All Matches Postponed Until At Least 12/9/22

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

‘Attested’, ‘nugatory’, ‘signally’?  Speak proper!

 

God only knows what you made of 'Pursuivant' today?

[Gazred]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

No idea Silvio……….

The reputation to posts ratio is not good. Ergo, you are a below average poster. Make of that what you will.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Gazred

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Gazred said:

The reputation to posts ratio is not good. Ergo, you are a below average poster. Make of that what you will.

I rarely, if ever take any notice of reputation. It’s meaningless.

[Bristol Rob]

13 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

When does the Willy waving comp start?

Bring it on, Sunshine.

 

[Gazred]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I rarely, if ever take any notice of reputation. It’s meaningless.

As a point score, i agree. What's your reputation on here? Meaningless?

Edited September 10, 2022 by Gazred

[Stortz]

35 minutes ago, pillred said:

Sheltons Army 10% of posts received a laugh, Pillred 11%. I rest my case, and that's NOT pro rata. I would rather be funny than anything else and my posts are mostly tongue in cheek and played for laughs and not any seriousness, but as someone who does genuinely try to be humorous I thought his attempt (comment) was not very funny and ill-judged and I stand by that opinion.

Haha- I'm not sure that that's quite the zinger you think it is, but you do you.

[pillred]

1 minute ago, Stortz said:

Haha- I'm not sure that that's quite the zinger you think it is, but you do you.

Well I wrongly assumed I would have come out top in a humour contest on here but actually having looked at his stats seems I was wrong, I got annoyed at his personal attack on me saying my posts were generally gloomy, my own stats for reactions say otherwise but having seen his stats I have to concede defeat, still say asking if the Queens funeral was on the red button was a little ill-judged but by the comments I have had perhaps I am missing the general mood on here.    

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, pillred said:

I was talking about laugh reactions he said I posted gloomy posts, the number of laugh reactions I get would suggest otherwise, and what the hell has it got to do with you anyway?

You were talking about ‘laugh’ reactions, and I simply wanted to say I have just given you one - figuratively speaking, of course.

Not because I found your post funny - if truth be known, I found it quite pathetic - but because it made me laugh. In a sort of sad, what a poor chap kind of way, wondering why somebody might be so concerned as to how their posts are perceived and how many likes/laughs they might receive.

Good Luck with your future posts.

[Robbored]

8 minutes ago, Gazred said:

As a point score, i agree. What's your reputation on here? Meaningless?

4368 - I have no idea what that means tho………..nothing I’m guessing………

[IAmNick]

7 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

 

Thanks for the examples, I didn't know of either. Unfortunately unverifiable and adding more anecdotal evidence onto the pile does nothing to strengthen that however.

I find it odd that a group of senior military leaders content with overthrowing the government were accepting of being talked down by the Queen Mother, who then just told the PM to sort himself out a bit. Hmm.

The Hitler example is interesting, but I don't think it's the best example for you to bring up here which implies to me you're struggling a little to back up your words with anything concrete: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

“We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.”

Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”.

Protecting our democratic values and stability indeed.

9 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Probably getting into politics forum territory, but I also wasn't asked to be governed by anyone in our current cabinet as far as I'm aware...? I hear the "they can veto UK legislation" line a lot, but when we get down to fundamental reasons why, or how often it actually happens to our detriment, people are rarely so forthcoming.

I am concerned by almost everything our current government does.

11 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

It's a fair point that I made and one you've completely skirted rather than answering, because you have no answer.

I'm not talking about reparations. I simply think it's dishonest to point at countries around the world as examples of states in turmoil with the implication it's because they are lacking a monarchy, when we (while BEING a monarchy) had a large hand in their current turmoil. I'd include a fair portion of Africa and the Middle East in there which are both in your list of examples.

You are happy to point at (sort of) examples from the past of where the monarchy has been a force for good, but if we bring up where it has presided over awful suffering (such as the famine, starvation, and misery you mention in fact!) then that's summarily dismissed.

Either you accept it into the discussion, or you day-zero it as you've said. Which is it?

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

I recommend posting shitty goal videos to farm reputation

As I am sure you are aware, despite your self-deprecating comment, your goal videos are much valued and greatly appreciated.

I usually give you a ‘Thanks’ or a ‘Like’, but confess that, on occasion, I am rushing so quickly through the thread trying to find out what is happening that I forget - for which I apologise profusely.

