for 150 years now have started the fall of the American empire...

I'm putting words in their mouths here....

Dave Lobster

28th February 2009, 19:08

Hands up who wouldn't rather have had President Hilary, Te Kanawa or Meads than HRH the occupier of Buck House?

Me.
HRH the Queen is by far the best person for the job. She is never up for re-election, is rich beyond our wildest dreams, and is therefore unbribable. All decisions she makes (and should be making, instead of that one eyed scottish idiot) are done for the good of the country, rather than for the good of her career and continued governence.

Although I've never met (been presented to) the Queen, in the course of my career working for her, I have been in the vicinity of several of the Royal family. I've also met various politicians that are alleged to serve the (former) United Kingdom. I know who'd I'd rather work for. I also know a lot of people (me included) that stopped working for her when the rabble won in 1997.

Winston001

28th February 2009, 19:41

Skyryder we don't have a constitution... so the step to a republic would also need that to be drafted and written and debated endlessly

Actually this is a common misconception, but know what you mean. Our constitution is made up of laws, rules and conventions governing Parliament, the Crown (including the GG), and the Courts.

Some of these - conventions, are unwritten and that's confusing for most people. One example is Ministers of the Crown tender their resignation when something bad happens in their department. That is not written down anywhere. The argument is how "bad" does it have to be for resignation. That's ultimately up to the Prime Minister but arguably the GG could withdraw a ministerial warrant.

The problem with a Constitution as a single one-size=fits-all-situations document is lack of flexibility. We then have whole court systems devoted to constitutional arguments and special case exceptions. Have a look at the USA. The average American thinks their Constitution protects them but in fact its a huge problem because it was written 200 years ago and doesn't address the complexity of the modern world.

England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand do not have the one-document-to-rule-them-all. Ask yourself, does the USA have a better civil society? Personally I like the place but have never felt quite safe there.

McJim

28th February 2009, 19:49

Lets have a feudal system with martial law. I am King.

At least with a totalitarian dictatorship everyone pulls in the same direction for the benefit of the country without all that mindless squabbling about how much they paid for their election campaigns, who shoved a tennis ball in someone's gob and other such pointless drivel that is a waste of taxpayers money.

Who is with me?

Ixion

28th February 2009, 19:52

You're from Glasgow, so you're disqualified.

Big Dave

28th February 2009, 20:30

Great - a Jummy in charge. one half of the country wants to get pissed and the other half doesn't want to pay for it.

Hey! a universal law.

McJim

28th February 2009, 20:41

You're from Glasgow, so you're disqualified.

Great - a Jummy in charge. one half of the country wants to get pissed and the other half doesn't want to pay for it.

Hey! a universal law.

Great. Abuse.

I bet you're the kind of guys that would refuse to sell a kebab to a Glaswegian on account of his nationality! :rofl:

bastards

fire eyes

28th February 2009, 21:43

I was hoping to marry Prince William one day .. don't ruin my chances by cutting off his family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(ohh or was that Prince Charming .. hell I forget)

Skyryder

28th February 2009, 21:49

EDIT: Skyryder we don't have a constitution... so the step to a republic would also need that to be drafted and written and debated endlessly

We have what is known as an unwrtitten one. Better known as case law.

Skyyrder

Skyryder

28th February 2009, 21:53

Did a bang-up job with the EFA that your lot rammed through eh? That's the kind of thing that shows we need an upper house...

Do you have any idea of the role of the Govenor General? Like just smidgon of a clue??

Skyryder

EatOrBeEaten

28th February 2009, 21:55

Great. Abuse.

I bet you're the kind of guys that would refuse to sell a kebab to a Glaswegian on account of his nationality! :rofl:

bastards
Fuck the haters man, this site fears us Weegies. ;)

Skyryder

28th February 2009, 21:58

Fuck the haters man, this site fears us Weegies. ;)

So yayr a Scotish lassie ar' ye

Skyryder

McJim

28th February 2009, 22:05

Fuck the haters man, this site fears us Weegies. ;)

That's only coz we're the only country in the Commonwealth with the balls to NOT have the Queen's heid on wur bank notes! :rofl: :Pokey:

Ixion

28th February 2009, 22:07

That's only because the Bank of England were smart enough to figure that if they put anyone's head on the banknotes, you'd spend all your time trying to head butt the money.

SixPackBack

28th February 2009, 22:11

That's only coz we're the only country in the Commonwealth with the balls to NOT have the Queen's heid on wur bank notes! :rofl: :Pokey:

Cool. The mad Scot's can lead the revolution.

EatOrBeEaten

28th February 2009, 23:49

So yayr a Scotish lassie ar' ye

Skyryder

Aye, West coast Scotland reprezent :first:

That's only because the Bank of England were smart enough to figure that if they put anyone's head on the banknotes, you'd spend all your time trying to head butt the money.

Nah, we might damage it! :shit:

Cool. The mad Scot's can lead the revolution.

We already are! Devolution, Scottish PM, Scottish chancellor, most of the banks are run by Sweaties.

We're actually a well-trained groups of socio-anarchists, the recession is a cunning plan to do away with the system of government we have in place and introduce a fried-chocolate-based anarchist utopia.

MisterD

1st March 2009, 07:54

Me.
HRH the Queen is by far the best person for the job. She is never up for re-election, is rich beyond our wildest dreams, and is therefore unbribable. All decisions she makes (and should be making, instead of that one eyed scottish idiot) are done for the good of the country, rather than for the good of her career and continued governence.

Although I've never met (been presented to) the Queen, in the course of my career working for her, I have been in the vicinity of several of the Royal family. I've also met various politicians that are alleged to serve the (former) United Kingdom. I know who'd I'd rather work for. I also know a lot of people (me included) that stopped working for her when the rabble won in 1997.

She may or may not be a lovely, competent, old duck but unfortunately Dave, it's those politicians that are making the decisions, the monarchy has no power and I fail to see why the long suffering British taxpayer (yay for not being one anymore) should continue to subsidise her and her parasitic german clan.

If we want to have someone to entertain foreign bigwigs and cut ribbons on new bridges, why shouldn't it be someone who has acheived something other than to be the descendent of someone who was handy with a sword?

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 08:26

JacksColdSweat

1st March 2009, 08:49

Actually this is a common misconception,
England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand do not have the one-document-to-rule-them-all. Ask yourself, does the USA have a better civil society? Personally I like the place but have never felt quite safe there.

Understand what you are saying and agree

Australia, however does have a constitution - The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

I understood Canada had a formal constitution (but I may be wrong)

Although the US constitution is old it's still a very good and relevant document - but agree - as lines are blurred in the modern age it gets tested more and more

I agree with your comment on the US here - however I would also ask "are they truly living within the spirit of the Constitution." That's the more pertinent question. I'm not sure they are

I think the US founding fathers had some very good ideas...

Swoop

1st March 2009, 09:09

... and introduce a fried-chocolate-based anarchist utopia.
Hmm. More info needed on this please.
Will the fried-chocolate items become the new unit of currency?
I can see advantages (snacktime munchies easily fulfilled) and disadvantages (gooey trouser pockets in summer, lint on snacks, etc) with this scheme.

Dave Lobster

1st March 2009, 09:17

She may or may not be a lovely, competent, old duck but unfortunately Dave, it's those politicians that are making the decisions, the monarchy has no power.

Maybe that's the bit that needs to be changed..

I fail to see why the long suffering British taxpayer (yay for not being one anymore) should continue to subsidise her and her parasitic german clan.

They don't. There's very few people that get money from the civil list. Considering how much money the Queen pays into the system, the one or two people left paying tax do very well indeed out of her.

When William takes over the throne, the Royal family will be more English than they have been for about nine hundred years. I wish him luck. Considering all the options that have been put forward for the british public (since Baroness Thatcher), he's the only one I'd want making decisions on my behalf.
Tony Bliar, anyone?
One eyes scottish eejit?
The other eejits they could have put forward?
Peter Mandleson? The one that accused officers in the british army of being chinless wonders??
The fat northern monkey Prescott?
All shining examples of why politicians are the LAST people we should have running a country.

