Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The T

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 14:54:31

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fi0kui$eni$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:mfGdnWsCd5lxF97anZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com...

If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football match
on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same time, how
many folks would be watching HRH?

An interesting selection of programmes.

All cheap, all minority interest, all either hated or loved.
Cheap, they are not, minority, they are not and viewing figures prove they

are far more loved than they are hated.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 15:16:04

"CJ Buyers" <susuhanan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:185dcc6b-c25f-4836-9338-0942ed5e3f99@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 11:58 pm, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com
wrote:
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...





On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net
wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
it
snip

Citizen Jimserac

Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them exist
on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the World.

Really, the source for your research please?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_b ... 267201.ece

And that is only what she gets from the taxpayer. What about the tax free
gifts she at every public appearance gets that are stored away in the
palace?
What about the income from her lands all over the UK and other parts of the
World?

The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family owns
much land and property in their own right.

Again, the source of your research?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 93,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 93,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/stor ... 93,00.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jac ... f_cap.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jac ... f_cap.html

Or is Mrs H Regina a large hill farmer in Scotland?

Among her other farming interests in the UK she most certainly is.
See here - http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our_portfolio.htm
Remember too the Prince Charles also has great tracts of land under the
Duchy of Cornwall, (Tax free, by the way).
and there are other duchies.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 15:19:33

Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

snip


Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.



It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.



It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national
companies, among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were
quite distinct companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part
of SMG. I'm not sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but
also take stuff off the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local
news and sport, but some do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You
can find out much more about them here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV



Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.


Indeed they do all come under the ITV umbrella but which, "Umbrella"?
Is it the generic term ITV for , "Independent Television", or the
specific term of the private limited company known as, " ITV plc"?

If the former then it does as they are all independent Television
companies.
If the latter then it most certainly does not.

However, I was not correcting that part of your erroneous post that
claimed they all were independent TV companies but the bit I have
starred in your post below -

"It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, **** so
it doesn't depend on where you are"****.

You misunderstood my post or you are trying to move the goalposts. Sky
TV, Living TV, and other independent channels don't come under the ITV
umbrella, so I was specifying only the ones that do.

It is obvious to everyone, except you, that if they are all running
there own local area programmes and only inserting certain network items
they do not show the same programmes.
They do, also, often show the same items at different programme times in
different areas.
Thus even an idiot can see that, "so it doesn't depend on where you
are", is wrong and requires to be corrected for the benefit of the
people who have no knowledge of the UK's independent TV setup.

Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that
some progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years.
I know how it works.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 15:20:03

Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.




Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV

channel.


That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...



Isn't it on ITV any more?



Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.


It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.


It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite
distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV


Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.


And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman



Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check
out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too
often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots
get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day",
but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from
that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and
weather, while the network usually shows the London area news, sport and
weather from the London Studio.

You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.

As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 15:21:47

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_Pudne1-efI_tNnanZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iwU0j.40915$9Y3.7798@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:w9WdnTUe1fEu6d7anZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message


news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net
wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
it
is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam
would
be
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he
accedes
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm
sure
he
has
no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy
is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150
years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in
Osborne/
Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's
abdication
and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling
of
matters
after Diana's death.

Richard Lichten

Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the
adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter
after
Diana's
death.

The question arises, how much weakening?

As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the
normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations.
In
an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by Prince
Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos
statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.

But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to
so
easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of
major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the
Queen,
this
is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities in
the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism
and
so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong
as
it
was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.

It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the
way
of
the
day.

Surreyman

In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the
Royals
anyway.
--

Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.

Surreyman

Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.

OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme
(and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!

Surreyman

So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.

That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.

The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.

The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.

Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.

Citizen Jimserac

Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them
exist
on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the
World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far
the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family
owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the
Public's
contribution.
--

Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the
state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.

Surreyman



That might be true if you were actually dealing with correct figures.
For example, as you are lecturing me on the subject of the costs to the
public of the royals, give me an answer to this?

Last week we had a report of a certain young royal's private executive jet
making an emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport.
He had been jaunting around, as usual, for his own enjoyment.
So are the costs of this spoilt brat's use of such transport, the cost of
that emergency and the ongoing costs of this bloody parasite born by the
royal purse or from the public purse?
In any event, if the royals can afford to finance such extravagant
lifestyles, do the really need support from the public purse that
underfunds
what was shown this week to be Europe's very worst state retirement
pension?
Cut them loose, charge them income tax like everyone else, and put the,
"Jobs", they undertake for the UK out to tender. I'm sure Vera Duckworth,
Emily Bishop, Ken Barlow, David Beckham or any other overpaid, "Celeb",
would be only too glad to undercut the royals fee for launching some ship
or
other and Terry Wogan could perhaps, waive his fee, as he did for,
"Children
in need", to deliver the Christmas message.
--

I agree entirely with stopping any extravagant use of the public purse where
that happens.
As to the rest, what's the point. It's just your extreme opinion, and by no
means everyone else's.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 21 nov 2007 15:24:07

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:YISdnfChEPvhqNnanZ2dnUVZ8rednZ2d@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.




Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel.

That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...



Isn't it on ITV any more?



Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in December.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach
Time for tea.



Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.


It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it
doesn't depend on where you are.


It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national
companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite
distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but
some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV


Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.

And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman



Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings
are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this
respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check
out
that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too often
show
different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots get
on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the Day", but
instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from
that
of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and weather, while
the network usually shows the London area news, sport and weather from the
London Studio.
--

No, it doesn't surprise me.
And we often have Scottish events replacing English events filched by Sky.
It's how they work, unfortunately.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 15:36:01

Piggy-backing. (Surreyman's -a.spencer3- post didn't make it to my
newsreader.)

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

On Nov 21, 5:11 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message

news:fhvprl$5qo$1@mouse.otenet.gr...




D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored

That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.

And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.

It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.

Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.

It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.

Then came the meddlers.

The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.

These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.

Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.

Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.

Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.

The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)

Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.

TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.

Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.

Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.

Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.

Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.

People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.

Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?

Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))

As I said, potentially extremist, but I don't think it is overstated.

But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.

We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.

But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.

Indeed. My own cousin from Poland came to the UK for 2 months. He
expected the streets to be paved with gold. In Poland, he is a Paramedic
AND a fireman, and wanted to finance his further Paramedic training. He
lived in my house rent-free for 2 months and was employed (legally) by
my brother, who gave him more than the usual rate, because he was
family. What astonished him, was the price of food. He almost starved
buying the very, very cheapest food he could find, which was of
questionable nutritional value. My sons naturally offered him their
food, but he would not take it. When I saw him, he said he should have
done what he has done in previous years during his annual holidays and
sick-leave; get employment as a delivery driver around Europe. Far
better remuneration than in Britain. He can't understand how people can
afford to live in England, particularly Poles and other East Europeans.


Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.

Absolutely. And so many people are just standing by and letting it
happen. Somehow, they think they are being clever, modern or
"progressive" by doing this.

Racism?

No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.

And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?

No, simple stupidity and lack of education and direction. The
proletariat rule now.

To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.

Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.

I told you before about my 15-year-old niece who had hear school-bag
searched for contraband packed lunch. She was forbidden to eat the food
her mother had provided for her: chocolate biscuit; yoghurt; orange
juice; and othe stuff I forget. How will my sister-in-law persuade her
typical teenage daughter to eat only seeds or whatever the school had
deemed to be "healthy" food?


But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous ...

What? What? Where's the rest of the post?


read more


Well said, Mssr.

So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states. And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.


It's the Emperor's new clothes. Nobody wants to seem unreasonable, so
they just let it all pass them by.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 15:36:51

Ah, here it is, out of sequence!!

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhvprl$5qo$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored


That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell us.

And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.

It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.

Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon them.

It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.

Then came the meddlers.

The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.

These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.

Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.

Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.

Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.

The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)

Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.

TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.

Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.

Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.

Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.

Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.

People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.

Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?


Well, I'm glad you had the time to write that lot!
And a little overstated, maybe. :-))
But many of the things you portray as having happened certainly are at least
past the germination stage.
The potential scenario is certainly true.

We are a tolerant nation, which is probably one of our major attributes.

But we must now become intolerant of those who wish to exploit and undermine
this - and by that I mean our own politicians, not the poor folk who in many
cases are deluded into coming here.

Because our tolerance IS being undermined.
90% of people are rapidly becoming very intolerant indeed of the 10% who are
now, without any exaggeration, ruling our lives, thanks to our now
ludicrously benign attitude to PC-ism which is indeed starting to destroy
the fabric of our nation - educationally, economically, socially.

Racism?

No - please notice that all the above problems are there without even
considering 'race'.

And that is the major, major problem. Actions against a minority (of
whatever nature) are jumped on, even if sensible and practical. Actions
against a majority are not.
Is there not an insanity in there somewhere?

To illustrate, very unpopularly ... a local ethnic minority's religious
festival is welcomed, and we are all exhorted to appreciate it and to join
in - and quite rightly too ... except for the fact that kiddies' schools'
Nativity plays are then banned as being provocative.

Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.

But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for making
such an outrageous statement.

However, we still do have time to manage all this far more sensibly.
Not too long ahead, though, we won't.
And I currently see no-one on the political scene who even wants to, let
alone can.

Surreyman




Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 15:39:02

a.spencer3 wrote:


Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let alone
whatever else.

It's amazing how many people are totally unaware of this, that more than
2 centuries ago, the Crown gave property to the nation, in exchange from
an income from the Civil List.

Had the Crown kept their property, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 21 nov 2007 17:11:25

"CJ Buyers" <susuhanan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:186efebd-b927-4c63-a0ae-46c419caafe1@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 11:00 pm, "allan connochie" <conncoh...@noemail.com> wrote:
"CJ Buyers" <susuha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:e047c8aa-27f3-4fc9-a330-93f540409f3d@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 20, 7:28 am, "allan connochie" <conncoh...@noemail.com> wrote:
" I'm sorry but it interests me, and just about everyone else in my
various circles, not a dot!"

Probably because, like most Brits, they sense a republican about to
mount his soapbox,

Nah. Soap suds. I'll be washing the dishes.

No doubt that is what the rest of them hand in mind for you anyway.

It is a good trick though. Time the table to be cleared for the Speech and
there is always a host of volunteers willing to wash up :-)

Allan

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 17:14:21

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20b1da2c-f069-4841-b567-d73c646204d5@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 6:17 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored

That sounds exactly like the sort of thing Renia Simmonds might tell
us.

And she has some interesting things to say on this subject.

It sounds extremist, but lots of extremist things happen to people and
countries, and it is only generations later, that analysts can begin to
point to causes and effects of things.

Britain, predominantly England, has enjoyed a two-millenia history of
immigration and it hasn't hurt us one bit. The middle of the
twentieth-century saw the development of an almost perfect society,
looking back. A poor and bedraggled nation, climbing out of the abyss of
two world wars, but a cohesive nation: a nation whose education and
health service were the envy of the world; a nation, while not quite a
melting-pot, welcomed all and sundry and their ideas, and built upon
them.

It was a nation of political swings and roundabouts, where the two main
parties were diametrically opposed to each other and that was no bad
thing. Where one party came up with the Big Idea, the other party
cheered it. Where one party loosened taxation to a grateful nation, the
other party tightened taxation and poured it into education and the
health service.

Then came the meddlers.

The biggest disaster to face Britain, was the abandonment of the Grammar
Schools, which had begun in 1965, only two decades after they began, and
which Margaret Thatcher completed in 1976 as Education Minister.

These were schools, created in the image of the public schools for
families who could not afford public school fees. The state could not
afford for everyone to go to Grammar School and not everyone could cope
with the rigours of a Grammar School education, yet, it was decided that
selection was "unfair", that all children should attend secondary-modern
(or comprehensive) schools. Education has been increasingly dumbed down
ever since. Mrs Thatcher, also known as "the milk-snatcher" removed free
school milk from primary schools, and began the slow slide down into
fast foods and an obese society.

Now, those children who were under-educated at comprehensive schools
(that is the nature of these schools) are now running the country, in
Parliament, in Banks, in newsapers, in television, in Big Business. They
fill offices with their lack of education, vision or intelligence.

Just today, we have heard of a new piece of incompetence of unimaginable
scale.

Someone in a Government department decided two send two CDs containing
the biographical and financial details of 25 million people through the
post. The idiot did not send these CDs by courier, or registered post,
but simply plopped them in the mail. They never arrived. They are still
missing. This happened on October 18th, and we were just told today.
This is the third time this department has done something like this
within the past few months, though not on this scale.

The second disaster to face Britain, was the sale of Council Houses,
again by Mrs Thatcher. Like Grammar Schools, these houses were for those
who could not afford to buy a house of their own. Young families could
apply for a council house and they were allocated on a points system.
Then someone in Mrs Thatcher's government had the bright idea of selling
them off. It also gave the tenants the right to buy after three years,
making exhorbitant profits, helping to contribute to the increasing
costs of buying a property. (And this was just before mortgage interest
rates shot up to 15%, meaning those who had been forking out for
mortgages for years, found them almost impossible to pay and millions
found themselves repossessed. The glut of repossessions and council
houses on the market almost 20 years ago, saw a depressed market, with
many people owning houses worth less than their mortgages. It took
almost a decade to sort that one out.)

Since then, house prices have shot through the roof, to such a point,
young families cannot afford to buy a place of their own. Rental prices
are so high, young singles cannot afford to even rent a place of their
own. Some parents have supplemented the housing market by remortgaging
their homes in order to substantially contribute to the cost of their
youngsters buying property of their own. Others still have their
30-something children living at home.

TV programmes have added to the problem, with thousands of people
running around purchasing buy-to-let properties, shown to be
"oh-so-easy" in these programmes. In doing this, they are removing the
first-time-buyers from the property chain and have created a false
market. Many of these buy-to-letters now find they can't afford to run
their rental homes and there will soon be a glut of them on the market,
along with the glut of repossessions expected early next year as the
American sub-prime-mortgage debacle filters through. On top of this, the
collapse of Northern Rock has stopped mortgage lenders from lending as
much money as they have for mortgages. There will be a glut of
properties for sale, with few buyers, except the increasing numbers of
wealthy foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, who are have been
buying up everything they see.

Which brings us back to immigration. From the cohesive and
partially-multi-cultural society of the fifties and sixties, we have now
several divided societies in Britain. My grammar school accepted all
denominations: Church of England, Catholics, Jewesses, Muslims. Each
religious group had their own religious education, and yet there was
cohesion. We were all part of one society. Now, there are specialist
schools for particular religions, to such a point, there are many
schools where the first language, of some primary school children, is
not English and to such a point where many of the children do not speak
English or even understand it.

Thankfully, this incompetent government has begun to realise that
segregation is not a good thing, yet for the past decade, it has been
considered racist to even think of discussing such a thing.

Mrs Thatcher did battle with the unions. Yes, the unions had to be
curbed, but by her willpower, she managed to destroy the manufacturing
base of Britain, leaving it with a predominantly service industry. Such
an industry is fine, if your population has wealth, but the British
people do not have wealth. They have their property, but few have
running cash.

Messrs Brown and Darling are loathe to raise interest rates for fear of
recession. Recession would destroy the country, for when people are
short of cash (due to high interest rates), the first thing that they
cut back on, is the service industry. They go on fewer holidays and buy
fewer houses. They save less money and buy less insurance. They buy
fewer and cars and luxury goods, get fewer taxis and trains. Spending
less on this means jobs will be lost, which means there will be less
money, or the jobs will go abroad or to cheap foreigners, ad infinitum.

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

And all this is without going into what happens in the pubs and clubs at
the weekend, with our youngsters spilling out on to the streets, spewing
their guts up, screaming their heads off and baring their bottoms and
other bodily parts. Neither does it include the disastrous marriage and
divorce rates and that Britain has the highest number of illegitimate
children per population than the rest of the developed world.

People live in more isolation on this island than they ever have.

Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?

Well said! Hear hear!!!!!!!

Numerous excellent points which should be read
by EVERY citizen of UK and US and many other countries.

Many thanks for an outstanding posting!!

Citizen Jimserac

May one point out several daft things that you seem to agree with.

**"Without hope, or money, or a cohesion-building Royal Family, what else
does this poor, once-wonderful country have, other than its history?**

Which country is the author calling, "This poor Country", is it England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales?
The UK is composed of four countries and the UK is a political state - not ,
"A", country.

None of the UK countries are poor as the UK in general is among the World's
Top Ten Richest countries and actually comparatively richer now that she has
ever been.

http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/ ... _countries

Top 10 by GDP are -

Luxembourg ... $56,380
Norway ... $51,810
Switzerland ... $49,600
United States ... $41,440
Denmark ... $40,750
Iceland ... $37,920
Japan ... $37,050
Sweden ... $35,840
Ireland ... $34,310
United Kingdom ... $33,630

Which history are we to consider as the UK history of England tends to be
all that gets considered. We also have really stupid conclusions being
drawn from obviously wrong facts?
For example language experts often say daft things like, "This influence
came from Roman Britain", and then they ignore the simple fact that Roman
Briton did not extent beyond Hadrian's Wall.
The same applied to, "Anglo Saxon Britain" and, "Norman Britain", and, "The
Danelaw", which did not obviously encompass all of Britain.
Then we have those who jump to obvious wrong conclusions as in bold claims
like, "The Scots language is English because it came from Northumbrian",
when a moments thought would expose the simple fact that the Northumbrian
language was a language belonging to an independent country that was, at
that time, not part of England.
As to the problems of immigration, there are no real problems of
immigration. The problems all stem from the idiotic perceptions that the
country is being overrun by foreigners when the facts totally prove
otherwise.

There are conflicts over the correct numbers, so we will work it out on the
larger figure of an estimated 400,000, (year 2005).

So, as the total population of the UK is estimated to be greater than
60,000,000 we will use that rounded figure.
(400000/60000000)X100=0.6666666667 or less than 7 in every hundred at the
highest estimate.

