Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 4, 4:05*pm, Clive wrote:
In message , Bruce
writesI sincerely hope that, when you reach the age of 86 (like Her Majesty
the Queen) or even a week short of your 91st birthday (like the Duke
of Edinburgh),

Do you have the same medical care and pampering you are every bit as able as they were yesterday to
stand for many hours in the rain,

What rain, she had a brolly held over her head. eat and drink precisely nothing,
retain your composure and still manage a smile here and there.

99% of the time she looked sour as if she were eating a lemonI am 33 years younger than the Duke of Edinburgh and I could not have
managed what he did. *It was nice to be able to stay at home and watch
the spectacle on an HD TV from a warm and dry 'vantage point' with
ample supplies of hot drinks and food. *;-)

They cost each person the price of a loaf a bread a day, I'm sure a lot
of pensioners and people suffering under the credit crunch could have
done with that loaf, rather than give it to someone who has ample of
everything already.

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
..

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.
--
Clive

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

allantracy wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought. But other countries have made a
great success of having only apolitical Presidents.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:20:19 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

allantracy wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought.

Even worse if you wind back a few years to Old Iron Knickers who had
she been president would probably have tried her damnedest to
out-supreme any past royals of any country.

But other countries have made a
great success of having only apolitical Presidents.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 04/06/2012 21:57, Clive wrote:
In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for it.

When are we going to stop living in the past? I believe it stems from
1979. It was not merely a political and economic counterrevolution, but
a cultural one, a revolt against modernity.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 05/06/2012 02:06, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:20:19 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought.

Even worse if you wind back a few years to Old Iron Knickers who had
she been president would probably have tried her damnedest to
out-supreme any past royals of any country.


What do you mean "would have", she did! We are a grandmother!

Like Charlie my disagreement with the continuation of the monarchy is on
humanitarian grounds.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 4, 9:57*pm, Clive wrote:
In message
,
e27002 writesTake a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.

I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.

Firstly, I strongly doubt the accuracy of your "Loaf of Bread a Day"
statement. Secondly, how about you pay my taxpayer share of
supporting the UK's losers, no hopers, and deadbeats? They give us
nothing but graffiti and vandalism, but cost a great deal more than
our beloved monarch.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

Sounds like a
recipe for disaster to me. Likewise, reforming the House of Lords and
having elected peers is heading for problems eventually.

You "get" it.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 4, 11:05*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Charlie Hulme" wrote in message

... On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you can't
leave.

Her uncle ducked out.

It seems to me that there are advantages in separating the Head of State
from the Head of Government, and in the Head of State being above politics.
You might achieve that with an elected Head of State, if the constitution
provided that no-one who had ever stood for political office could stand for
election as Head of State. But then you'd probably get a pop star, a
television celebrity, or a footballer. I prefer the current arrangement.

Thank you Peter. I could not have said it better.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 5, 7:07*am, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:11:56 -0700 (PDT), "Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:
It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters' fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of state-subsidised monopolies. Perhaps we should privatise the monarchy and introduce some competition.g

The shares could be traded on the stock market. *It needs a catchy name - how about "One's Royal Business" ("ORB")?


"F" for humor, both of you.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 5, 8:03*am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1220246 20120604 215753 Clive wrote:

In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.

I'm betting HM costs the UK far less than the US President costs the USA.

You betcha!

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 5, 11:32*am, Mihangel Goch wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:32*am, 77002 wrote:





On Jun 4, 11:36*pm, Mihangel Goch wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:

On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:
How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister. Sounds like a
recipe for disaster to me. Likewise, reforming the House of Lords and
having elected peers is heading for problems eventually.

Plenty of countries have elected Presidents who carry out the same
kind of duties as a monarch. Our nearest neighbours, Ireland, seem to
get by with such a system, as does Germany. They are titular heads of
state but have no executive power, unlike the US which elects a
'Supreme Commander'. There are many different forms of government but
unelected members should have no power at all.

So, you want all lawmakers to act with one eye on their re-election
prospects. *That is a recipe for bad legislation and corruption. *A
body that reviews laws, sans personal interest, is invaluable.

If you wish to have a
bi-cameral system then hereditary peers should have no business being
there. Some of our European partners have monarchs asheads of state,
for example, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and The Netherlands and they
perform the same ceremonial role as QE2 or the President of German
Federal Republic.

Grow up and peddle your political views on a different
platform.