JacksColdSweat

1st March 2009, 09:22

All shining examples of why politicians are the LAST people we should have running a country.

As a good friend of mine used to say to me "The problem with political power is it attracts the kind of people who are attracted to political power..."

Okey Dokey

1st March 2009, 09:31

I'd have to say that the US Constitution is a much better document in the modern world than the Treaty(s) of Waitangi (as far as I understand the Treaty...) The challenges to it end up at the Supreme Court where a majority of judges decide what the constitution says. Over history it has been interpreted in different ways, so it actually is a pretty good measure of the moral winds of the day.

It has just occurred to me, as I type, that SC judges are a bit like a monarch in that they are appointed for life, never have to seek election and can be above the political fray.

martybabe

1st March 2009, 09:40

I'm a Pom and I agree wholeheartedly with the motion, we no longer need the Monarchy.

On the other hand, I went to the Republic of whangamomona a few weeks ago and the roads were in a terrible state.

I think we need a Repubilcarchy! :niceone:

scumdog

1st March 2009, 17:23

Aye, West coast Scotland reprezent :first:
.

Jings, och, this site is fu' a' Scots!!

EatOrBeEaten

1st March 2009, 17:44

Jings, och, this site is fu' a' Scots!!
Well, we built this empire, we may as well enjoy the fruits of our forefathers' labours... :D

scumdog

1st March 2009, 17:48

Well, we built this empire, we may as well enjoy the fruits of our forefathers' labours... :D

Och, have we a treaty then??

98tls

1st March 2009, 17:50

Well, we built this empire, we may as well enjoy the fruits of our forefathers' labours... :D No doubt thats been said many times down the local marae.

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 17:54

The French had the right idea, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

The monarchy should die [perhaps figuratively], they play no important part in a so called democratic society. The commonwealth should be disbanded immediately, lords should be stripped of their powers, all real estate and property should hence forth become property of the state.....etc etc...

If/when this happens any Maori king/Queen should likewise be stripped of title.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE:Punk:

Mmmm..why so...they own their land...the Royal Family play an important part in the UK...Prince Charles started the biggest Charity in UK...

They have earned their right over centuries...we should respect that...

I am not an out and out Royalist, just thing it is a heritage and something we should hold on to

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 17:57

She may or may not be a lovely, competent, old duck but unfortunately Dave, it's those politicians that are making the decisions, the monarchy has no power and I fail to see why the long suffering British taxpayer (yay for not being one anymore) should continue to subsidise her and her parasitic german clan.

If we want to have someone to entertain foreign bigwigs and cut ribbons on new bridges, why shouldn't it be someone who has acheived something other than to be the descendent of someone who was handy with a sword?

They pay for the Royal Family to represent the UK. They get more back than they spend...it's peanuts compared to other expenses

EatOrBeEaten

1st March 2009, 17:57

Och, have we a treaty then??

We won't abide by it unless there's a clause that allows every red-blooded male to take at least three sheep for, erm, personal use.

No doubt thats been said many times down the local marae.

I'm trying to work out if the humour in my post was too subtle for you, the humour in your post is too subtle for me, or if we lost each other somewhere in the middle... :wacko:

Trudes

1st March 2009, 18:03

I'm trying to work out if the humour in my post was too subtle for you, the humour in your post is too subtle for me, or if we lost each other somewhere in the middle... :wacko:

That also has been what has been said about the treaty for 160 something years!:laugh:

98tls

1st March 2009, 18:07

We won't abide by it unless there's a clause that allows every red-blooded male to take at least three sheep for, erm, personal use.

I'm trying to work out if the humour in my post was too subtle for you, the humour in your post is too subtle for me, or if we lost each other somewhere in the middle... :wacko: Yea that will do.:laugh:

EatOrBeEaten

1st March 2009, 18:23

Yea that will do.:laugh:
:D We r gud. :D

Dave Lobster

1st March 2009, 18:24

They pay for the Royal Family to represent the UK. They get more back than they spend...it's peanuts compared to other expenses

For example.. decommision the Royal Yacht Brittania. The cost is pennies..

Spend more on president bliar's personal jet. A personal jet available to ministers to fly home (100 miles or so) to pick up a passport that she'd forgotten..

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 18:30

Mmmm..why so...they own their land...the Royal Family play an important part in the UK...Prince Charles started the biggest Charity in UK...

They have earned their right over centuries...we should respect that...

I am not an out and out Royalist, just thing it is a heritage and something we should hold on to

Doooode....seriously! Those bludging, blood thirsty, totalitarian, evil-evil family members have brought nothing but abject fucken misery to the people of the British Isles for fucken centuries.
Off with their heads.:bash:

Dave Lobster

1st March 2009, 18:33

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 18:46

Examples..

You can't be serious???.................it would be a fucken long list!..........you must live in a vacum Dave Lobster?

scumdog

1st March 2009, 18:48

Doooode....seriously! Those bludging, blood thirsty, totalitarian, evil-evil family members have brought nothing but abject fucken misery to the people of the British Isles for fucken centuries.
Off with their heads.:bash:

Sounds like half of Europe..:rolleyes:

98tls

1st March 2009, 18:52

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 19:02

Sounds like half of Europe..:rolleyes:

'Persactly why the French chopped the heads off their bludgers, why the Russians shot theirs and the Chinese kicked theirs out............the poms have always been a bit slow!

Dave Lobster

1st March 2009, 19:02

You can't be serious???.................it would be a fucken long list!..

Name fifty then.

98tls

1st March 2009, 19:07

'Persactly why the French chopped the heads off their bludgers, why the Russians shot theirs and the Chinese kicked theirs out............the poms have always been a bit slow! The Russians shot anyone,the rest they left to starve.

Skyryder

1st March 2009, 19:16

Examples..

Ireland. Bloody hell. Henry the VIII. for one. Ireland is litteredwith corpes becasue of this man.

Skyryder

EatOrBeEaten

1st March 2009, 19:19

Edward Longshanks, The Hammer of the Scots....

But I'm thinking recent examples, not so much.

98tls

1st March 2009, 19:22

Edward Longshanks, The Hammer of the Scots....

But I'm thinking recent examples, not so much. Yea but hey those guys helped out when they could,cant remember what its was called but come a local wedding they stepped up.

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 19:26

Name fifty then.

History is littered with their atrocities-brush up dude I ain't your mum!. Conversely I challenge you to list 25 positive things those self serving twats have done for the British people?

scumdog

1st March 2009, 19:29

History is littered with their atrocities-brush up dude I ain't your mum!. Conversely I challenge you to list 25 positive things those self serving twats have done for the British people?

They affect the British people??

I bet the imported immigrant types flooding in from middle east and India and leeching on the UK tax-payer are a worse drain.

98tls

1st March 2009, 19:31

History is littered with their atrocities-brush up dude I ain't your mum!. Conversely I challenge you to list 25 positive things those self serving twats have done for the British people? OK i will start,rewarded there unfortunates with a lifetime of sun,surf and a cruise to get there.

Winston001

1st March 2009, 19:38

Australia, however does have a constitution - The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

I understood Canada had a formal constitution (but I may be wrong)

Although the US constitution is old it's still a very good and relevant document - but agree - as lines are blurred in the modern age it gets tested more and more

I agree with your comment on the US here - however I would also ask "are they truly living within the spirit of the Constitution." That's the more pertinent question.

Ok. This is where confusion lies. What people really mean by a Constitution is a clear set of rules which protects their democratic individual rights. We have that. The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

A constitution is quite different. It is a set of rules which describes the way a counntry is to be governed. You are correct about Australia and Canada in that sense - their constitutions are all about imposing a federal government over states/provinces/territories. So they aren't concerned with human rights, rather how laws are made, changed, and who they apply to.

We are so used to the American Constitution which is actually a Bill of Rights, that the terms get confused.

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 19:39

OK i will start,rewarded there unfortunates with a lifetime of sun,surf and a cruise to get there.