What I would be interested to know, however, is how many Thanks/Likes you received for your recent hand drawn cartoons of our goals against ? - I have forgotten which match it was, but can still picture the pathetic wonderful cartoon goals.

[Tinmans Love Child]

13 minutes ago, pillred said:

Well I wrongly assumed I would have come out top in a humour contest on here but actually having looked at his stats seems I was wrong, I got annoyed at his personal attack on me saying my posts were generally gloomy, my own stats for reactions say otherwise but having seen his stats I have to concede defeat, still say asking if the Queens funeral was on the red button was a little ill-judged but by the comments I have had perhaps I am missing the general mood on here.    

The joke about the red button I took as more of a joke about OTIB and posts on match day threads, the Queen was just sub context

[pillred]

10 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

You were talking about ‘laugh’ reactions, and I simply wanted to say I have just given you one - figuratively speaking, of course.

Not because I found your post funny - if truth be known, I found it quite pathetic - but because it made me laugh. In a sort of sad, what a poor chap kind of way, wondering why somebody might be so concerned as to how their posts are perceived and how many likes/laughs they might receive.

Good Luck with your future posts.

Do you know what and this is being totally honest I hate your posts mostly and only 2 hours ago decided I would give you a second chance after having you on ignore for the past 3 years what a mistake that was as your just as much an a**e as you were then, I won't make that mistake a second time the reason I reacted to sheltons army the way I did is he made a remark about my posts which according to the reactions I have received over the years was totally wrong, anyway goodnight and goodbye for ever. 

[Bristol Rob]

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

4368 - I have no idea what that means tho………..nothing I’m guessing………

It means you haven't mentioned food vouchers enough.

[pillred]

2 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

The joke about the red button I took as more of a joke about OTIB and posts on match day threads, the Queen was just sub context

I agree totally I just thought it was a little ill-judged, I'm surprised at the reactions I have had mostly negative and especially from him which I thought was a bit bitter and personal that's all, in almost any other way his post would have been funny a bit like the stick robbored gets when he says about things only being right if they are on the OS.

[PHILINFRANCE]

7 minutes ago, pillred said:

Do you know what and this is being totally honest I hate your posts mostly and only 2 hours ago decided I would give you a second chance after having you on ignore for the past 3 years what a mistake that was as your just as much an a**e as you were then, I won't make that mistake a second time the reason I reacted to sheltons army the way I did is he made a remark about my posts which according to the reactions I have received over the years was totally wrong, anyway goodnight and goodbye for ever. 

I assume you won’t be able to read this post , but should like you to know that I have given you another ‘laugh’ reaction.

You see, no hard feelings; I am still trying to boost your ratings .

Oh, and by the way, it’s ‘You’re’ .

Edited September 10, 2022 by PHILINFRANCE

[IAmNick]

 

13 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

As I am sure you are aware, despite your self-deprecating comment, your goal videos are much valued and greatly appreciated.

I usually give you a ‘Thanks’ or a ‘Like’, but confess that, on occasion, I am rushing so quickly through the thread trying to find out what is happening that I forget - for which I apologise profusely.

What I would be interested to know, however, is how many Thanks/Likes you received for your recent hand drawn cartoons of our goals against ? - I have forgotten which match it was, but can still picture the pathetic wonderful cartoon goals.

89, somehow!

 

[Out of his pie crust]

56 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

A- excellent boy

[Northern Red]

6 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

 

89, somehow!

 

Missed this at the time, superb!

[PHILINFRANCE]

55 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

Many thanks for yet another excellent and extremely interesting and informative post.

I may not agree entirely with absolutely everything you have posted in your trilogy - are you going to make it a tetralogy? - but that is not important.

Your three posts have been thought provoking and, of course, extremely enjoyable to read, for which I thank you.

In addition, every day’s a school day and all that, I have also learned a new word, Nugatory. I am tempted to change my username.

Good Luck and Good Health in your retirement.

 

 

[red panda]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

You make a number of points, as have others, that merely suggest you've a poor understanding of how the UK is governed, its very Constitution, that being the subject of my post.