Remember also that those figures include the immigrants from such as
Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, France, German, Italy, Sweden, Norway
and so on.
Now it seems to me that the complainers are only worried about the coloured
and/or Muslim immigrants as I cannot recall anyone complaining about the
number of USA or Canadian immigrants nor about white Europeans. The actual
figures for coloured and/or Muslims is thus really quite small.

So just what is all the fuss really about?
There are just not nearly so many of them as the whiners would have us
believe and as they have, mainly, come here to work they tend to be younger
people.
One real problem in the UK just now is the ratio of older pensioners to
younger workers and that influx of younger persons will tend to help greatly
in that direction.
We also have a big problem of finding skilled people and these younger
folks, who are not already skilled, can be trained to fill such vacant jobs.
As to the lower IQ types these can be trained to do such jobs as the UK
population think beneath their dignity to undertake.
Believe me I hold much more respect for a poorly educated immigrant toilet
cleaner than I do for a highly educated, white, UK bred, dole drawing
layabout. and we need the former and can do without the latter.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21 nov 2007 17:14:42

Renia wrote:
a.spencer3 wrote:


Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to
the state long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let
alone whatever else.

It's amazing how many people are totally unaware of this, that more
than 2 centuries ago, the Crown gave property to the nation, in
exchange from an income from the Civil List.

More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs. Who
do you think got a better deal?

Had the Crown kept their property, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.

Had the native Americans kept Manhattan, they probably would have been far
wealthier than they are now.
--
John Briggs

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21 nov 2007 17:17:04

Robert Peffers wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:JiM0j.736$B97.374@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhu78a$lge$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aaqdnYpjNdCQddzanZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhsfuv$u0i$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...
I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.

Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV
channel. That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if
you're some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like
icecream on the beach Time for tea.

You're well behind the times, perhaps you are the, "Tightwad"?
Most folks now have either Digital TVs or even Analogue/Digital
TVs and many also have Analogue/Digital TVs with SKY boxes
attached. It does not alter the fact that most folks reach for
the remote when they see the Royals on the box, and it is not to
turn up the volume either.

You claimed there was no alternative to watching the Queen's Speech
on TV. You're either a liar or a fool.

Which is it to be?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach Time for tea.

Actually I'm probably both, but that doesn't make my claims any less
true. There are very few rabid loyalists in the UK and every single
one of them are dreadful bores.
If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?

None - it's HM :-)

As I said, "Who cares anyway", and those who do are crashing bores -
as your pedantic post has just confirmed.

It's accuracy that we pedantic bores care about :-)
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 17:30:37

John Briggs wrote:


More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.

Not in England.

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 21 nov 2007 17:37:06

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1mdf$qak$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
John Briggs wrote:



More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine monarchs.

Not in England.

True

We used an axe.

Or a red hot poker up the bum...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 21 nov 2007 17:39:44

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

More than 2 centuries ago [sic], the fashion was to guillotine
monarchs.

Not in England.

Exactly - QED.

It is said that Queen Charlotte wanted to enclose St James's Park, and asked
the Prime Minister how much it would cost?

"Three Crowns, Ma'am" was the answer...

[Because of a discrepancy over the number of crowns, the original story may
have been Queen Mary II or Queen Anne and Hyde Park...]
--
John Briggs

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 21 nov 2007 17:45:03

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b_SdnU83g544pdnanZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com...
"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fi0kui$eni$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:mfGdnWsCd5lxF97anZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@bt.com...

If you put the Queen on one channel, a Scotland vs England football
match on the next and Coronation Street on another, all at the same
time, how many folks would be watching HRH?

An interesting selection of programmes.

All cheap, all minority interest, all either hated or loved.
Cheap, they are not, minority, they are not and viewing figures prove they
are far more loved than they are hated.

Sport is by far the cheapest television with mass market appeal.

Closely followed by soap operas which have low overheads for costume,
locations and actors fees on a 'screen time per £' basis.

The Queen should be cheaper than both as she doesn't get a fee, provides
her own costume and set and the OB unit doesn't need expensive weathproofing
gear.

No UK television programme can be said to be popular with a majority of the
people. The days when half the country watched any programme are long gone.

The last such programme was, I believe, 'I Claudius'.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 nov 2007 18:28:18

PROGS for PROGRAMS.

Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1enn$n45$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 18:39:13

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%9X0j.27317$ib1.15337@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_Pudne1-efI_tNnanZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iwU0j.40915$9Y3.7798@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:w9WdnTUe1fEu6d7anZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com...
"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:47 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:gZKdnRQm67tzeNzaRVnyggA@bt.com...> "a.spencer3"
a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Ruj0j.67215$%j2.57204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...

"Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:p5qdnSYm2YD6XdzaRVnyjAA@bt.com...
"a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PCX%i.40544$9Y3.13102@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message


news:00b09b84-0b6b-40ba-90fb-33cedf792d02@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...



On Nov 12, 1:56 pm, Turenne <richard.licht...@virgin.net
wrote:
CitizenJimseracwrote:
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant
since
it
is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam
would
be
too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

I can only assume that you are joking when you make that
assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he
accedes
to
the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm
sure
he
has
no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened
monarchy
is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150
years
ago.
The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in
Osborne/
Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's
abdication
and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's
handling
of
matters
after Diana's death.

Richard Lichten

Understood Mssr, but AH! AT LAST! someone has actually
acknowledged
that there WAS a weakening of the monarchy as part of the
adverse
public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matter
after
Diana's
death.

The question arises, how much weakening?

As the world watched in stunned amazement at the time, the
normally
loyalist (for the most part) Britishers unleashed a wave of
criticism
that must have rocked the palace to its very foundations.
In
an
unprecedented and wise move, supposedly instigated by
Prince
Charles,
the Queen eventually made a moving and quite appropos
statement
regarding Diana and that was the end of it.

But it was not the end of it. For that much resentment to
so
easily
and so quickly rise to the surface even to the point of
major
newspapers showing front page headlines criticizing the
Queen,
this
is
indicative of the deepest and most profound instabilities
in
the
Britishers support for the Queen and/or the monarchy
itself.
Some
will dismiss that as anti-monarchy press, yellow journalism
and
so
forth. Unfortunately, the monarchy is not nearly as strong
as
it
was
150 years ago, on that I must diagree.

It is just as strong.
Just not unquestioned and very much more examined, as is the
way
of
the
day.

Surreyman

In the end not a lot of British people give a damn about the
Royals
anyway.
--

Arrant nonsense.
Maybe a Scottish viewpoint from some sectors.

Surreyman

Rubbish! Most Englanders couldn't give a damn either.

OK, let's have some facts, rather than one person's totally extreme
(and
wrong) view.
You're entitled to it, but don't gross it by some 60 million!

Surreyman

So, the supposedly errant opinions of Mssr. Jimserac have
been confirmed and it is NOT just some Scottish people but
also some Englanders who have LESS than sparkling
dedication to the royals.

That does not mean that the monarchy is in imminent
danger (it was after Diana's death, for a brief period however)
now but it only means WEAKENED.

The cure is simple as my theory of Diana's significance
and the meaning of the worldwide notoriety which she
attained for reasons other than her fashions will attest.

The royals must follow her lead and BECOME POLITICAL.

Oh yes, it is AGAINST CONVENTION but I propose
the idea that it is the very action of becoming controversial
and the very action of eschewing their current
somewhat desultory lifestyle (yes, I know about the
charities, that's very good) that is the key to their
survival.

It is only in this manner that not only the
monarchy but also England itself will be
saved from the slowly growing parasitic
cultural invasion that will eat away
its language, culture, society, laws
and its very identity, slowly but surely
and whose threat remains dismissed,
laughed at or ignored even while
the same effect disembowels France
before our very eyes.

Citizen Jimserac

Why bother?
We can just stop paying for them from the public purse and let them
exist
on
their own, quite substantial, resources.
In point of fact the Queen is, by far, the wealthiest woman in the
World.
The Royals get a very income from their lands and properties. By far
the
recipient of the largest share of European green grants from the EU is
none
other than HRH Elizabeth Regina and every member of the Royal family
owns
much land and property in their own right.
They would, most certainly, not be poverty stricken without the
Public's
contribution.
--

Get some knowledge.
The Civil List is more than paid for by properties relinquished to the
state
long ago.
The nation makes a profit from the Royals on this basis alone, let
alone
whatever else.

Surreyman



That might be true if you were actually dealing with correct figures.
For example, as you are lecturing me on the subject of the costs to the
public of the royals, give me an answer to this?