Thank you 98tls a superlative example of the stupidity the royal family is capable of.

Ask yourself what kind of governance sends all of the criminals to an island paradise while the rest of the law abiding population has to stay in a cold, gray, overpopulated shit hole.
Idiots!

98tls

1st March 2009, 19:41

Thank you 98tls a superlative example of the stupidity the royal family is capable of.

Ask yourself what kind of governance sends all of the criminals to an island paradise while the rest of the law abiding population has to stay in a cold, gray, overpopulated shit hole.
Idiots! Yep,ive often pondered there reasoning myself mate.

EatOrBeEaten

1st March 2009, 19:46

Yep,ive often pondered there reasoning myself mate.
I did always wonder why my ancestors thought that the UK was a better option than, say Fiji or NZ.

Actually, my grandad was supposed to go to Australia with his brothers, but met my gran and decided to stay in Glasgow instead (without his furniture, which sailed on to Australia alone :D ) Rather glad he made that call TBH!

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 19:55

For example.. decommision the Royal Yacht Brittania. The cost is pennies..

Spend more on president bliar's personal jet. A personal jet available to ministers to fly home (100 miles or so) to pick up a passport that she'd forgotten..

it is owned by a charity and it is a venue for corporate events which I assume helps pay for the boat?

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 19:57

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 20:02

She may or may not be a lovely, competent, old duck but unfortunately Dave, it's those politicians that are making the decisions, the monarchy has no power and I fail to see why the long suffering British taxpayer (yay for not being one anymore) should continue to subsidise her and her parasitic german clan.

If we want to have someone to entertain foreign bigwigs and cut ribbons on new bridges, why shouldn't it be someone who has acheived something other than to be the descendent of someone who was handy with a sword?

As well as hosting royal banquets and receptions, Britannia was an ambassador for British business, promoting trade and industry around the globe. Indeed the Overseas Trade Board estimates that £3 billion has been made for the Exchequer as a result of commercial days on Britannia between 1991 and 1995

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 20:03

Well that was the way of the world then...and most of it really stopped in the late 17th Century.....move on old fellow

You need to go back to the history books-recent history!

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 20:05

You need to go back to the history books-recent history!

Such as ......................??

Fatjim

1st March 2009, 20:09

You know, us brits only picked on those more retarded than us.

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 20:12

You know, us brits only picked on those more retarded than us.

Is that why they built schools when colonising then?

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 20:13

As well as hosting royal banquets and receptions, Britannia was an ambassador for British business, promoting trade and industry around the globe. Indeed the Overseas Trade Board estimates that £3 billion has been made for the Exchequer as a result of commercial days on Britannia between 1991 and 1995

Plagiarized info:oi-grr:

Who's pocket is the Overseas trade board in?.......like many pom's the shutters are drawn when subjective analysis is applied to the usefulness of the royal family. To embarrassed I suspect to be able to face the truth, that is of course the British people have been subjected to a painful collective arse shagging by successive generations of king and queens

Grahameeboy

1st March 2009, 20:15

Plagiarized info:oi-grr:

Who's pocket is the Overseas trade board in?.......like many pom's the shutters are drawn when subjective analysis is applied to the usefulness of the royal family. To embarrassed I suspect to be able to face the truth, that is of course the British people have been subjected to a painful collective arse shagging by successive generations of king and queens

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

McJim

1st March 2009, 20:19

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

Garton's HP sauce.....there is no other.

By the way - do we celebrate 5th November coz Guido at least made the attempt to blow up the houses of parliament or because he got caught? No one has ever been able to adequately convince me one way or the other.....

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 20:24

Such as ......................??

As I recently pointed out I'm not your mum, hit the books and find out yourself. However Christians being insular and slow............Queen victoria taking over half the fucken world spreading disease and misery.....you can check out the depths of misery and details yourself. victoria died in the 19th century!

Ixion

1st March 2009, 20:26

Do you prefer ketchup with your fish and chips or "Gerkins"....

Y' can't get proper gherkins nowadays. They're just immature cucumbers.

Anyone who wants a republic :

You have a president. That president must either be a figurehead , or have real power.

Now , if the post is a figure head, then why swap an existing figurehead, known and respected by all the world , that costs us nothing, and who is limited in any would be power grab by rules set in place for centuries; for a new figurehead, a total cipher to all the world outside NZ, who would cost us millions each year , and would constantly be at loggerheads with the Prime Minister ?

If a President with real power , then tell us , what powers; how would you get the Prime Minister (who needs must lose any power that is granted to a President) to agree; and name one person , who would both be willing to accept the post (important that); capable of doing it; and that ALL the country would trust.

Anyone REALLY want Helen Clark or Jeanette Fitzsimmons as a President. With real, unfettered power?

Brian d marge

1st March 2009, 20:28

Garton's HP sauce.....there is no other.

By the way - do we celebrate 5th November coz Guido at least made the attempt to blow up the houses of parliament or because he got caught? No one has ever been able to adequately convince me one way or the other.....

daddies big brown sauce , happy shopper... Say no more.....

We celebrate Guy Fawkes night because after they tortured him , he told the signal which he was to give , abnd they went round the bonfires arresting everyone.... 1 king very happy ...

Stephen

Ixion

1st March 2009, 20:30

As I recently pointed out I'm not your mum, hit the books and find out yourself. However Christians being insular and slow............Queen victoria taking over half the fucken world spreading disease and misery.....you can check out the depths of misery and details yourself. victoria died in the 19th century!

Dude , I think you need to check those history books yourself. Both as to the actual constitutional position of the monarch post the Reform Act (I presume you know what that was) ; or even the Act of Settlement. (If you had specified Palmerston, you might have had a better case ) . And also the actual effects of British colonisation , both the most enlightened , and the most benevolent, that the world has seen. Go check out the history of the ICS (just for one well documented example) , then come back and bag the 19 centuryadministrators. Have you ever actually read an authoritive history text on the subject?

Winston001

1st March 2009, 20:34

Yeah but hey those guys helped out when they could, cant remember what its was called but come a local wedding they stepped up.

Damned right!

Droit de seigneur

Respect. :innocent:

McJim

1st March 2009, 20:36

Damned right!

Droit de seigneur

Respect. :innocent:

Ma great great great great great grand paw got his revenge on them. He married a sheep wi' the clap. Gie'd the first knight an itchy wullie....and later the rest o' them got itchy arses! :rofl:

SixPackBack

1st March 2009, 20:59

Dude , I think you need to check those history books yourself. Both as to the actual constitutional position of the monarch post the Reform Act (I presume you know what that was) ; or even the Act of Settlement. (If you had specified Palmerston, you might have had a better case ) . And also the actual effects of British colonisation , both the most enlightened , and the most benevolent, that the world has seen. Go check out the history of the ICS (just for one well documented example) , then come back and bag the 19 centuryadministrators. Have you ever actually read an authoritive history text on the subject?

Not the same pro royal history books as yourself it would seem.......any changes taken place over the last 100 years are semantics and change little, the british people are still subservient to the royal family and will be until they are systematically striped of every last vestige of power and influence. The French understood this well hence the guillotine getting a work out.

Ixion

1st March 2009, 21:14

Not the same pro royal history books as yourself it would seem.......any changes taken place over the last 100 years are semantics and change little, the british people are still subservient to the royal family and will be until they are systematically striped of every last vestige of power and influence. The French understood this well hence the guillotine getting a work out.

Uh, just out of interest, just when do you think the Reform Act and the Act of Settlement were passed. As in , the last 100 years ?

The French don't seem to have understood that well, since they happily reinstated Louis XVIII , Charles X and Louis Phillipe. not to mention Napolean I and III , Emperors outranking even kings.

Try Dicey's Law of the Constitution;Baghot's English Constitution; Keith's Constitution of England ; Hallam's Constitutional History (you *must* be familiar with that , at least, given his pro republican position); Maitland's Const. History; Taswell-Langmeads History of etc (good one ) ;Stubbs on the english const.