That is not my definition of a 'political view'. Are you seriously
suggesting that any of the above named countries has a poor system of
government that could be improved by the addition of hereditary
peers? *Because somebody inherits an Earldom, or whatever, does not
automatically endow them with inbuilt wisdom and that they might not
have 'personal interests'. But neither does it mean that someone who
has been elected is any better. The difference is that you can get rid
of him/her if you are not satisfied. You seem to think that anyone who
disagrees with you is beyond the pale, or as you put it ...........

'Yet, you left wing killjoys do not let up. *Spiteful and jealous as
always, you are not just bad and foolish people, you are thoroughly
unpleasant people, soulless,and joyless.'

You might remember that the main point of this discussion was whether
or not 'The Flotilla' was a success. The general opinion on this forum
and 'on the street' is that it was not. No one is blaming the Queen;
hereditary peers or even this government. You have chosen to make it
political. The monarch is supposed to be above politics so why not
take that as your standard instead of denigrating other contributors
as being spiteful; jealous; bad; foolish; thoroughly unpleasant;
soulless and joyless.

Hey, I was not the guy who took this thread political. That said, I
will not sit by and let the left monoplolize.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 5, 2:07*pm, Charlie Hulme wrote:
On 05/06/2012 08:32, 77002 wrote:



So, you want all lawmakers to act with one eye on their re-election
prospects. *That is a recipe for bad legislation and corruption. *A
body that reviews laws, sans personal interest, is invaluable.

What we get is a lot of unelected friends of the politicians. I
suggest choosing the upper house through the Jury system.

Grow up and peddle your political views on a different
platform.

What are you doing then?

Responding to the abuse from the lefties.

You've backdated your username to the 1950s, I notice ;-)

It varies. 77002 is only notional. I am not sure she ever carried her
TOPS number.

Charlie

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 5, 4:14*pm, bob wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:22*am, 77002 wrote:





On Jun 4, 10:48*pm, Charlie Hulme
wrote:

On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you
can't leave.

Charlie

Her Majesty took an oath before G_d to serve her peoples. *This she
has done well. *We should all be grateful.

George W Bush took an oath of office before G_d to serve the people of
the US. *This he did poorly, and we were grateful when he was
ejected. *The swearing of an oath is no guarantee of quality,
unfortunately.

The point is that HM has endevoured to fulfil that vow. The UK,
Canada, et al, have a wonderful Head of State. Through the storms of
the last 60 years she has been an anchor.

"W" took an Oath before the Chief Justic of the Supreme Court. IMHO
his record is mixed, very mixed. I am sure the retirees appreciated
the inexpensive prescription plan.

Those US now have a Whitehouse resident who is a fraud. His policies
are not only bad for those US. They are bad for the world at large.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 06/06/2012 06:45, e27002 wrote:
On Jun 5, 4:14 pm, wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:22 am, wrote:





On Jun 4, 10:48 pm, Charlie
wrote:

On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you
can't leave.

Charlie

Her Majesty took an oath before G_d to serve her peoples. This she
has done well. We should all be grateful.

George W Bush took an oath of office before G_d to serve the people of
the US. This he did poorly, and we were grateful when he was
ejected. The swearing of an oath is no guarantee of quality,
unfortunately.

The point is that HM has endevoured to fulfil that vow. The UK,
Canada, et al, have a wonderful Head of State. Through the storms of
the last 60 years she has been an anchor.

"W" took an Oath before the Chief Justic of the Supreme Court. IMHO
his record is mixed, very mixed. I am sure the retirees appreciated
the inexpensive prescription plan.

Those US now have a Whitehouse resident who is a fraud. His policies
are not only bad for those US. They are bad for the world at large.

And the upcoming alternative will be someone who believes that all the
main characters in the Old Testament and later Jesus visited North
America. Then there's the spiders...............no, wait.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

"allantracy" wrote in message
...

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

: The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.

But then, no-one does.

It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Meanwhile, back on the subject of transport...

:-)

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100
"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

B2003

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:20:04 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100
"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

Yup, I agree -- Camilla seems a much nicer, more normal person than
Diana, who wouldn't be nearly so glamorous by now, had she remembered
to wear her seat belt 15 years ago. And Camilla was also quite pretty
when young.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 6, 11:20*am, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:23:55 +0100

"Brian Watson" wrote:
It's Charles and the ghastly Camilla who are the real potential threat to
the British monarchy.

Whats ghastly about her? She seems pretty normal to me - far more so than
that headcase clothes horse Diana. She had her fair share of lose screws.
Oh, I forgot, she was pretty (in a kind of sloany way) so thats alright then.
Peoples Princess? Pass the sick bucket...