Last week we had a report of a certain young royal's private executive
jet
making an emergency landing at Edinburgh Airport.
He had been jaunting around, as usual, for his own enjoyment.
So are the costs of this spoilt brat's use of such transport, the cost of
that emergency and the ongoing costs of this bloody parasite born by the
royal purse or from the public purse?
In any event, if the royals can afford to finance such extravagant
lifestyles, do the really need support from the public purse that
underfunds
what was shown this week to be Europe's very worst state retirement
pension?
Cut them loose, charge them income tax like everyone else, and put the,
"Jobs", they undertake for the UK out to tender. I'm sure Vera Duckworth,
Emily Bishop, Ken Barlow, David Beckham or any other overpaid, "Celeb",
would be only too glad to undercut the royals fee for launching some ship
or
other and Terry Wogan could perhaps, waive his fee, as he did for,
"Children
in need", to deliver the Christmas message.
--

I agree entirely with stopping any extravagant use of the public purse
where
that happens.
As to the rest, what's the point. It's just your extreme opinion, and by
no
means everyone else's.

Surreyman



In the first place I made no claim whatsoever the views being express
belonged to everyone.
In the second what makes them extreme?
In the third place where is there clear proof that I am in the minority?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 21 nov 2007 19:29:27

"Citizen Jimserac" <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f706ab9-b422-41d9-8fa9-1620645d949b@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 5:11 am, "a.spencer3" <a.spenc...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message

news:fhvprl$5qo$1@mouse.otenet.gr...



D. Spencer Hines wrote:

"CitizenJimserac" <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae1c238-e490-47f9-b65c-92ea3d8318d7@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
snip


Think around that - that's just about EVERY current UK problem in a
nutshell.

But I now just await the slings and arrows that could fly at me for
making
such an outrageous ...

read more

Well said, Mssr.

So the old "intolerance" bugaboo is being used
to beat down dissent, just as in the states.
Nope!
And the politicians in
the U.S. somehow side with political incorrectness when one attempts
to speak out against the influx of people who are not
just culturally "diverse" but whose explicit goal is to
destroy and/or subvert the host culture - PERMANENTLY.
So first define who these are then explain where action is not already being

taken against them?
In the first place you use rather a wide brush and make great sweeping
generalisations with it.
You attempt to tar those who are innocent of your charges along with those
who MAY be.
As an example - the overwhellming numbers of Muslims in the UK are NOT
extremists and the overwhellming numbers of Christians in the UK are not
extremeists.
Those of both religions who are are subject to the same laws and if they
break these laws they face the same charges in the same courts and, if found
guilty, they face the same punishment.
Need I repeat the warnings of the HEROIC Italian journalist,
a woman persecuted in Italy when she warned openly
of the subversion which had already begun to
undermine the identity of Europe, a woman
who was shot and left for dead in the Mexico riots of the late 60's
and this same woman who interviewed the senior Khomeni and then
defied him face to face by ripping off garments which she deemed
subversive of HER culture and HER individuality since she was
NOT a member of Khomeni's "faith".
That woman was very obviously just as much an extremist in another person's

country as her counterparts in the UK are with extreme anti-Christian
actions.
In another person's country she is subject to the laws of that country and
thus was not HEROIC - just plain a plainly stupid extremeist.
I leave you with a quote
from her book, "The Rage and the Pride" as I urge all of
you to read her arguments pointing to the dire
consequences of the parasitic subversion which proceeds
unchallenged even now.
Where, in the UK, is it not challanged?

Who are you advocating we take action against that we do not already do so?
"There are moments in Life
when keeping silent becomes a fault,
and speaking an obligation. A civic duty,
a moral challenge, a categorical imperative
from which we cannot escape".
(Oriana Falluci, The Rage and the Pride")

Citizen Jimserac
The United Kingdom has laws that take action against those who make any kind

of discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, sexual
orientation, gender, colour, race, disability and so on. They also have laws
against anyone who advocates violence or death against anyone and they have
anti-terrorist laws too.

You are getting very close to advocating action against people on religious
grounds, (and, before you start, get things right, I'm not saying a word
supporting terrorists or those who would force others to follow a religion
that is not their choice).

For a starter most Muslims are perfectly innocent of terrorist activities
and no more inclined to attempt to convert people than are the Jehovah's
Witness' or the Mormons who can, and do, knock doors all over the UK and
make the attempt to convert strangers to their , some would say, extreme,
religious beliefs.

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 20:22:25

Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1epg$n45$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message
and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and
change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.




Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV


channel.


That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...



Isn't it on ITV any more?



Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in
December.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach
Time for tea.



Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.


It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella,
so it
doesn't depend on where you are.


It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite
local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national
companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite
distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff
off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but
some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV


Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.



And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman



Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this
respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and
check out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and
these too often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different
area, "Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we
Scots get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of
the Day", but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually
London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs
from that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and
weather, while the network usually shows the London area news, sport
and weather from the London Studio.


You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.

As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.


Aw! Come on! In a discussion about how almost all terrestrial channels
carry the Queen's Christmas message live. You wrote this, "It covers
all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it doesn't
depend on where you are".
Considering that even the BBC1 has 18 different areas that do NOT carry
identical programmes that was a rather mistaken claim to make.
Especially as you seemed to be arguing the point with me just for the
sake of it.

Are you as unpleasant as this in real life?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 nov 2007 22:09:12

DEFINITELY...

Infra Dig...

Like saying "Phillie" for Philadelphia...

Or...

"Frisco" for San Francisco...

Further...

There's no apostrophe in PHOTOS.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi20dp$ufs$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

PROGS for PROGRAMS.

Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?

No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.

(only without the apostrophe)

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1enn$n45$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


Rubbish. I'm aware that local versions have their own progs and that some
progs are shown at different times. I've watched ITV for 50 years. I know
how it works.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 nov 2007 22:25:02

We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...

DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 21 nov 2007 22:36:35

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...

So? How do you know how he speaks in his living room?

We not you are the only person here who uses the word "pogue" and other
such silliness.


DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman



D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22 nov 2007 06:46:55

Writing is not speaking.

The written language is never precisely the same as the spoken language.

Learn The Differences.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi28b5$207$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...

So? How do you know how he speaks in his living room?

????????

Irrelevant.

DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 22 nov 2007 10:59:58

CJ Buyers wrote:

Indeed, republicans are not very intelligent folk, so it is quite easy
to play on their gullibility. Washing diches is the best occupation so
far devised for them.


Washing ditches or dishes?

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 22 nov 2007 11:43:45

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:4n11j.787$Ig4.3137@eagle.america.net...
We note with approbation that Surreyman does not write "PROGS"...


Not so. Google a bit.

Surreyman

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 22 nov 2007 12:18:03

In article <29CdnSyGMsOW5NnanZ2dnUVZ8t6inZ2d@bt.com>, Robert Peffers
<peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
The United Kingdom has laws that take action against those who make any
kind of discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, sexual
orientation, gender, colour, race, disability and so on.

The concept of religion (or what constitutes religious activity) is not well
defined, the concept of race is an utter nonsense, and I have no understanding
of what is meant by colour. I do discriminate (ie I can observe differences)
but I don't offer or restrict favours or services on unreasonable grounds. But
whilst I have no objection to Creationists believing whatever nonsense they
want, I will fiercely oppose their attempts to foist their ignorance through
public education whilst calling it science. Is that 'discrimination on grounds
of religion'? I likewise object to religious groups making threats against
those who have rejected those religious groups. Do I 'discriminate'?

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 22 nov 2007 13:39:13

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi20fj$ufs$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi1epg$n45$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:TzU0j.40916$9Y3.32565@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi01m4$8qi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhstop$36e$4@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fhshdi$431$1@registered.motzarella.org...


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhsgsh$tki$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcWdndHfTMI_XNzanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@bt.com...

I would think that, excepting the Queen's Christmas Message
and
the minutes silence, most TV viewers do just as I do and
change
channels when any royals are on TV.
The Queen's Christmas message is different. You don't get a
choice except the off button.




Bollocks

The Queen's Christmas Message is carried by a single BBC TV


channel.


That leaves at least four other terestrial channels if you're
some
Scotch tightwad who won't spring £20 for a Freeview box...



Isn't it on ITV any more?



Well I've been abroad for the past two Christmases, but it
certainly wasn't on ITV the last time I was in the UK in
December.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the
beach
Time for tea.



Err! ITV is rather a generic term and depends on where you are.


It covers all the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella,
so it
doesn't depend on where you are.


It does not cover all the the independent channels. It is quite
local
but has a network too.
There are around 15 regional areas and a couple of national
companies,
among them GMTV who use the other areas transmitters.
They not only do their own area but have national networks. For
example
Scotland had three, STV, Grampian and Borders. These were quite
distinct
companies but at least STV and Grampian are now part of SMG. I'm
not
sure about Borders. These do local broadcasts but also take stuff
off
the ITV net. All ITV areas do their own local news and sport, but
some
do these as inserts into the ITV grid. You can find out much more
about
them here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV


Thanks for that. It confirms what I said, that all those Channels are
franchised under the ITV umbrella.



And very often indeed carry simultaneous national programmes.