I can loan you most of these if you actually want to educate yourself about what you are spouting about . or from any good public library (with many others)

Oh, BTW, "semantics" doesn't mean what you think it means. it refers to the study of the me aning of words, not "anything that disagrees with my position is wrong" . Oh, and "fascist" doesn't mean what you think it does, either.

Skyryder

1st March 2009, 21:18

.

Anyone REALLY want Helen Clark or Jeanette Fitzsimmons as a President. With real, unfettered power?

:Oi:Where's my name.

Skyryder

SixPackBack

2nd March 2009, 05:38

Uh, just out of interest, just when do you think the Reform Act and the Act of Settlement were passed. As in , the last 100 years ?

The French don't seem to have understood that well, since they happily reinstated Louis XVIII , Charles X and Louis Phillipe. not to mention Napolean I and III , Emperors outranking even kings.

Try Dicey's Law of the Constitution;Baghot's English Constitution; Keith's Constitution of England ; Hallam's Constitutional History (you *must* be familiar with that , at least, given his pro republican position); Maitland's Const. History; Taswell-Langmeads History of etc (good one ) ;Stubbs on the english const.

I can loan you most of these if you actually want to educate yourself about what you are spouting about . or from any good public library (with many others)

Oh, BTW, "semantics" doesn't mean what you think it means. it refers to the study of the me aning of words, not "anything that disagrees with my position is wrong" . Oh, and "fascist" doesn't mean what you think it does, either.

Fascist in the title comes from a line in a "Sex pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen_(Sex_Pistols_song))" song [god save the queen]. Thank you for putting me right about the meaning of Semantic.
Here is another word, one you hold close to your heart.......Pedantic.

Becoming a historian will not change the facts. The royal family has no official mandate from the British people to do what they have done [still do], receive the level of respect that they do, have the military forces named after them etc, etc.
Did you vote for them?

Gotta say Ixion this is a bizarre stand for someone who claims to be a Communist?...really WTF?

MisterD

2nd March 2009, 06:59

JacksColdSweat

2nd March 2009, 08:03

Ok. This is where confusion lies. What people really mean by a Constitution is a clear set of rules which protects their democratic individual rights. We have that. The NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

A constitution is quite different. It is a set of rules which describes the way a counntry is to be governed. You are correct about Australia and Canada in that sense - their constitutions are all about imposing a federal government over states/provinces/territories. So they aren't concerned with human rights, rather how laws are made, changed, and who they apply to.

We are so used to the American Constitution which is actually a Bill of Rights, that the terms get confused.

Incorrect.

The US Constitution is exactly what you describe above - a set of rules for governing the people

In the US The Bill of Rights is also ammended to the Constitution - this is where the now infamous 2nd ammendment appears - the confusion comes because we've all heard the term "The constitution protects my right to bear arms"

Yes it does - in the Bill of Rights which is ammended to the constitution - but the right to bear arms is not a feature of the constitution per se - rather the Bill of Rights.

I was talking about the Constitution - you were talking about the Bill of Rights. A constitution does not (usually) protect individuals in any way other than in describing how the government should work.

As you rightly point out - NZ has a Bill of Rights - it has no formal constitution

Dave Lobster

2nd March 2009, 08:50

Right, lets put to bed the stupid "value for money" arguement:

http://www.republic.org.uk/royalcosts/index.php

I may as well also state for clarity's sake, I'm a Pom, I'm a republican and I will not become a citizen of this country whilst an oath to Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is required.

That link is uniformed rubbish. President Bliar has got her paying tax. She pays in considerably more than the paltry 150M that they Royals take out.

The 150m is probably a similar amount to what it costs the government to run their private jets. I know where I'd rather have the money spent.

jonbuoy

2nd March 2009, 08:57

Fascist in the title comes from a line in a "Sex pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen_(Sex_Pistols_song))" song [god save the queen]. Thank you for putting me right about the meaning of Semantic.
Here is another word, one you hold close to your heart.......Pedantic.

Becoming a historian will not change the facts. The royal family has no official mandate from the British people to do what they have done [still do], receive the level of respect that they do, have the military forces named after them etc, etc.
Did you vote for them?

Gotta say Ixion this is a bizarre stand for someone who claims to be a Communist?...really WTF?

Why do you care - your not British and you don't pay taxes? And if the British empire days hadn't existed neither would NZ as you know it. For some reason I don't understand some Kiwis seem to think their forefathers evolved on NZ soil. The Majority of brits don't mind having a monarchy, they same can be said for NZ and OZ. Its probably cheaper to "run" a monarchy than to change the whole of the English law and political system to anything else. And WTF has any of this got to do with bikes anyway?

HenryDorsetCase

2nd March 2009, 09:03

Isn't the line:

God Save the queen, the fascist regime
that made you a moron
potential H - Bomb

God save the queen
She aint no human being.....

thats from memory. I can hear Lydon singing it in my head now.

SixPackBack

2nd March 2009, 09:05

Why do you care - your not British and you don't pay taxes? And if the British empire days hadn't existed neither would NZ as you know it. For some reason I don't understand some Kiwis seem to think their forefathers evolved on NZ soil. The Majority of brits don't mind having a monarchy, they same can be said for NZ and OZ. Its probably cheaper to "run" a monarchy than to change the whole of the English law and political system to anything else. And WTF has any of this got to do with bikes anyway?

I am British. Most of my extended family still live in Britain, and most of them hate the monarchy with a passion as do a lot of Welsh, Scots and those folk from Northern Ireland.

jonbuoy

2nd March 2009, 09:14

I am British. Most of my extended family still live in Britain, and most of them hate the monarchy with a passion as do a lot of Welsh, Scots and those folk from Northern Ireland.

I don't have anything to hate them for - no worse than politicians or bankers and traders who shaft the world economy and still take there bonuses and huge paychecks. Its not like they swan around in Ferraris living the playboy lifestyle all day, they have no freedom/privacy - born into a role they never asked for. I prefer my life any day of the week.

They do cost a lot of money but most of it is put back into the British economy and jobs. Security, Staff, upkeep on the houses and palaces, a sense of history and identity for many people. And they act as non-threatening and slightly quaint envoys for UK foreign relations.

Dave Lobster

2nd March 2009, 09:18

I can hear Lydon singing it in my head now.

Singing???

Mr Merde

2nd March 2009, 09:56

That link is uniformed rubbish. President Bliar has got her paying tax. She pays in considerably more than the paltry 150M that they Royals take out.

The 150m is probably a similar amount to what it costs the government to run their private jets. I know where I'd rather have the money spent.

Blair didnt make her pay taxes, she decided out of the GOODNESS of her heart that she should pay a basic rate of 5% of her earnings to the government coffers.

It has only been since the first decade of the 20th century that the royalty have been tax exempt. Queen Vicky died almost a bankrupt. SInce then the British royalty have been coining it. Elizabeth von Battenburg is judged to be the wealthiest woman in the world.

A little known fact is that Buckingham Palace is not owned by her but is in fact a public building, therefore supported and maintained by the government. The charge to visit this building goes to the royal coffers.

As to her right to the throne. I find it debatable. She is decendant of a tuetonic line brought in only a few hundred years ago. ,

The Duke od Westminster and Lord Beaulei (not sure of spelling) have a clearer claim to the throne via the Tudors than the current monarch. It has been shown that both of these parties have signed documents giving up their right to the throne.

So our current monarchy are userpers.

MisterD

2nd March 2009, 10:06

That link is uniformed rubbish. President Bliar has got her paying tax. She pays in considerably more than the paltry 150M that they Royals take out.

Don't know how you work that out - the majority of the Queen's personal income is from the Duchy of Lancaster - about 8M pounds before tax.

The "crown estates" are not hers, they belong to the country. The idea that she is somehow generously putting money in is pure monarchist spin and BS.

Ixion

2nd March 2009, 10:36

Becoming a historian will not change the facts. The royal family has no official mandate from the British people to do what they have done [still do], receive the level of respect that they do, have the military forces named after them etc, etc.
Did you vote for them?

Gotta say Ixion this is a bizarre stand for someone who claims to be a Communist?...really WTF?