As was attested today, Parliament serves the Monarch yet the Monarch consents to obey the will of the people as reflected through members elected. The Monarch inherits great wealth, but offers it all back to Parliament in return for sufficient funds to discharge the Monarch's state functions. In the UK, at National (Parliamentary) election, one doesn't vote for a party, one elects an individual to represent one in a first past the post ballot. The individual elected owes no allegiance to any party nor the policies they promote, as evidenced by MPs being able to vote against party whips to which they might profess allegiance or by them  'crossing the floor' as they see fit. They do not have to adhere to the wishes of their constituents, once elected they've free reign to do as they wish. The largest group of like-minded MPs (usually a political party) is invited by the Monarch to form a Government. Should the largest group be a political party its for its membership to decide who both their leader and PM should be (usually the same but it doesn't have to be.) Parties have their internal procudeures as to how this is discharged. In the case of political manifestos there's no obligation on that elected to Government to fulfill any if its promises. For various reasons most  commitments are never delivered. In which case the majority of your second paragraph is nugatory. Fair to criticize if you think the system flawed (as do I,) but you snipe and carp as though there's been connivance and wrong-doing this week when all you describe is how the system is prescribed to work.

The opening to your second paragraph hasn't been 'cherry-picked' and is a pragmatic demonstration as to why tinkering with the UK's model constitution isn't necessarily a good thing, even should some consider wholly elected bodies to be in some way 'more' democratic (sic). If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) As there, a good comparison here are National and Local elections where historically the party in Government gets thrashed by its opposition come Local elections. All that does is make delivering benefits of policy to the people more difficult and antagonistic, Local power thwarting National policy whether or not its for the best. Tit for tat politics.

Without question there is a signal difference between the continuity of Monarchy, where the incumbent is a function not an individual (hence the affirmations of allegiance required today.) Matters not palaces, jewels and crowns, they're functions of state, not for sale. They exist on behalf of us subjects. For that reason it matters little a Monarch is for life (or until they abdicate,) unlike many Republics where Presidents, once elected, have enacted legislation that may never see them (in some cases their chosen successors,) removed from office. Ditto wealth. What was ours through ERII becomes ours through CRIII. Contrast the likes of Putin. A President paid around $130k per annum who in the past decade has amassed a personal wealth in excess of $200bn, no need to declare or explain, no questions asked (unless one is unafraid of poisons and falls from great height.)

Our Constitution is far from perfect, but on balance its hard to think how immediately it might signally be improved given the present poverty of political understanding and debate in our nations.

 

Gosh, what an unpleasant and patronising response.  You don't know anything about me or about my understanding of how Government works in practice (clue - I don't work in the private sector).  This is a forum (the clue is in the name) but if this is how you respond to opposing views (and if you really believe what you've written then good luck to you) then I'm really not sure it's worth continuing.  Your statement that "one doesn't vote for a party" is perhaps correct on a very, very pedantic level, but in reality it's so far from how politics works that I really haven't a flipping clue what planet you're on.  Over and out.

[bpexile]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

Out of all of your post this statement will always stick with me, my late dad always used this attitude towards life 

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Thanks for the examples, I didn't know of either. Unfortunately unverifiable and adding more anecdotal evidence onto the pile does nothing to strengthen that however.

I find it odd that a group of senior military leaders content with overthrowing the government were accepting of being talked down by the Queen Mother, who then just told the PM to sort himself out a bit. Hmm.

The Hitler example is interesting, but I don't think it's the best example for you to bring up here which implies to me you're struggling a little to back up your words with anything concrete: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute

“We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.”

Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”.

Protecting our democratic values and stability indeed.

Probably getting into politics forum territory, but I also wasn't asked to be governed by anyone in our current cabinet as far as I'm aware...? I hear the "they can veto UK legislation" line a lot, but when we get down to fundamental reasons why, or how often it actually happens to our detriment, people are rarely so forthcoming.

I am concerned by almost everything our current government does.

It's a fair point that I made and one you've completely skirted rather than answering, because you have no answer.

I'm not talking about reparations. I simply think it's dishonest to point at countries around the world as examples of states in turmoil with the implication it's because they are lacking a monarchy, when we (while BEING a monarchy) had a large hand in their current turmoil. I'd include a fair portion of Africa and the Middle East in there which are both in your list of examples.

You are happy to point at (sort of) examples from the past of where the monarchy has been a force for good, but if we bring up where it has presided over awful suffering (such as the famine, starvation, and misery you mention in fact!) then that's summarily dismissed.

Either you accept it into the discussion, or you day-zero it as you've said. Which is it?