Surreyman



Indeed, *** The very often *** do.
And they, *** very often ***, don't.
Local news, politics, weather and sporting events and important local
happenings all have their own local coverage and certain national
happenings are all covered by the ITV companies both at different
times.
It may also surprise many that the BBC is exactly the same in this
respect.
If you have a Sky box attached then go to your programme list and check
out that channels 972 - 988 cover 17 BBC1 local areas and these too
often show different items.
This though does not take account for each area having different area,
"Inserts", for local news, politics and sports.
Could you imaging the uproar if Englanders had to suffer what we Scots
get on a regular basis when we do not get our local, "Match of the
Day", but instead that of an English Premiership match, usually London?
What if BBC put out Gaelic Programmes in the Deep South East of
England?
Note an, "Insert" , is when the local studio in each area departs from
that of the network and transmits the local area news, sport and
weather, while the network usually shows the London area news, sport
and weather from the London Studio.


You are teaching grandma to suck eggs.

As usual, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.


Aw! Come on! In a discussion about how almost all terrestrial channels
carry the Queen's Christmas message live. You wrote this, "It covers all
the Independent channels under the ITV umbrella, so it doesn't depend on
where you are".
Considering that even the BBC1 has 18 different areas that do NOT carry
identical programmes that was a rather mistaken claim to make. Especially
as you seemed to be arguing the point with me just for the sake of it.

Are you as unpleasant as this in real life?

No! Only to those who are as unpleasant, obtuse and argumentative as you
seem to be.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 22 nov 2007 13:44:30

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi20dp$ufs$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

PROGS for PROGRAMS.

Is this some more British Underclass Prole Pogueish Slang?

No, it's an abbreviation, rather like photos.

(only without the apostrophe)



DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas


No, but this most certainly is, "Is this some more British Underclass Prole
Pogueish Slang?".
If you seriously imagine that little effort is standard, "Queen's ",
English, then please think again.
Furthermore, the incessant use of such an objectionable word may just see
posts containing it consigned, unread, into the junk folder.

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 22 nov 2007 23:16:35

In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
:> In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
:> : The Highlander wrote:
:> :
:> :> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> :> <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:> :>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:> :>>
:> :>>>In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:> :>>>
:> :>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:> :>>>>
:> :>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:> :>>>>>
:> :>>>>>
:> :>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>>>>>>Line of
:> :>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :>>>>>>
:> :>>>>>
:> :>>>>>Why?
:> :>>>>
:> :>>>>Why indeed !
:> :>>>>
:> :>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:> :>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:> :>>>>becomes King.
:> :>>>>
:> :>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:> :>>>>
:> :>>>
:> :>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:> :>>>--
:> :>>>Member - Liberal International
:> :>>>This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
:> :>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:> :>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:> :>>
:> :>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:> :>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> Currently numbering around 40 members.
:> :
:> : They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
:> : but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
:>
:> It all depends on your definition.
:>
:> Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
:> to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
:> they are or have married Roman Catholics.
:>
:> Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.
:
: I'm talking about the Civil List.

But you're interpreting it to say those Royally titled whose
Civil List allowances (in connection with duties they do perform)
are refunded by the Queen to HM Treasury,are therefore not royal?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 22 nov 2007 23:21:44

Louis Epstein wrote:

In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
:> In alt.talk.royalty Renia <renia@deleteotenet.gr> wrote:
:> : The Highlander wrote:
:> :
:> :> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
:> :> <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :
:> :>>"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
:> :>>news:fh0jjo$4gu$7@gallifrey.nk.ca...
:> :
:> :>>>In article <mn.459d7d7b8f3da807.81063@gmail.co>, Baldoni <spam> wrote:
:> :
:> :>>>>Hal expressed precisely :
:> :
:> :>>>>>On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :>>>>>I'll spare the Irish.
:> :
:> :
:> :>>>>>>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>>>>>>Line of
:> :>>>>>>Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :
:> :
:> :>>>>>Why?
:> :
:> :>>>>Why indeed !
:> :
:> :>>>>All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
:> :>>>>somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
:> :>>>>becomes King.
:> :
:> :>>>>In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
:> :
:> :
:> :>>>Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
:> :>>>--
:> :>>>Member - Liberal International
:> :>>>This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
:> :>>>God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
:> :>>>Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
:> :
:> :>>What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
:> :>>other member of the very large Royal family.
:> :
:> :
:> :> Currently numbering around 40 members.
:> :
:> : They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
:> : but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
:
:> It all depends on your definition.
:
:> Everyone descended legitimately from the Electress Sophia is considered
:> to have an eligibility for the Throne by the Act of Settlement,unless
:> they are or have married Roman Catholics.
:
:> Only a few of them have British royal titles or duties.
:
: I'm talking about the Civil List.

But you're interpreting it to say those Royally titled whose
Civil List allowances (in connection with duties they do perform)
are refunded by the Queen to HM Treasury,are therefore not royal?

Of course they are royal, but they not all of them receive money from
the civil list. When people complain about the size of the royal family,
they are really complaining about how many of them receive money from
the civil list.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 22 nov 2007 23:31:32

In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:43:11 GMT, "allan connochie"
: <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
:>
:>"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
:>news:vo-dnZVv2aak3aPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:>> In alt.talk.royalty Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
:>> : On Nov 9, 8:44 am, Breton <royalistper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>> :> On Nov 8, 6:57 pm, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
:>> :>
:>> :> > All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
:>> :>
:>> :> Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
:>> :> in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
:>> :>
:>> :
:>> : Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
:>> : importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
:>> : LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
:>> :
:>> : With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
:>> : obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
:>> : weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
:>> :
:>> : Citizen Jimserac
:>>
:>> The mere entertainment of abdication as an option weakens the Monarchy.
:>
:>The fact the monarchy is entertainment has weakened the monarchy though that
:>in itself was probably inevitable anyway.
:>
:>Allan
:>
: I remember a specific example, when some idiot organized a TV quiz
: show called "Royals vs. Commoners" or something similar and it quickly
: became clear that the commoners were way ahead of the royals
: intellectually. The studio audience seemed slightly stunned by this
: revelation, and I have no doubt that people watching at home said
: "Good God - even I knew THAT!" when yet another royal revealed his or
: her ignorance. The continual haw-hawing of the royals didn't help.
:
: It was, to put it bluntly, a shameful display and I have no doubt that
: many began to wonder why they were paying via their taxes and the
: civil list to maintain these illiterati in such style.

The Civil List is paid in return for the right to an outrageously
greater stream of income from the Crown Estates...the profit the
Treasury leeches off the Royals is enormous.

: There was a joke doing the rounds at that time about a local squire
: visiting the parish school and the headmaster, wishing to show off his
: pupils' knowledge, asked one little boy, "Who wrote MacBeth?"
:
: The little boy stammered, "Please sir, it wasn't me."
:
: The headmaster and squire adjourned to the headmaster's study and over
: a glass of sherry, the headmaster tried to make light of the pupil's
: gaffe, saying that he was probably trying to be funny. The squire,
: haw-hawing jovially, said, "Oh, he didn't fool me for a second; I
: guessed right away the little bugger had done it!"
:
: I suspect that summarises the intellectual level of much of the
: English landed gentry.

That you would subscribe to such a stereotype certainly would (if
I did the same) indicate a weak intellectual level on the part of
(ahem) Highlanders.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 22 nov 2007 23:33:04

In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:47:47 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
: <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:
:>VERY weak and unimaginative TU QUOQUE from Pogue Highlander.
:
: Don't you think it's time for you to die? Your usefulness has expired.

Are you threatening to behead him and shout "There can be only one!"?

:>Score one for Citizen Jimserac.
:>
:>DSH
:>
:>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
:>
:>"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message
:>news:6vs0k3lo8rtlttapqhlju2pu3bqsbeivk0@4ax.com...
:>
:>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:10:02 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
:>> <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>>>Looks like you're standing in more crap!
:>>>It is now all the way up to your head!
:>>>
:>>>Citizen Jimserac
:>>
:>> You're the expert!
:>
:

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 25 nov 2007 05:15:13

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
: news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :>
:> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession,
:> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first
:> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :
:> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
:> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :
:> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
:> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :
:> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:>
:> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:
: The Arbroath Letter states categorically

and incorrectly

: that if the monarch isn't acting on
: behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert himself
: must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy about
: it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
: (admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English power
: base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what a

Contrafactually asserted,is my point...

: monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
: Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
: Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea that
: it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is as
: old as the hills,

No matter how old or how popular the idea is,
it's wrong...anyone who holds it doesn't understand
intrinsic properties of Monarchy that man is as
powerless to change as the laws of gravity.

: in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
: itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is that
: if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if but
: I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!

And,being a Republic,legitimacy would be totally beyond its
capacity to possess!

: Allan

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 25 nov 2007 10:28:40

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
: news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :
:> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
Succession,
:> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first
:> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :
:> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
:> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :
:> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States".
it
:> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :
:> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:
:> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:
: The Arbroath Letter states categorically

and incorrectly

Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
end.