Historians do not change facts. They elucidate them. A study of any good history book would help you to understand what you are talking about. Most of what you are saying is not factual at all. At best it is polemic, or simple waffle. The *facts*, are not in your diatribes but in the history books. Read them , and learn whereof you speak,

As to an "official mandate". What on earth do you suppose the Act of Succession *is*? have you read it? Or are you simply spouting more waffle about a subject of which you appear totally ignorant.

On related matters: The Crown lands did belong to the Monarch, and the income from them was used to fund the costs of the monarchy, until he Time of George III. There was no Civil List. In a regrettable decision, that King bowed to pressure form the politicians and exchanged his property for a pension , the Civil List. The politicians got a good deal, the income from the Crown estate now is far more than the Civil List

Likewise - Buckingham House was the private property of George II, paid by him from his personal income, so that he had a house for his (many) children to live in. He later gave it to the country. Having made the country so munificent a gift it would seem very mean indeed to complain that his successors do not pay for the upkeep of what they no longer own.

It's all in thos ehistory books. Along with much else. A fascinating subject , and well worth reading up on. He who runs may read (It's a pun - gedit gedit, oh gawd now I've fallen off my chair, I'm turning into peasea)

Oh, and why ever should a communist not be a monarchist ?

Oh - yes, and I'm still waiting for someone to put forward the name of a person who the country would generally be happy to entrust with plenary power as a President, who would not fall into terminal dissension with the Prime Minister, and who would actually accept the job, and be capable of doing it. No takers ?
'

Lias

2nd March 2009, 10:41

Personally, I'm one of the "NZ will be a republic when they pry my weapons from my cold dead hands" lot.

I'd go so far as to advocate abolishing parliamant and just having the GG as the ruler of the country. Politicians are scum.

MisterD

2nd March 2009, 11:21

On related matters: The Crown lands did belong to the Monarch, and the income from them was used to fund the costs of the monarchy, until he Time of George III. There was no Civil List. In a regrettable decision, that King bowed to pressure form the politicians and exchanged his property for a pension , the Civil List. The politicians got a good deal, the income from the Crown estate now is far more than the Civil List

Likewise - Buckingham House was the private property of George II, paid by him from his personal income, so that he had a house for his (many) children to live in. He later gave it to the country. Having made the country so munificent a gift it would seem very mean indeed to complain that his successors do not pay for the upkeep of what they no longer own.

Back the truck up Ixion, the ownership which you dscribe all comes back to someone's ancestor being handy with a sword - not a basis for rational government in the 21st century.

Oscar

2nd March 2009, 11:34

I am British. Most of my extended family still live in Britain, and most of them hate the monarchy with a passion as do a lot of Welsh, Scots and those folk from Northern Ireland.

"...those folk from Northern Ireland."

The majority of the population are loyalists - that's why it exists!

As for the Scots - it's their Royal Family too (James was King of Scotland before he was King of England).

And the Welsh?

Who gives a flying fuck what the Welsh think?

Ixion

2nd March 2009, 11:36

Back the truck up Ixion, the ownership which you dscribe all comes back to someone's ancestor being handy with a sword - not a basis for rational government in the 21st century.

Not so. The ownership all comes back to an act of parliament. The Act of Settlement. As far as I am aware, Parliament is still considered a reasonably rationale basis for government. F' Gawds sake, go and read the ruddy act everyone, so you have some idea of what you are talking about. Did *everyone* sleep all through the history classes at school? Does noone even vaguely recall the master babbling on about the Glorious Revolution? (personally , of course, I disagree with it.Traitors, all of them. God save King Francis II . But that's just me. )

Oscar

2nd March 2009, 11:39

Back the truck up Ixion, the ownership which you dscribe all comes back to someone's ancestor being handy with a sword - not a basis for rational government in the 21st century.

Er - that describes most every Country on the planet...:eek5:
Name one Nation/State that wasn't founded on the basis that someone's ancestor was handy with a sword.

Dave Lobster

2nd March 2009, 11:50

"...those folk from Northern Ireland."

The majority of the population are loyalists - that's why it exists!

A quick drive around Lisburn would confirm this..

Who gives a flying fuck what the Welsh think?

NOBODY!!!!

Winston001

2nd March 2009, 11:50

Getting rid of the monarchy sounds like a good idea until you examine it. In nations where this has happened, a President is created - a politician - who takes on the pomp and ceremony which the royals previously had. But being a politician, a President is a much more wiley creature than a King or Queen.

Personally I'd rather have the monarchy. There is a strength and value to tradition and history which transcends money. Besides the royals of various nations support whole industries of magazines etc besotted with their activities.

America, the bastion of republicanism, has filled the monarchy vacuum with Hollywood and television actors. The frivolity and shallowness of their activities make the British royals look like amateurs.

Winston001

2nd March 2009, 11:56

Back the truck up Ixion, the ownership which you describe all comes back to someone's ancestor being handy with a sword - not a basis for rational government in the 21st century.

S'right innit! :shifty: Supreme executive power arises from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! I mean, if I was to go around sayin I was a Emperor just cos some moistned bint lodged a scimitar at me......

- hang on - is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?? :laugh:

MisterD

2nd March 2009, 12:15

Grahameeboy

2nd March 2009, 13:03

Oscar

2nd March 2009, 13:29

As I said, I'd like to see something like the Irish model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland) for our republic

+1

Basically we change the name of the Gov. General and elect him/her.

Max Preload

2nd March 2009, 13:32

Jings, och, this site is fu' a' Scots!!

Aye. It is free after all... :chase:

Skyryder

2nd March 2009, 17:21

Ixion

2nd March 2009, 17:22

Close. Austria.

jonbuoy

2nd March 2009, 20:50

The current Monarchy have very little direct involvement in Politics & no need to cut business deals/backhanders. Regardless they won't be kicked out in the foreseeable future.

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 05:57

"...those folk from Northern Ireland."

The majority of the population are loyalists - that's why it exists!

Uhhu the IRA just love the royals

As for the Scots - it's their Royal Family too (James was King of Scotland before he was King of England).

At various times in history the monarchy treated the Scots badly.

And the Welsh?

Who gives a flying fuck what the Welsh think?

I do. They share the same piece of real estate and deserve the same respect.

Not so. The ownership all comes back to an act of parliament. The Act of Settlement. As far as I am aware, Parliament is still considered a reasonably rationale basis for government. F' Gawds sake, go and read the ruddy act everyone, so you have some idea of what you are talking about. Did *everyone* sleep all through the history classes at school? Does noone even vaguely recall the master babbling on about the Glorious Revolution? (personally , of course, I disagree with it.Traitors, all of them. God save King Francis II . But that's just me. )

Fuck me this is like arguing in the Scottish thread. Arguably the real point of the Act of settlement was to ensure a protestant heir. If any of your history lessons had any real effect on the crown the fuckers would have been kicked out and now live on a council estate in Oldham.

Er - that describes most every Country on the planet...:eek5:
Name one Nation/State that wasn't founded on the basis that someone's ancestor was handy with a sword.

Ask your self does that make it okay?...are we lemmings?.........after making some monumental mistakes wouldn't we be in a bit more of a hurry to clean up the stench left behind?

The current Monarchy have very little direct involvement in Politics & no need to cut business deals/backhanders. Regardless they won't be kicked out in the foreseeable future.

Bullshit. Acts of parliament have done little to get rid of the blood sucking bludgers. That family has access to privilege and wealth beyond most of our collective imagination. All of it belongs to the British people, all of it procured by force. Undue influence is so ingrained within the commonwealth culture many of us are blind to it. Why are the forces named after the monarchy?...why did I have to swear on a bible my allegiance to queen elizabeth the second when becoming a NZ citizen?
Off with their heads.

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 06:51

Ask your self does that make it okay?...are we lemmings?.........after making some monumental mistakes wouldn't we be in a bit more of a hurry to clean up the stench left behind?

[/FONT]

I didn't say it made it OK. I merely pointed out that most modern nation states were founded on that basis, so singling one out was somewhat silly.

