terrific news for the shipbuilding industry. will create many jobs and show to the world how great this country is.
Printable View
terrific news for the shipbuilding industry. will create many jobs and show to the world how great this country is.
Are we paying for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingbillyboy
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
I take it the austerity thing ended with the demise of Cameron & Osborne then? What about fixing the roof while the sun is shining? Or was that all just ideological bollocks to make the working classes suffer?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingbillyboy
no, i think it was because the eu turned down the grant for it for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Great time to buy a yatch, when the pound is at the weakest its been for decades
You couldn't make it up could you :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy31
She pays circa £1,500 per annum Council Tax for Buck House. Nice.
Seems a bit steep for someone on benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
The only explanation I can see for the British public's fascination for the Royal Family is Stockholm Syndrome. During this Queen's reign we have gone from being a manufacturing giant where everyone had a job and where there was a strong community spirit to an almost third world cesspit where it is dog eat dog and nobody knows their neighbour. She has behaved like a powerless puppet, but it didn't have to be that way. She could have interceded and protected us from some of the worst things our treacherous governments have inflicted on us.
You need to think differently then if that is all you allow yourself to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
What power does she have exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
She has all the power. She just doesn't use it because there would be backlashQuote:
Originally Posted by TH63
Suspend parliamentQuote:
Originally Posted by TH63
Appoint ministers including the Prime Minister
Declare war
Block bills
Command the armed forces
Pardon anyone she likes
How's that for starters ?
You forgot waving while scowling.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
The main reason she’s popular is that the media keep telling us she is popular. Give anyone enough media coverage and people will become ‘fascinated’ by them whether it’s Queenie or Kim Kardashian. We are subjected (if you’ll pardon the pun) to a daily onslaught of unbalanced royalty-related drivel. Any mention of Queen Lizard on the news is delivered with a sycophantic smile (I‘m sure they’re on a bonus). Every item on the news relating to the Windsors ought to have a non-monarchist representative giving a republican viewpoint – but that would be balanced journalism and that’s not allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
So rewind 15 years when they were not popular and we were being told that also. How do we explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabalphaville
You mean when Princess Di was killed by a mossad hit man on the instructions of the Duke of Edinburgh and MI5 because the heir to the throne might have a Muslim half brother whose descendants one day might've inherited the throne?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Dragon
Because, very briefly, another royal became more popular than her. The notion of royalty itself didn't become less popular during that period - if anything Diana gave it a boost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Dragon
Are you sure about all of these?Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
Didn't they change the rules after this event, that a first born female could be king?Quote:
Originally Posted by TH63
Blimey, thats a very big rule change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Diversity in action :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
He's correct on all of them. The monarch doesn't have to pay income or Council Tax (this one chooses to), display vehicle licence plates or need a licence to drive. Another power wielded under the Royal Prerogative is the legal authority to destroy any subject's property. It sounds far-fetched but it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Here's a list of the queen's State visits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_Elizabeth_II
How come she has never visited Israel? Is there a political reason for this? Come in SD - what's that all about then bro?
:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by TH63
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ot-Israel.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Gabalphaville
"Until there is a settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Royal family can't really go there," said one Whitehall source.
"There have been inward State Visits by Israel, which just involves dealing with the Head of State, but in Israel so much politics is caught up in the land itself that it's best to avoid those complications altogether by not going there."
do you realise what you've just done?????? :facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabalphaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Lecter
:hehe:
But in practice? These are like those laws you read about, Welshmen can be shot with a bow and arrow at midnight in Chester and all that. Her powers are more about ceremony than anything tanglible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
If after the last election, the Queen had said "No thanks Mr Cameron, I want Ed M to run the country" do you think that would have been that?
The Queen seems a pretty sensible lady and she knows not to get involved. If there was ever an offspring who did want to run the show then those 'powers' are going to be rescinded by Parliament very quickly.
I believe that Prince Charles became quite stroppy in the 1970s when he refused to do some PR work for the then Labour Government. But apart from that they have been walked over by traitors like Blair and Cameron. Sooner or later they will have to stand up for themselves. When the Muslims are in a majority they will not want a Christian head of state. If the monarch is not a Muslim then they will abolish the monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Ok, think I'm done with this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vincent
Have I said a bad thing? Please come back Lardarse. Enlighten me. Forgive me.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
That bit about seizing and destroying property isn't some ancient quirky thing that no-one's ever been arsed about removing; it was created 12 years ago by its inclusion in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. That Act is for declared national emergencies, and is a frightening read. If it's ever enacted, then the citizenry will potentially have no rights. The state arbitrarily could lawfully take anyone's home (and/or any property) and forcibly remove occupants to wherever they choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Not just the State, Organ. Your local council can do it with compulsory purchase. In the so-called "Land of the Free" they call it Eminent Domain and if someone thinks can make better use of your land or house they can apply to the local authority for your property to be given to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
As long as they don't go shooting Welshmen with bows and arrows after midnight!Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.