Allan

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 20:55:54

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
: news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :
:> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
Succession,
:> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first
:> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :
:> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
:> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :
:> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States".
it
:> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :
:> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:
:> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:
: The Arbroath Letter states categorically

and incorrectly

: that if the monarch isn't acting on
: behalf of the Scottish people then they can be deposed. King Robert
himself
: must have agreed to this contractual monarchy even if he wasn't happy
about
: it. However James VII was actually thrown off the throne by the Scots
: (admittedly they could only safely do this once he'd lost his English
power
: base) and was proclaimed a traitor. Again it was spelt out clearly what
a

Contrafactually asserted,is my point...

: monarch must do to hold the crown and that was they had to be of the
: Scottish royal line, be of the Protestant faith and swear the Coronation
: Oath guaranteeing the Presbyterian settlement in Scotland. So the idea
that
: it is contractual with the people as to who gets to sit on the throne is
as
: old as the hills,

No matter how old or how popular the idea is,
it's wrong...anyone who holds it doesn't understand
intrinsic properties of Monarchy that man is as
powerless to change as the laws of gravity.

Tell that to the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs.

: in England as well as in Scotland. As to the monarchy
: itself, no matter what you think, or wish, the case to be, the fact is
that
: if the British people decided they wanted a Republic (a mighty big if
but
: I'm talking hypothetically) then a Republic there would be!

And,being a Republic,legitimacy would be totally beyond its
capacity to possess!
Is that because God gave them that right?

Does such a God that actually exist?

--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 25 nov 2007 20:58:30

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:cfb2j.43773$T8.24715@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
: news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :
:> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
Succession,
:> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his
first
:> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :
:> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX,
Queen
:> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :
:> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States".
it
:> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :
:> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:
:> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:
: The Arbroath Letter states categorically

and incorrectly

Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact
is that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it
would end.

Allan


Most certainly the new Australian government has stated that they are
anti-Royalist.
Will they just ditch the Queen of the UK or will they hold a referendum?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 27 nov 2007 06:08:31

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
: news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> : news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> :> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> :> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> :> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal
:> :> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :> :>
:> :> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
:> Succession,
:> :> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first
:> :> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :> :
:> :> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
:> :> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
:> :> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :> :
:> :> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States".
:> it
:> :> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :> :
:> :> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
:> :>
:> :> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> :> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> :> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:> :
:> : The Arbroath Letter states categorically
:>
:> and incorrectly
:
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it would
: end.

And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 27 nov 2007 14:09:37

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:qYCdncKoz5zSO9banZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
: news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> : news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> :> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> :> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> :> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the
Royal
:> :> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :> :
:> :> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
:> Succession,
:> :> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his
first
:> :> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :> :
:> :> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King
of
:> :> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX,
Queen
:> :> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :> :
:> :> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United
States".
:> it
:> :> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :> :
:> :> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the
people.
:> :
:> :> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> :> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> :> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:> :
:> : The Arbroath Letter states categorically
:
:> and incorrectly
:
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The fact
is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or
much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it
would
: end.

And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 28 nov 2007 00:14:30

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:qYCdncKoz5zSO9banZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
: Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The
fact is
: that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the monarchy
: itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland; or
much
: more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the monarchy then it
would
: end.

And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would come
to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time warp :-)

Allan
>

Westprog

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Westprog » 28 nov 2007 14:04:29

allan connochie wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
....
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

--



J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 28 nov 2007 22:13:21

"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fijp0i$qob$1@news.datemas.de...
allan connochie wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
...
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get rid
of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of god
given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or so
and it didn't hold sway before that either.


Allan

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 29 nov 2007 06:28:17

In alt.talk.royalty Robert Peffers <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote:
: "Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
: news:qYCdncKoz5zSO9banZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :
:> : "Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
:> : news:ppedncynXIdMa9XanZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> :> In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> : "Louis Epstein" wrote in message
:> :> : news:vo-dnZdv2abX3KPanZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
:> :> :> In alt.talk.royalty The Highlander <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote:
:> :> :> : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
:> :> :> : <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :>It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the
:> Royal
:> :> :> :>Line of Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :>Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of
:> :> Succession,
:> :> :> :>who was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his
:> first
:> :> :> :>cousin, twice removed to the throne in 1603.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King
:> of
:> :> :> : Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX,
:> Queen
:> :> :> : of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United
:> States".
:> :> it
:> :> :> : would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the
:> people.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> That is a misapprehension about the immutable,universal nature of
:> :> :> Monarchy held by certain Scots,evidenced on certain occasions as the
:> :> :> Mistaken Allegation of Arbroath.
:> :> :
:> :> : The Arbroath Letter states categorically
:> :>
:> :> and incorrectly
:> :
:> : Incorrectly in your opinion........which doesn't matter a hoot! The
:> : fact is that monarchs have been deposed throughout history. As to the
:> : monarchy itself then hypothetically if the UK; or an independent Scotland;
:> : or much more possibly Australia chose to end the rule of the
:> : monarchy then it would end.
:>
:> And this would,unequivocally,be wrong.
:>
:
: Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
: If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

Democracy has no place except as the obedient servant of Monarchy.

The superiority of Monarchy to other forms of government is no
more subject to change in the face of popular desire than the
laws of physics.

:> -=-=-
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Louis Epstein » 29 nov 2007 06:29:06

In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
: news:fijp0i$qob$1@news.datemas.de...
:> allan connochie wrote:
:>> "Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:>> news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
:> ...
:>>> Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
:>>> If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.
:>
:>> That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
:>> come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
:>> warp :-)
:>
:> ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.
:
: They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get rid
: of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
: unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of god
: given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or so
: and it didn't hold sway before that either.

But anyone who believes it is right,
and anyone who denies it is wrong.

: Allan

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 29 nov 2007 10:47:09

"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:RRk3j.38670$dN2.27498@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fijp0i$qob$1@news.datemas.de...
allan connochie wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
...
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get
rid
of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of
god
given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or
so
and it didn't hold sway before that either.


But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal apparently
worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less attractive?

Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an EU
referendum!

Surreyman

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 29 nov 2007 11:55:04

In article <xUv3j.16$pC2.8@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an EU
referendum!

You are getting fixed ideas in your old age. It is not necessary to take a
swipe at the government at every opportunity. In any case referenda are stupid
ideas...

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 29 nov 2007 12:00:08

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f494ca7f3john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <xUv3j.16$pC2.8@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow an
EU
referendum!

You are getting fixed ideas in your old age. It is not necessary to take a
swipe at the government at every opportunity. In any case referenda are
stupid
ideas...


Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.
You've got me wrong. Given the current crowd I'd probably rather have the
present government than any of the alternatives.
But it's the bad choice from even worse.

Surreyman

Westprog

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Westprog » 29 nov 2007 12:11:48

a.spencer3 wrote:
....
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The Australians
were faced with the possibility of any number of their own politicians being
Head Of State.

The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his international news
network) were keen to avoid any mention of the alternative. They wanted to
just be allowed vote out the monarchy - which would probably have worked.

IMO it's reasonable enough to insist that if you want to change something,
you decide what you want to change to.

Which is precisely what would probably happen if Brown ever did allow
an EU referendum!


--



J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 29 nov 2007 12:40:03

In article <YYw3j.28$pC2.16@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.

It is when you are too stupid (not you - but the commentators) to appreciate
simple facts and logic. They seem to think that "I had a policy of not
accepting donations from people I didn't know" is the same as "I knew the
donation wasn't really from her". When you hear an announcement, and an
immediate response to it that mangles it for political effect, you (should)
stop taking note of those swipes.

Data loss: almost certainly because the department is tied in to a private
company who charge thousands of pounds for a 10 minute job. Why are government
departments tied into private companies with such badly negotiated terms?
Because Thatcher insisted on it and Blair failed to undo all the knots.

Funding: Labour do far worse than the Tories because their large scale funding
is done somewhat amateurishly by individuals whilst the Tories get it from
people who hire lawyers and accountants by the dozen rather than the hour. The
Tories walked out off the discussions about opening up funding when they
realised that the quid pro quo for union funding (where the individual member
can opt out of paying his/her share) might be balanced by allowing
shareholders to individually opt out of company funding. The Tories feel safe
only because a line has been drawn under their earlier very murky and mucky
practices - although a certain peerage should certainly be questioned as it's
holder still doesn't appear to be paying UK taxes, despite very specific
promises that were due to be filled quite some years ago.

All the public hear is the Tories "get the police in" and "resign" ignoring
the fact that the Labour governments are the ones who have improved the
situation immeasurably against the wishes of the Tories who are / were
responsible for the problems in the first place. Any reasonable commentator
would make that plain - but we don't have those anymore.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 29 nov 2007 12:47:17

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f49516153john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <YYw3j.28$pC2.16@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.

It is when you are too stupid (not you - but the commentators) to
appreciate
simple facts and logic. They seem to think that "I had a policy of not
accepting donations from people I didn't know" is the same as "I knew the
donation wasn't really from her". When you hear an announcement, and an
immediate response to it that mangles it for political effect, you
(should)
stop taking note of those swipes.

Data loss: almost certainly because the department is tied in to a private
company who charge thousands of pounds for a 10 minute job. Why are
government
departments tied into private companies with such badly negotiated terms?
Because Thatcher insisted on it and Blair failed to undo all the knots.

