Things that pee you off...


Recommended Posts

I doubt we'll be able to abolish them in the near future so we've just got to treat them as an irrelevance. They do provide a great deal of intrigue and amusement to brighten our lives at very little cost per capita. The alternative would be an elected president and looking around the world at those, no-one outstanding comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the actions of various groups around the country proved when fireworks and petrol bombs were used as weapons. If that is not a good enough reason to say enough is enough and ban private sales of fi

I rather think the the hang 'em and flog 'em syndrome is alive and well and not a million miles away - and the press are having convulsions... Why does an act of mindless vandalism attract such v

Not to beat around the bush or add insult to injury, but there are several whimsical idioms that do not cut the mustard sense-wise. However, we shouldn’t cry over spilt milk, a little elbow grease wil

Posted Images

I don't object to them. In many ways, I feel sorry for the queen and I wouldn't have her life for the crown jewels.  Just because she's a queen doesn't save her from having children who are a rampant embarrassment, not very bright, or simply a PITA.

 

Put one foot wrong or 'allegedly' put one foot wrong and the entire world knows about it. No privacy and what people can't find out as being fact, they simply invent. That's more of a dire reflection on the latter, in my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term is "Plum in the mouth" CT. Is it what is known as "Queens English" ?

In Talking pictures, the severest bad language was, "He's a Ruddy nuisance, is old Jerry".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jill Sparrow said:

He just needs a nice comfy chair in an old folks' home so he can nap all day...and someone to wipe the egg off his face, when necessary.

So do I. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer to question raised regarding the usefulness, or not, of our monarchy is that we are unable to dis-enfranchise their right to have a degree of control of titles, land and property and the vast wealth that I, for one, cannot find justifiable. 

 

There's a minority who appear to regard this non-elected group of people as near to gods. By their own god given right and by decree they are untouchable to a class of lower personage, this inludes their subjects and extends even to heads of state of more powerful nation states.

 

Regailed in jewellry, crowns and sel-awarded medals which glitter with an aura of sickening self-indulgence it is time for their passing and fading diwn the path into history.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect of royalty on daily life personal experience seems absent from your diatribe, so  jealousy and resentment it is then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Brew, read your history to see where Kings and Queens came from, way way back, they were the village bullies, then took over the next village etc etc..

I have no time for any monarchy, let alone the UK's, outdated parasites, no country needs them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayeup, I'm quite au fait with history, what has it to do with anything? Are we still to pay for events hundreds or even thousands of years ago?

The village bullies? Virtually every nation state came about through violence, how long do we wear sackcloth and ashes and wring our hands for sins of our fathers?

 

I asked a simple question. What detrimental effect on detractors lives makes them so anti-royal?

 

All I have seen so far is an ill-defined mishmash of resentment and envy of the fact the royals have something republicans don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ayupmeducks said:

I was a "Republican" during my time in Oz, 100% in favour of pulling Oz out of the Commonwealth and having a President.

We would have been a republic now except that the November 1999 referendum proposed a President elected by parliament. Australia's distrust of our political elite was reflected in the poll. 55% voted No in a 95% compulsory turnout. Strangely enough Queensland led the No vote with 63%. The Yes campaign was led by Malcolm Turnbull who later went on to become our Prime Minister, subsequent poor polling led him to be ousted and our current incompetent bumbling buffoon became Prime Minister in 2018.

If they had opted for a citizen elected President we would have been a Republic then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Oztalgian said:

If they had opted for a citizen elected President we would have been a Republic then.

 

And what advantage would Australia have that they don't have now?

I noted some time ago that of the top ten rated democracies in the world, six have a monarch.

 

Perhaps Oz, a little Australian history won't be amiss. In 1973, she was removed from the Queen's Australian style, titles, any reference to her status as Queen of the United Kingdom and Defender of the Faith.

Australia, like the US is alreaddy a federation of different states, quite what you expect to happen by becoming a republic would make interesting reading.

 

There's so much more, but we're wandering into the political sphere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brew said:

And what advantage would Australia have that they don't have now?

Not having to seek approval of the queens representative in the event of a political crisis e.g. the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government.

We would also save a lot of taxpayer money by getting rid of the Governors General and their hangers on at national and state levels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You've not sought royal approval since 1975!

 

The reasons behind Kerrs action are complex, but in short it was not HM or the Governor-General (an Australian Barrister), acting of their own free will. It was at the behest and with the approval of the opposition politicians, and looking at the election results soundly approved by the people.

It also ended the power of the GG to dismiss or dissolve parliament

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had appropriation bills passed by the House of Representatives Fraser used his numbers in the Senate to continually block supply unless Whitlam called an election for the house of Reps and urged the GG, John Kerr, to dismiss Whitlam if he did not call an election. Whitlam went to the GG to seek his approval to call a half senate elction in a bid to resolve the deadlock. The GG denied that request and dismissed Whitlam and appointed Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. Agreed, the following election was a landslide for Fraser.

The Senate still retains its power to block supply and the Governor General still has the power to dismiss government ministers but has not been used since that infamous day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read both both Majors & Browns memoirs of their PM days & they both said Presidents of countries would point out that they were not the head of state of the UK, the queen was. Wonder if Australian & New Zealand PM's have had the same remarks from Presidents?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

A President can have limited powers written into a Constitution, as long as the Constitution is approved by the states, as in the US.

Presidents here have very limited powers, the can be out vetoed by both houses, Senate and Representatives, Presidents are forbidden to make laws, that power is held by the lower house as noted in the Constitution, Article 1 sec 1.

If one looks at Executive Orders, they don't apply to the 50 states, or they would violate Art1 sec1. They are reserved for government employees, departments and the territories, just protectorates these days..

Essentially, the President of the US has less legal powers than QE2!

Australia has a similar governmental system to the US with parts operating like the UK.

It took many years before the US Constitution was ratified, as drafted, (I'll use the old spelling that is still used in the US.) Reason being, those in the several states could see the US turning back into a Monarchy as written, so a list of rights were added, ie The Bill of Rights, 1 through 10, and of all of them, the 10th is the most important.

 

As I stated, I have no time for pompous inbred royals, they serve no purpose in a modern day society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2022 at 3:40 PM, katyjay said:

You can have ours.

 

Would you prefer his predecessor? :Shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cliff Ton changed the title to Things that pee you off...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...