Actually they aren't 'unverifiable', you can try and obtain the relevant documents from the public record but many remain embargoed. There are plenty of references in autobiographies, though the official records to Wilson deny he was under Soviet /Czech influence. Its also amazing that which is open currency in the Forth Estate but that, for reasons not obvious or transparent, are never to be reported. That extends from politicos, Royals to some interesting entertainment and sporting celebrities. I believe what aren't any longer embargoed are the photo archives and reports at The Evil, they were D Notice but may have been released after 75 years. Others on this forum may also have had relatives who had experience of the Bristol insurrections. My paternal family came from Hotwells and Ashton Gate, my great grandfather having built a couple of the roads adjacent Ashton Gate in which my father and many of his relatives grew up. During the early air raids many in the area made use of the tunnels in the 'Rocks Railway' in the gorge (the Council had promised to deliver thousands of Anderson Shelters but through incompetence and, some say, corruption, they never materialised.)  A few thousand South Bristolians slept there each night. That was until the war took a turn for the worse, Hitler looked liked invading and the Police and Military took physical action against South Bristolians evicting them using force from the tunnels. The tunnels were earmarked as the BBC's emergency HQ should they be forced from London. The Bristol Blitz occured shortly thereafter, Churchill attended the scene expecting to provide a morale boost and was roundly booed, spat at and subject to abuse, Bristolians having considered themselves abandoned by the Government. Reports taken were embargoed and fabricated. But not those my parents, aunts and uncles (all now dead,) who oft recounted the 'unofficial' version of events they'd witnessed. In which case I wholly agree we should have more access to records, save only where it serves the public good. That can be a marginal call.

You remain concerned by our Government, many of us are, but if you participated in the last election then , yes, you did elect this Government. Even if you chose not to participate they're still your Government. That's how the democratic system works. The Government represents everybody, not merely those who voted for them. Though many like to proclaim by dissociation, ' they're not my Government', they are. To deny they aren't is to condemn the democratic process.

Having worked extensively in the Middle East and Africa you're correct that many of the issues evident there today may be traced to the UK 'abandoning' them at end of Empire. But that only goes to strengthen the argument for the level of constitutional control a democratic Monarchy may deliver. When such controls were abandoned and nations left to govern themselves, the supposed honeymoon of democracy was shown to be the farce that it is. What do you want? We're uncertain? When do you want it? Immaterial, you're getting it now, like it or not. Goodbye and goodnight. As in this nation we've generations who rattle on about 'their' freedoms and liberties, by which they refer to 'their rights' (sic) otherwise to be controlled and provided for by the state.

If you want practical examples of where the ECHR has intervened contrary to the will of the UK Government, ask any Home Secretary these past 30 years. It's the reason that whilst, ad nauseam, Home Secs have promised to protect borders, control terrorists, repatriate those without leave to remain, they're unable to discharge the laws passed by Parliament. Not for here but I could cite examples that would have reasonable folks screaming like rabid Daily Mail readers. 

 

[red panda]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

But isn't this a massive argument AGAINST the Monarchy? If a band of reprobates plotted a coup in 1974, isn't it deeply worrying that they thought they could succeed with the support of the royal family? Fortunately the particular royals at the time were reasonable enough not to go along with it. But a monarchy is hereditary so there is absolutely no control over who takes over the reins (or the reigns, sorry!) and a different set of royals might have gone along with it. 

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

 

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

I rarely, if ever take any notice of reputation. It’s meaningless.

........the Kenneth Williams of OTIB.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, IAmNick said:

I only liked this to give you more because I felt sorry for you

Just wait until people discover the leaderboard: https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topmembers/

3 hours ago, Colombo Robin said:

Impressive stats, but you can tell @Davefevs if he's watching i'm still fighting for this emoji title and he's got to go to the politics forum and get something, and i'll tell you honestly, i will love it if i beat him, love it!

3 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

Eeeeek, eff me!

It’s certainly not something to be proud of is it?

I see that I joined as a glory hunter!!!

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Davefevs

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Bring it on, Sunshine.

 

I'll raise you Maggie's Willy!

[phantom]

11 hours ago, pillred said:

Apparently, there was quite a lot of booing at the Hearts and Arsenal (not sure whether it was the Swiss fans) Thurs games during the minutes silence, so perhaps they were worried it would be repeated elsewhere.

In a quiet stadium you'd only need a small number of people to ruin it and that's before any reaction from oth

Seeing the graffiti around Glasgow I'd dread how the Celtic supporters would have reacted and here in England liver supporters would have no doubt caused concerns too

[phantom]

7 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

@Davefevs, the Serena Williams of otib.

I literally just spat out my breakfast reading this 

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Genuine question - can you give any examples of the monarch being held to account by the privy council recently?

Not off the top of my head. I'd see that as a positive as it demonstrates that we have a benevolent monarchy that respects its modern position within the constitution.