Funding: Labour do far worse than the Tories because their large scale
funding
is done somewhat amateurishly by individuals whilst the Tories get it from
people who hire lawyers and accountants by the dozen rather than the hour.
The
Tories walked out off the discussions about opening up funding when they
realised that the quid pro quo for union funding (where the individual
member
can opt out of paying his/her share) might be balanced by allowing
shareholders to individually opt out of company funding. The Tories feel
safe
only because a line has been drawn under their earlier very murky and
mucky
practices - although a certain peerage should certainly be questioned as
it's
holder still doesn't appear to be paying UK taxes, despite very specific
promises that were due to be filled quite some years ago.

All the public hear is the Tories "get the police in" and "resign"
ignoring
the fact that the Labour governments are the ones who have improved the
situation immeasurably against the wishes of the Tories who are / were
responsible for the problems in the first place. Any reasonable
commentator
would make that plain - but we don't have those anymore.


You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.
The donation events are apparently pretty obvious, and most certainly don't
need police investigations, for Gawd's sake.
The disk events were much more potentially serious, but are an office
procedures problem, not a national political scandal.
It's the spin accompanying the events which it is sad to see, and that does
deserve the opposition's energy.
I thought Brown was going to produce an unimaginative administration, but
I'd hoped we'd got rid of these unnecessary sillies.

Surreyman

Westprog

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Westprog » 29 nov 2007 13:04:27

Westprog wrote:
a.spencer3 wrote:
...
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.

The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his
international news network) were keen to avoid any mention of the
alternative. They wanted to just be allowed vote out the monarchy -
which would probably have worked.

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of
Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced
by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the
Commonwealth Parliament."

There was some feeling that the President should have been directly elected.
However, the Irish experience doesn't show that a directly elected president
is a way to get away from political appointments of party hacks.

--



J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 29 nov 2007 13:05:04

In article <fim6o9$bc2$1@news.datemas.de>,
Westprog <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote:
What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The Australians
were faced with the possibility of any number of their own politicians being
Head Of State.

the UK had a republican fringe until someone whispered the words "President
Thatcher". There is no UK republican movement now.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Westprog

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Westprog » 29 nov 2007 13:09:24

John Cartmell wrote:

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.

the UK had a republican fringe until someone whispered the words
"President Thatcher". There is no UK republican movement now.

The strange thing is that opposition to the Royal Family didn't involve
republicans, but Diana supporters. There are plenty of people who don't want
her ex-husband, but most of them would favour her son. Though the real
hard-line Dianistas don't regard anyone else as worthy of her.

--



J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 29 nov 2007 13:15:05

In article <9Fx3j.50908$T8.4831@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.

And I with yours! ;-)

My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't thrown
out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is privatisation of
local and central government functions; without the privatisation of cleaning
hospitals could better get a grip on infections. A bigger one is the pride in
doing a job well - though I don't think this can ever be repaired.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 29 nov 2007 13:26:23

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f49548650john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <9Fx3j.50908$T8.4831@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
You might be surprised to hear that I agree with most of that.

And I with yours! ;-)

My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown
out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is privatisation of
local and central government functions; without the privatisation of
cleaning
hospitals could better get a grip on infections. A bigger one is the pride
in
doing a job well - though I don't think this can ever be repaired.

Yep, absolutely.

And trains ... post ... telephones ... water ... I never thought, say, 20
years back, that I'd be pro-nationalisation! With all its ills, it can be
better.
We must stop meeting like this.

Surreyman

Westprog

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Westprog » 29 nov 2007 13:34:28

John Cartmell wrote:
My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

--



J/

SOTW: "Ellen West" - Throwing Muses

Féachadóir

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Féachadóir » 29 nov 2007 14:18:15

Scríobh "Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com>:
Westprog wrote:
a.spencer3 wrote:
...
ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to
get rid of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of
monarchy is unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it
is some kind of god given position. Nobody much has believed that in
Britain for 300 years or so and it didn't hold sway before that
either.

But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less
attractive?

What they did was to consider what the alternatives were. The
Australians were faced with the possibility of any number of their
own politicians being Head Of State.

The opponents of the monarchy (including Murdoch and his
international news network) were keen to avoid any mention of the
alternative. They wanted to just be allowed vote out the monarchy -
which would probably have worked.

"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of
Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced
by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the
Commonwealth Parliament."

There was some feeling that the President should have been directly elected.
However, the Irish experience doesn't show that a directly elected president
is a way to get away from political appointments of party hacks.

The Irish experience is that Presidents are best kept politically
neutered, while Parliament does the heavy lifting. Their job is to
greet visiting ambassadors, open shopping centres, occasionally make
an interesting speech, and step in as rarely as possible when the
normal machinery of government breaks down. As an added bonus, the
prospect of the president intervening usually focuses the minds of
parliamentarians when there's a hint of a constitutional crisis.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 29 nov 2007 15:10:07

In article <fimbja$21u$1@news.datemas.de>,
Westprog <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

I did say privatisation of local and central government functions! Whilst
power supply, water supply, telecommunications, public transport, and sewerage
could reasonably be included in that - BL or BMC isn't. Thankfully. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 29 nov 2007 15:46:02

"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fimbja$21u$1@news.datemas.de...
John Cartmell wrote:
My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

You mean leaky uncomfortable cars and motorcycles that needed servicing
every trip, all run by a set of 'decent chaps' who 'had a good war' and
treated their customers with contempt because they couldn't afford a Rolls
or a Jag, and Trade Unions who thought the words 'quality control' were an
insult and reveled in the horrors of piece work and restrictive practices no
matter how their members suffered?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 29 nov 2007 19:42:05

"Louis Epstein" <le@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:LN-dnSsa1s2_09PanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@velocitywest.net...
In alt.talk.royalty allan connochie <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
:
: "Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
: news:fijp0i$qob$1@news.datemas.de...
:> allan connochie wrote:
:>> "Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
:>> news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
:> ...
:>>> Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
:>>> If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.
:
:>> That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
:>> come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
:>> warp :-)
:
:> ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.
:
: They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get
rid
: of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
: unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of
god
: given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years
or so
: and it didn't hold sway before that either.

But anyone who believes it is right,
and anyone who denies it is wrong.

I imagine flat earthers say the same.

Allan

allan connochie

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av allan connochie » 29 nov 2007 19:44:41

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xUv3j.16$pC2.8@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:RRk3j.38670$dN2.27498@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fijp0i$qob$1@news.datemas.de...
allan connochie wrote:
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9Yednbh6M4KPitHanZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com...
...
Why would it. Australia is a democracy.
If the majority do not want a queen then they will not have a queen.

That is the logical conclusion that modern free thinking people would
come to. The other poster seems to be living in his own little time
warp :-)

ISTR that the Australians recently had a referendum on the issue.

They did and they decided to keep the monarchy. If they'd decided to get
rid
of it then it'd go. Louis suggests that getting rid of monarchy is
unequivocally wrong though. He seems to believe that it is some kind of
god
given position. Nobody much has believed that in Britain for 300 years or
so
and it didn't hold sway before that either.


But, without knowing the details, wasn't the referendum proposal
apparently
worded so as to make the 'non-Royal' option less attractive?


I've no idea. It was the general principle that a monarch only has the right
to rule when the people wish the monarchy to remain in place that I was
defending. As to the Aussie thing well it is up to them.

Allan

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 11:52:36

The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to expect
from British Labour governments.

So, no surprises there -- par for the course.

Gordon Brown does have one thing right however....

We need a massive effort to educate the American and British people
concerning the serious threats of Global Islamofascist Jihadist Terrorism --
an effort similar in scope, seriousness and expense to the one that was so
essential to our winning of The Cold War against the Soviet Union.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YYw3j.28$pC2.16@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

Well, seems the whole world is swiping the Brown government from various
different directions at the moment - it's too easy.
You've got me wrong. Given the current crowd I'd probably rather have the
present government than any of the alternatives.
But it's the bad choice from even worse.

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 11:59:07

An interesting point.

We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.

DSH

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f49548650john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 12:03:27

To whom did he say it?

DSH

"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1ae30ce4-6bdd-4294-b5aa-c790c6a4ff59@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Further to John Cartmell's excellent points concerning the
government's current difficulties, one is reminded of the famous
MacMillan quote: "Events, Dear Boy, Events" referring to the
thwarting of his best intentions by events happening outside of his
direct control.

Richard Lichten

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 12:12:23

You need to make cars as good as Toyotas.

Sadly, you don't.

DSH

"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fimbja$21u$1@news.datemas.de...

John Cartmell wrote:

My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties and
seventies.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 12:16:58

William Black gets one RIGHT.

Good Show...

It's been a long, dry spell for him.

DSH

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fimj0c$4iu$2@registered.motzarella.org...
"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fimbja$21u$1@news.datemas.de...

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties
and seventies.