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 06:58

I do. They share the same piece of real estate and deserve the same respect.

Bullshit. Acts of parliament have done little to get rid of the blood sucking bludgers. That family has access to privilege and wealth beyond most of our collective imagination. All of it belongs to the British people, all of it procured by force. Undue influence is so ingrained within the commonwealth culture many of us are blind to it. Why are the forces named after the monarchy?...why did I have to swear on a bible my allegiance to queen elizabeth the second when becoming a NZ citizen?
Off with their heads.

It's funny (not to mention somewhat hypocritical) that you should leap to the defense of the phlegm garglers and crap on about "respect", before insulting every British citizen in the room.

You swear allegiance to the Queen of NZ, not the Queen of England. She is the current Head of State (and you don't have to swear on a bible).

Where are you living?
In NZ?
Was it not taken mostly by force?
Maybe you should start by giving you own neighborhood back to the local Iwi before worrying about Buckingham Palace...

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 06:59

I didn't say it made it OK. I merely pointed out that most modern nation states were founded on that basis, so singling one out was somewhat silly.

There's a difference between founded on and still putting one family in a position of immense privilege on that basis...

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 07:06

There's a difference between founded on and still putting one family in a position of immense privilege on that basis...

I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying it's pretty rich to single out one family, when whole nations (like this one) have been founded on the premise that my ancestor is better with a sword (or a gun, or more resistant to infection) than the original inhabitants.

If you relieve the Windsors of their property on that basis, where would you stop?

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 07:57

I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying it's pretty rich to single out one family, when whole nations (like this one) have been founded on the premise that my ancestor is better with a sword (or a gun, or more resistant to infection) than the original inhabitants.

If you relieve the Windsors of their property on that basis, where would you stop?

Er no, actually we have a nation that was founded on a document intended to prevent that, and we now have a process based on that treaty attempting to set right some of those wrongs.

I'd love to see a process to set right some of the wrongs the monarchy in particular and the aristocracy in general have inflicted on the British people (actually, include the Church in that too).

I'm singling out one family because it's relevant to me - I hope to escape the parasites and die in the Republic of New Zealand.

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 08:24

Er no, actually we have a nation that was founded on a document intended to prevent that, and we now have a process based on that treaty attempting to set right some of those wrongs.

I'd love to see a process to set right some of the wrongs the monarchy in particular and the aristocracy in general have inflicted on the British people (actually, include the Church in that too).

I'm singling out one family because it's relevant to me - I hope to escape the parasites and die in the Republic of New Zealand.

Actually, I would support you in that aim.
As an ex-pat Englishman I struggle to see the relevance of the Monarchy in NZ.
The Irish or Indian model would suit us fine.

In respect of righting wrongs, it's a slippery slope - how far back do you go?
Who do you involve?
The Church and the Aristocracy, sure...but what about Industrialists?
They caused untold suffering from the Industrial Revolution to recent times.
Politicians? Some were as corrupt and venal as those groups above...

Kick out the Hanoverian Royal Family?

Make Tudor descendants rebuild the monasteries destroyed by Henry VIII?

Deport all those with Norman names back to France...all Gingas back to Denmark?

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 08:28

It's funny (not to mention somewhat hypocritical) that you should leap to the defense of the phlegm garglers and crap on about "respect", before insulting every British citizen in the room.

You swear allegiance to the Queen of NZ, not the Queen of England. She is the current Head of State (and you don't have to swear on a bible).

Where are you living?
In NZ?
Was it not taken mostly by force?
Maybe you should start by giving you own neighborhood back to the local Iwi before worrying about Buckingham Palace...

How is bagging the crown insulting to the British?? I am British and hate those bludging thieving coonts with a passion.

Giving some of the stolen land back to Iwi is a bloody good start to righting some of the wrongs committed under queen and country.

It sounds a lot like you are defending the use of force?

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 08:37

How is bagging the crown insulting to the British?? I am British and hate those bludging thieving coonts with a passion.

Giving some of the stolen land back to Iwi is a bloody good start to righting some of the wrongs committed under queen and country.

It sounds a lot like you are defending the use of force?

Bagging the crown is insulting to at least some British (not to mention the odd Kiwi), and you were the one coming over all touchy feely about the Welsh. I was pointing out your hypocrisy, not commenting on the substance of your opinion (very slight though it is).

I'm not defending the use of force, merely pointing out the obvious fact that most Nation/States (including NZ) are founded on it.

So if we indulge your vengeance fantasies for a minute - who would you give Buckingham Palace back to?

HenryDorsetCase

3rd March 2009, 08:49

Mr Merde

3rd March 2009, 08:49

...- who would you give Buckingham Palace back to?

You dnt have to give it back to anyone. It is a public building owned by the government and therefore the people, not by the Queen, unlike Windsor

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 09:02

You dnt have to give it back to anyone. It is a public building owned by the government and therefore the people, not by the Queen, unlike Windsor

Kick 'em out. They can apply for a council flat.
Would you have a problem with me living rent free in the Mansion house?

Dave Lobster

3rd March 2009, 09:13

Kick 'em out. They can apply for a council flat.

She wouldn't qualify for one. For a start, she's white, married.. and doesn't have any illegitimate children (one of which should be of black. Brown at the very least). And still puts in far more hours a week in her 80s than most of the proletariat put in in their 20s.

Madonna on the other hand..

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 09:29

Who do you involve?
The Church and the Aristocracy, sure...but what about Industrialists?
They caused untold suffering from the Industrial Revolution to recent times.
Politicians? Some were as corrupt and venal as those groups above...

Industrialists? Like Titus Salt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt) or Josiah Wedgewood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt)? George and Robert Stephenson are ancestors of mine...what did they do wrong?

Max Preload

3rd March 2009, 09:36

Would you have a problem with me living rent free in the Mansion house?

Perhaps not if you were of better breeding... :msn-wink:

JacksColdSweat

3rd March 2009, 09:38

Where are you living?
In NZ?
Was it not taken mostly by force?

Actually, no

The treaty of Waitangi came first (in peacetime)

True, there was annexing of lands during the land wars and that's why we now have the Waitangi Tribunal

But NZ is one of the only nations in the world established (or at least attempted) in peace...

Just saying...

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 09:41

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England (puritan)
Born in 1599, died in 1658 (september)

The man with the right idea....and to all the Irish Catholics that believe the hype: :finger:

A man with the right ideas to start with but then he proclaimed himself monarch- hypocricy and meglomis me thinks!! Power currupts, absolute power corruts absolutley.

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 09:43

Further to this the one argument I have heard in favour of the monarchy that is an interesting one (not that I agree with it - it's just interesting) is that the advantage to the monarchy is that you have people who are trained in leadership

In essence (as I understand the argument) the monarchs experience a very long apprenticeship in leadership - they are often educated overseas, they spend time in developing nations assisting with those programs, they mix with the rich and famous - all the time being mentored by other monarchs and staff

the idea is that they see the whole world and they have intimate knowledge of various walks of life which leads them to be better leaders and decision makers

Take that away and you have people with rather narrow experiences making all our decisions for us... businessmen or former socialists... all pushing us in a narrow direction rather than a considered and broad one...

like I say - interesting - I can understand the argument - I don't know if I agree with it

EDIT: Skyryder we don't have a constitution... so the step to a republic would also need that to be drafted and written and debated endlessly

Have you ever heard Prince Philip, that man offends people of all walks of life everytime he opens his bloody mouth. His is one of the best arguments for NO monarchy. REPUBLICANS FOREVER!!!

Dave Lobster

3rd March 2009, 09:50

Have you ever heard Prince Philip, that man offends people of all walks of life everytime he opens his bloody mouth. His is one of the best arguments for NO monarchy. REPUBLICANS FOREVER!!!

He offends (precious) people that want to be offended.

jonbuoy

3rd March 2009, 09:53

Have you ever heard Prince Philip, that man offends people of all walks of life everytime he opens his bloody mouth. His is one of the best arguments for NO monarchy. REPUBLICANS FOREVER!!!