Agreed. Charles appears a more contented man now.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

In article
,
77002 wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head. And which party has a majority in the
London Assembly?

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 6, 12:42*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*77002 wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head. *And which party has a majority in the
London Assembly?

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when federal politics in
those United States were conducted with a certain decorum. This was
such they they rose above their differences as the contucted the
Union's affairs. Tip O'Neil and Ronald Wilson Regan were politically
at opposite poles. And, yet they always behaved with a certain
dignity.

Sadly this is a thing of the past. Now US politics are very much "war
by other means".

London: I am not sure that a directly elected head really fits in the
British system. Moreover, since when have counties (or regions!) had
mayors.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:42:07 +0100, Sam Wilson
wrote:

In article
,
77002 wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head.

The US Congress and Senate are the legislature, not the government.
Unlike in the UK, members of the US government are not members of the
legislature. And often, as now, the two houses can be controlled by
different parties.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On Jun 6, 12:42*pm, Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,

*77002 wrote:
On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head. *And which party has a majority in the
London Assembly?

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when federal politics in
those United States were conducted with a certain decorum. This was
such they they rose above their differences as they conducted the
Union's affairs. Tip O'Neil and Ronald Wilson Regan were politically
at opposite poles. And, yet they always behaved with a certain
dignity.

Sadly this is a thing of the past. Now US politics are very much
"war
by other means".


London: I am not sure that a directly elected head really fits in the
British system. Moreover, since when have counties (or regions!) had
mayors.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

I'm betting HM costs the UK far less than the US President costs the USA.


I loved the security for the Queen.

Way less visible than for the U.S. Prez, who would have been hidden behind
scads of Secret Service agents and would have been practically invisible to
the crowds.

And who are these Secret Service agents protecting the Prez. from? Why, his
fellow Americans, that's whom. Every assassination attempt on a US Prez.
has been by a fellow American.

Kinda tells you something about the country, doesn't it?



--
Cheers.

Roger Traviss


Photos of the late HO scale GER: -

http://www.greateasternrailway.com

For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...Great_Eastern/

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 06/06/2012 19:59, Roger Traviss wrote:
I'm betting HM costs the UK far less than the US President costs the USA.


I loved the security for the Queen.

Way less visible than for the U.S. Prez, who would have been hidden behind
scads of Secret Service agents and would have been practically invisible to
the crowds.

And who are these Secret Service agents protecting the Prez. from? Why, his
fellow Americans, that's whom. Every assassination attempt on a US Prez.
has been by a fellow American.

Kinda tells you something about the country, doesn't it?





There is a story in a obituary in Prospero about someone who went to
adjust the microphone in front of POTUS and was nearly shot by the
Secret Service. Sounds quite plausible, a friend used to attend a
meeting with George W every month. At the first meeting the security
people told them that it was not advisable to make any sort of sudden
move when POTUS was in the room.

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 06/06/2012 22:07, MB wrote:
On 06/06/2012 19:59, Roger Traviss wrote:
I'm betting HM costs the UK far less than the US President costs the
USA.


I loved the security for the Queen.

Way less visible than for the U.S. Prez, who would have been hidden
behind
scads of Secret Service agents and would have been practically
invisible to
the crowds.

And who are these Secret Service agents protecting the Prez. from?
Why, his
fellow Americans, that's whom. Every assassination attempt on a US Prez.
has been by a fellow American.

Kinda tells you something about the country, doesn't it?





There is a story in a obituary in Prospero about someone who went to
adjust the microphone in front of POTUS and was nearly shot by the
Secret Service. Sounds quite plausible, a friend used to attend a
meeting with George W every month. At the first meeting the security
people told them that it was not advisable to make any sort of sudden
move when POTUS was in the room.

In case they woke him up?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

On 06/06/2012 06:29, e27002 wrote:

Hey, I was not the guy who took this thread political. That said, I
will not sit by and let the left monoplolize.

We don't want to. Reading your drivel is good fun.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Well I enjoyed it - the Flotilla
 

In article ,
Recliner wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:42:07 +0100, Sam Wilson
wrote:

In article
,
77002 wrote:

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other
politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we
get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

So does the USA where it's been quite common recently for the elected
Head of State and Head of Government to be opposed to the elected
Government of which he is head.

The US Congress and Senate are the legislature, not the government.
Unlike in the UK, members of the US government are not members of the
legislature. And often, as now, the two houses can be controlled by
different parties.

Good point - I had forgotten how different the US system is from ours.

Sam

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.