You mean leaky uncomfortable cars and motorcycles that needed servicing
every trip, all run by a set of 'decent chaps' who 'had a good war' and
treated their customers with contempt because they couldn't afford a Rolls
or a Jag, and Trade Unions who thought the words 'quality control' were an
insult and reveled in the horrors of piece work and restrictive practices
no matter how their members suffered?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 12:19:31

Meaning what precisely?

DSH

"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:8b4644de-48f4-4f88-9b1e-ef7732eac3a6@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

William Black wrote:

You mean leaky uncomfortable cars and motorcycles that needed servicing
every trip, all run by a set of 'decent chaps' who 'had a good war' and
treated their customers with contempt because they couldn't afford a Rolls
or a Jag, and Trade Unions who thought the words 'quality control' were an
insult and reveled in the horrors of piece work and restrictive practices
no
matter how their members suffered?

I can remember people referring in all seriousness to 'Monday cars'
and 'Friday cars' when describing a vehicle that 'wasn't fit for
purpose'.

Richard

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 30 nov 2007 18:11:04

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wZR3j.149$ag5.690@eagle.america.net...
The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to
expect
from British Labour governments.

Name them, and their fumbling, unsure, unsteady weak and dithering
policies.

As a general rule Labour governments have been none of these things but have
been depicted as such by the gutter press, which remains steadfastly in the
hands of a few evil and corrupt men.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the New borough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 01 des 2007 12:22:50

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wZR3j.149$ag5.690@eagle.america.net...
The Brown government is simply characteristic of the weak, dithering,
fumbling, unsure and unsteady-at-the helm governments we've grown to
expect
from British Labour governments.


But I thought you've been a big Blair fan in recent years?


Twit!

Surreyman

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 01 des 2007 15:23:45

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:glS3j.154$ag5.677@eagle.america.net...
Meaning what precisely?

DSH

"Turenne" <richard.lichten1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:8b4644de-48f4-4f88-9b1e-ef7732eac3a6@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

William Black wrote:

You mean leaky uncomfortable cars and motorcycles that needed servicing
every trip, all run by a set of 'decent chaps' who 'had a good war' and
treated their customers with contempt because they couldn't afford a
Rolls
or a Jag, and Trade Unions who thought the words 'quality control' were
an
insult and reveled in the horrors of piece work and restrictive practices
no
matter how their members suffered?

I can remember people referring in all seriousness to 'Monday cars'
and 'Friday cars' when describing a vehicle that 'wasn't fit for
purpose'.

Richard



I expect, as usual, the blame will be placed at the doors of the workers and
the unions by people who have no idea of the real truth.
The whole problem was not just the workers, or unions, but of very poor
management and a distortion of the truth by the media coupled to a
readiness to always blame the worker and unions. There were probably faults
on both sides. When you get an incompetent management, with the man
management skills of a clipshear with a broken back, you are bound to get
into conflict with the workers and the unions. Some jumped up, power-drunk
nincompoop just has to flex his muscles and causes big trouble and the media
blames the workers.

Here is one such incident. Workers on a ship under refit were doing their
very best under very bad conditions. The ship's ventilation system developed
a fault just when the twin boiler rooms started their run-up trials. The
entire ship was like an oven and the workers would have been justified in
walking off as the temperatures were way above the laid down legal limits,
but they didn't, even although several had to be taken by ambulance to the
surgery.

At this point a Foreman, (a high rank management in the yards), came on
board and found an Electrical Fitter drinking a cup of tea while he
connected up a low power box directly above the boilers, which were running
at full blast by this time. The Foremen, without preamble, places the worker
on a charge, (under the same rules as a court Martial). The man calls in his
shop steward who attempts to smooth things over, "Out of Court". The Foreman
throws him out of the office and all trades on board walk off the job.
Not because of the man on a charge but because of the excess heat conditions
on board the ship.
The sad fact is that the guy on the charge was fixing the control system for
the ship's ventilation system.
The press get wind of it and the headlines say, SHOP STEWARDS CALL WORKERS
OUT ON STRIKE.

In fact the shop steward had nothing to do with the walk out which was a
legitimate refusal to work in over hot, illegal, conditions.
Upper management bring forward the case against the Electrical Fitter in an
attempt to get things back on stream.
The case begins and ends in two minutes.
The Foreman reads out the charge from the, "Admiralty Rules And
Regulations", and the Union Rep calls a point of order.
The Naval Officer presiding, (A full Captain), allows the point and the
Union Rep shows that the offence read out was to, "Make Tea in working
hours", and there was nothing in the regulations to stop the worker drinking
tea made earlier and poured from a vacuum flask.

Result - The Admiralty reprimands the Foreman and provides both boiling
water for tea making on the dockside and large drums of reconstituted orange
juice on board the ship due to the adverse working conditions on board.
Workers return to work even although the hot conditions still prevailed.
Headlines in the press, "Unions lose case and Management negotiate a return
to work".

So the great British public are led to believe the evil unions drew the lazy
working men off the job for trivial reasons and the wonderful, efficient
management cleverly sorted it all out and got the evil workers back to work
within a day.
The truth, though, was that a stupid manager, who was unfit to manage,
brought a stupid charge against a worker when his action should have been to
sort out the over-hot conditions.
He then charged the man wrongly for something he had not done, and instead
of sorting it out himself, put in motion a formal Court Martial that found
he was at fault and the higher management had to sort it out with the Union
rep.
So several days work involving hundreds of workers lost due to a very stupid
manager and, worse of all a soured working relationship between management
and workers who had been enduring illegal working conditions in an effort to
complete a warship on time.

True case - I was the guy put on the charge, (I was also the guy who told
the Union Rep how to win the case and got myself, reluctantly, elected as a
shop steward for the Electrical Fitters soon after). In that era we had the
media causing bother, (some things never change), and we had people, who had
never done an honest days hard toil in their lives, writing TV series that
shower both the workers and the unions as stupid, work-shy and feckless
while showing management as being always right, steadfast and upright.
British industry, that once led the World, has never quite recovered.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 01 des 2007 15:31:53

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:MeS3j.152$ag5.522@eagle.america.net...
You need to make cars as good as Toyotas.

Sadly, you don't.
And, once again, you get it all wrong.

Such cars are still being made in the UK.
They are still made by UK workers and these are often still members of the
same unions.
These cars are often designed in Britain by British workers.
So, what has changed?
Not the workforce and not the places
Well! That management, that the media made out to be always right, is no
longer in charge.
So after all the claims against the British worker and the British unions it
was the management that need to be replaced after all.
DSH

"Westprog" <westprog@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:fimbja$21u$1@news.datemas.de...

John Cartmell wrote:

My big disappointment with governments from 1997 is that they haven't
thrown out more of the dangerous Thatcher rubbish. A big one is
privatisation of local and central government functions; without the
privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip on
infections. A bigger one is the pride in doing a job well - though I
don't think this can ever be repaired.

If we could only get back to the British motor industry of the sixties
and
seventies.



--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 01 des 2007 15:41:38

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:a2S3j.150$ag5.681@eagle.america.net...
An interesting point.

We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.

DSH

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f49548650john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.



You understand nothing, some things never change.
The hospitals are surface clean and mostly not filthy.
Where the trouble lies is twofold.
Staff have been reduced to the point where they have no time for anything
and that includes time to wash hands thoroughly before treating every
patient.
Secondly the cleaning, once done by the nurses on the wards and supervised
by the sisters and a matron, is now in the hands of unqualified outside
contractors who are cleaning hospital wards as they would clean their own
living rooms rather than with an eye to clinical cleanliness. They are also
paid by results and thus paid more for quick work that for good work.
Incidentally, there was a report yesterday that there were several incidents
of people drinking the alcohol based hand scrub fluid provided at each
bedside.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 des 2007 18:25:28

Yep...

British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.

DSH

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:45GdnRBkt50778zanZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@bt.com...

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:a2S3j.150$ag5.681@eagle.america.net...

An interesting point.

We understand that British hospitals are often quite filthy.

DSH

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f49548650john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

A big one is privatisation of local and central government functions;
without the privatisation of cleaning hospitals could better get a grip
on infections.



You understand nothing, some things never change.
The hospitals are surface clean and mostly not filthy.
Where the trouble lies is twofold.
Staff have been reduced to the point where they have no time for anything
and that includes time to wash hands thoroughly before treating every
patient.
Secondly the cleaning, once done by the nurses on the wards and supervised
by the sisters and a matron, is now in the hands of unqualified outside
contractors who are cleaning hospital wards as they would clean their own
living rooms rather than with an eye to clinical cleanliness. They are
also paid by results and thus paid more for quick work that for good
work.
Incidentally, there was a report yesterday that there were several
incidents of people drinking the alcohol based hand scrub fluid provided
at each bedside.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 02 des 2007 13:57:01

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:nOg4j.186$ag5.119@eagle.america.net...
Yep...

British hospitals are often filthy -- as I've already pointed out.


When were you last in one, so how would you know?

They don't even approach 'filthy', but are generally spotless.

The current controversy is regarding the eradication of 'invisible'
bacteria.

Twit!

Surreyman

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»