Prince Philip is bloody hilarious. You've all made your decisions to leave the UK quit whining about it and get on with your lives.

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 09:57

Examples..

Prince Andrew slammed over £6K helicopter trip By Ryan Parry 23/02/2009

Prince Andrew was yesterday slammed for using a helicopter for a trip of only 70 miles - costing taxpayers around £6,000.

The Duke of York, once dubbed Air Miles Andy, flew from Royal Lodge in Windsor to Shoreham, West Sussex, to open a toll bridge.

Going first class by train would have cost £271.80 - £90.60 each for him, his secretary and a policeman.

By Robert Jobson and Ryan Sabey, 10/01/2009

ROYAL rebel Prince Harry today stands accused of racism in a bombshell home video as he swaggers in front of his army comrades.

The soldier prince pours shame on the Royal Family as he calls an Asian squaddie “our little Paki friend” and tells another officer cadet jokingly wearing a camouflage veil off duty: “F*** me, you look like a raghead”—an offensive term for an Arab.

Harry says sorry for Nazi costume

Prince Harry was photographed at a friend's fancy dress party
Prince Harry has apologised for wearing a swastika armband to a friend's fancy dress party.

Prince Philip

In Scotland

One of his most notorious remarks was made during a small town visit in Scotland. In a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?"

When touring a Scottish factory, he came upon an old-fashioned fuse box and commented, "It looks like it was put in by an Indian."

Also in Scotland, after the tragic 1993 crash of a Pan Am jumbo jet that also killed eleven townspeople in Lockerbie, the Prince said to a person who lived near the crash, "People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle."

In China

The Prince's most publicized example of foot-in-mouth disease came during a visit to China. Upon meeting a group of British students, he said, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

Another one of the Prince's most famous Asian slurs: "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an airplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

In Australia

In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine, "Still throwing spears?"

In the Islands

He once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf."

Yes us Brits have so much to be proud of about our Royal family!!

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 09:59

He offends (precious) people that want to be offended.

No he is MORON!!

jonbuoy

3rd March 2009, 10:00

Those are some of my favorite quotes from him - and nothing I or most other people wouldn't say in a piss taking manner. Hardly his fault some people have no sense of humour.

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 10:05

A man with the right ideas to start with but then he proclaimed himself monarch- hypocricy and meglomis me thinks!! Power currupts, absolute power corruts absolutley.

Lord Protector, not monarch and the distinction is very important. Yes he was at the end a dictator but not for his own power and glorification (he was far to puritanically Christian for that), but because he came to believe it was the only way to get the right things happening to help the country recover from the civil war.

Our freedom of conscience is one of his great legacies and it's often overlooked that it was Cromwell who invited the Jews back into Britain 350 years after Edward 1st expelled them...

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 10:06

Those are some of my favorite quotes from him - and nothing I or most other people wouldn't say in a piss taking manner. Hardly his fault some people have no sense of humour.

he is a figure head and representative not Joe public. He is supposedly an embassador for the UK (and you lot) and should therefore think about what he is going to say and how it reflects on the UK (and you lot :laugh:) before he opens his mouth and a diatribe of shit comes out.

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 10:11

Lord Protector, not monarch and the distinction is very important. Yes he was at the end a dictator but not for his own power and glorification (he was far to puritanically Christian for that), but because he came to believe it was the only way to get the right things happening to help the country recover from the civil war.

Our freedom of conscience is one of his great legacies and it's often overlooked that it was Cromwell who invited the Jews back into Britain 350 years after Edward 1st expelled them...

You say potato I say potato. It equated to the same thing. I don't doubt that he started off with the right intentions but what he ended up doing was hideous, and anyone who can turn on those he fought with and imprison them for speaking out against what he he was doing is no better than those he replaced.

And to be truthful I don't care about him bringing the Jews back?

Ixion

3rd March 2009, 10:17

A man with the right ideas to start with but then he proclaimed himself monarch- hypocricy and meglomis me thinks!! Power currupts, absolute power corruts absolutley.

No. He was offered the crown, but refused it. (Shades of Sam Vimes.). Just as well because his son was a total loser. No ruler of England (or Scotland) has ever had, or claimed, absolute power.

Dave Lobster

3rd March 2009, 10:20

Prince Andrew slammed over £6K helicopter trip By Ryan Parry 23/02/2009

Prince Andrew was yesterday slammed for using a helicopter for a trip of only 70 miles - costing taxpayers around £6,000.

Yet it's ok for government ministers to do this in the PM's private jet, at considerably more than that.

That's an estimated cost anyway.. FFS.. the RAF spend twice that just having a couple of helis flying for a photo.. happens all the time. I've been in them..

ROYAL rebel Prince Harry today stands accused of racism in a bombshell home video as he swaggers in front of his army comrades.

The soldier prince pours shame on the Royal Family as he calls an Asian squaddie “our little Paki friend” and tells another officer cadet jokingly wearing a camouflage veil off duty: “F*** me, you look like a raghead”—an offensive term for an Arab.

Harry says sorry for Nazi costume

Prince Harry was photographed at a friend's fancy dress party
Prince Harry has apologised for wearing a swastika armband to a friend's fancy dress party.

Hardly racism.. the boy himself didn't complain.. FFS.. we had a lad from Trinidad in our troop known as sooty.. and one known as Monkey Boy (from Birmingham - known for its proliferation of black people). Hardly racist.. I think forces humour is something a lot of the lazy masses just don't get.

His 'nazi' costume consisted of an arm band. Hardly a fucking costume.. None of us was at the party though, and has only seen the odd photo from it. So none of us is in a postion to comment on what happened there. Obviously, if he was burning jews and russians, we might have heard slightly more about it. But we didn't..

Prince Philip

In Scotland

One of his most notorious remarks was made during a small town visit in Scotland. In a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?"

That's hilarious!! I'm not offended.. Some of us Scots are known to be heavy on the drink.. a stereoetype exists.. it's funny.

When touring a Scottish factory, he came upon an old-fashioned fuse box and commented, "It looks like it was put in by an Indian."

Indian goods have a reputation for being poor quality. Is this offensive?

The Prince's most publicized example of foot-in-mouth disease came during a visit to China. Upon meeting a group of British students, he said, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed."

Another one of the Prince's most famous Asian slurs: "If it has four legs and is not a chair, has wings and is not an airplane, or swims and is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

I'm not alone in finding these quotes hilarious!! Even the Chinese man that sits next to me here at work thinks it's funny.

He once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, "Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf."

Hardly unreasonable.. If I was next to Jamaican Steel Drums, I'd WANT to be deaf. Fucking awful racket they make.

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 10:29

Hardly racism.. the boy himself didn't complain.. FFS.. we had a lad from Trinidad in our troop known as sooty.. and one known as Monkey Boy (from Birmingham - known for its proliferation of black people). Hardly racist.. I think forces humour is something a lot of the lazy masses just don't get.

That's classic, the PC brigade have no problem with him being trained to be a soldier and heading off to Afganistan to shoot people but then proceed to wet their collective pants when he talks like a soldier as well...:laugh:

I respect Harry for being what appears to be a pretty bloody competent soldier...not for being the Queen's grandson.

Ixion

3rd March 2009, 10:34

Princes are above political correctness.

Skyryder

3rd March 2009, 10:41

That's classic, the PC brigade have no problem with him being trained to be a soldier and heading off to Afganistan to shoot people but then proceed to wet their collective pants when he talks like a soldier as well...:laugh:

I respect Harry for being what appears to be a pretty bloody competent soldier...not for being the Queen's grandson.

Yea I sort agree. Nothing wrong with getting down to some good ol' working class humour and slang (nicknames etc) which is what much of military humour is. Still the Nazi thing did not go down too well. He's either a dumb shit or an arrogant dick if he thought he could get away with one with no repercussions but then it may have just been a mistake. I'll give him the latter on this. His is father on the other hand if he ever becomes king (King Tampon) will be enough reason for me to become a rabid republican over night.

Skyryder

ManDownUnder

3rd March 2009, 10:49

They live in their own little world and simply can't understand the life of the common man - any more than we can relate to theirs.

The need of the people for a monarchy is gone. The want might eb there, butt hat's like the French wanting to keep the Franc. Losing a big part of their history and identity wasn't easy, but now it's gone they seem to be doing ok...

I'm sure the wops kraut and other ethnic minorities will be happy to see Prince Phillip silenced too LOL!

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 10:51

Yea I sort agree.

Way to undermine my credibility - thanks.:niceone:

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 10:55

Princes are above political correctness.

Please explain what sets him above the rest of the population??

Ixion

3rd March 2009, 10:59

Not above the rest of the population. Only above those not married to Queens (which since the civil union bill, I guess could be quite a few) .

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 11:31

Not above the rest of the population. Only above those not married to Queens (which since the civil union bill, I guess could be quite a few) .

Explain why the queen is above the rest of the population?

Mr Merde

3rd March 2009, 11:33

Explain why the queen is above the rest of the population?

Because of an accident of birth. :weep:

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 11:54

Industrialists? Like Titus Salt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt) or Josiah Wedgewood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt)? George and Robert Stephenson are ancestors of mine...what did they do wrong?

Jesus, you found three good'uns...

What about the other several thousand who ran the mills in Yorkshire?

Ixion

3rd March 2009, 11:54

Explain why the queen is above the rest of the population?

Cos she wears a crown. Serious answer. Why is the POTUS above the rest of the population ?

Dave Lobster

3rd March 2009, 12:29

Explain why the queen is above the rest of the population?

Because she has tens of thousands of very well armed people, working for her, who would be more than happy to pop a cap in the ass of all and sundry that speak out against her.

MisterD

3rd March 2009, 12:37

Because she has tens of thousands of very well armed people, working for her, who would be more than happy to pop a cap in the ass of all and sundry that speak out against her.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Dave Lobster

3rd March 2009, 13:23

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

That's probably as wasted as:

I want to buy a Gramophone:doh:

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 14:18

Because of an accident of birth. :weep:

So why not relinquish her position, it has been done before?

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 14:44

Those are some of my favorite quotes from him - and nothing I or most other people wouldn't say in a piss taking manner. Hardly his fault some people have no sense of humour.

I don't think it is about sense of humour but one of the arguments for retaining the monarchy is that they are good for trade and inturn bring money into the UK. Do you think a businessman/woman who goes to a foreign country and insults his/her potential business/trade partners is likely to gain their business, no? It is about having the common sense not to insult/offend/piss off those people you are visiting and trying to build a business relations with.

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 15:32

Because she has tens of thousands of very well armed people, working for her, who would be more than happy to pop a cap in the ass of all and sundry that speak out against her.

What like Mugabe?

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 15:40

What like Mugabe?

But it is ok the armed forces to kill as they are defending the relm/monarchy. It is not right for those nasty people who wont do as we want them to do to have people kill for them!! Oh and who aren't there because of some religious crap and birth right!

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 16:02

Cos she wears a crown. Serious answer. Why is the POTUS above the rest of the population ?

He sure as fuck 'aint above me. Perhaps we can all play dress up and develop a false sense of importance!

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 16:07

He sure as fuck 'aint above me. Perhaps we can all play dress up and develop a false sense of importance!

So you're able to unleash a nuclear holocaust and can put 300,000 soldiers in the field? {I'm sure POTUS has other capabilities, but we'll start with the scary ones}.

Let's see you do it - go on, I dares ya....

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 16:11

So you're able to unleash a nuclear holocaust and can put 300,000 soldiers in the field? {I'm sure POTUS has other capabilities, but we'll start with the scary ones}.

Let's see you do it - go on, I dares ya....

In no way does that increase his self worth above me. As with the royals, religous meglomaniacs should be put to the blade.

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 18:05

In no way does that increase his self worth above me. As with the royals, religous meglomaniacs should be put to the blade.

Ahh, I see - so, being as how your equal with these people, when can we expect to see you handing out their well deserved comeuppance?

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 19:57

Ahh, I see - so, being as how your equal with these people, when can we expect to see you handing out their well deserved comeuppance?

A rather childish retort oscar?..........the discussion centres around the suitability past, present and future of the royals to play any part in our collective lives. Baiting might be fun, but a bigger worm will be needed.

Do you believe another member of society is worth more than you?

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 21:36

A rather childish retort oscar?..........the discussion centres around the suitability past, present and future of the royals to play any part in our collective lives. Baiting might be fun, but a bigger worm will be needed.

Do you believe another member of society is worth more than you?

My wife, two children and my dog.

Seriously, I would rather be considered childish (child-like would be fairer), than deluded. Do you really consider yourself on a par with the Heads of State of the USA, Great Britain and NZ? This damages your credentials somewhat in respect of this discussion - After all, why should I waste cogent thought arguing with someone who compared our head of state (i.e. Queen Elizabeth, Queen of NZ) to Robert Mugabe.

SixPackBack

3rd March 2009, 21:56

My wife, two children and my dog.

Seriously, I would rather be considered childish (child-like would be fairer), than deluded. Do you really consider yourself on a par with the Heads of State of the USA, Great Britain and NZ? This damages your credentials somewhat in respect of this discussion - After all, why should I waste cogent thought arguing with someone who compared our head of state (i.e. Queen Elizabeth, Queen of NZ) to Robert Mugabe.

Absofuckinglootley I do. My self worth is every bit as important as any head of state, further more it would take little effort to find a reasonable size group of people that would at least seriously contemplate the hypothesis that humble 'ol me could have done a better job at steering the USA over the last few years than babblin' Bush! or alternatively progressed British interests more than the idiot prince philip [given the equal opportunity].

As to the royals vs mugabe...........neither have a mandate from the people, both reside in so called democratic countries; accordingly, immediate removal is the only appropriate action.

Oscar

3rd March 2009, 22:02

Absofuckinglootley I do. My self worth is every bit as important as any head of state, further more it would take little effort to find a reasonable size group of people that would at least seriously contemplate the hypothesis that humble 'ol me could have done a better job at steering the USA over the last few years than babblin' Bush! or alternatively progressed British interests more than the idiot prince philip [given the equal opportunity].

As to the royals vs mugabe...........neither have a mandate from the people, both reside in so called democratic countries; accordingly, immediate removal is the only appropriate action.

As I say, anyone who thinks that the standard of democracy is comparable in Zimbabwe and Great Britain might wanna check their carburetion. You might wanna go a size smaller on the main jet...

Bikernereid

3rd March 2009, 22:04

Absofuckinglootley I do. My self worth is every bit as important as any head of state, further more it would take little effort to find a reasonable size group of people that would at least seriously contemplate the hypothesis that humble 'ol me could have done a better job at steering the USA over the last few years than babblin' Bush! or alternatively progressed British interests more than the idiot prince philip [given the equal opportunity].

As to the royals vs mugabe...........neither have a mandate from the people, both reside in so called democratic countries; accordingly, immediate removal is the only appropriate action.

Hell I would vote for you over Bush, Mugabe and the Queen (oh sorry when it comes to those three votes don't count or just simply disappear!!) I agree that it is important for someone who is competent, has reasonable emotional and intellectual capabilities, is from the majority of society and is more in touch with that sector of society to be in charge of the country.

Winston001

4th March 2009, 08:00

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Bloody peasant!! Shut up. SHUT UP! :girlfight:

Winston001

4th March 2009, 08:26

. Shades of Sam Vimes......... No ruler of England (or Scotland) has ever had, or claimed, absolute power.

Err....umm....wot about James I (IV of Scotland), he of the Divine Right Of Kings.....?

As for the Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel Vimes, well he's a whole leap above all that tosh in't he. :Punk: We could do with such a man today.

As for Harry, for pity's sake, he's a soldier. He swears and talks like a soldier. Then he gets criticised for it.....? The Nazi armband was stupid, no question, but then he was also a yoof and naive. I'm sure he got some harsh verbals over that.