Constitutional monarchy or republic?

by witchfinder Fri May 25, 2012 10:17 am

First topic message reminder :

This topic or subject is actualy about the head of state of the United KIngdom and 15 other independent sovereign nations including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

In 1981 this question was put to me: "are you a true and loyal supporter of the British Crown and constitution", and my reply was "yes" I am, and in doing so I actualy made an oath of loyalty not to any politician, but to The Crown, the people and the nation.

The Crown and the monarchy are not democratic in the sense that no one ever elects them, but then again what system, or which sytem of government is truly fair and democratic ?, in the United States 45% of serving soldiers, airforce staff and sailors voted Republican in 2008, yet they have to swear alliegence to President Obama, in many unstable nations this situation is a recipe for civil war.

Today ( 25th May 2012 ) the latest opinion poll has been published in the UK on the subject of the monarchy, the findings have been released just prior to nationwide celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.

The first thing to point out about this opinion poll is that the monarchy enjoys solid support amongst Labour voters and supporters, the Queen and the institution of the monarchy has never been so popular.
Support is strong in Scotland, Wales, all areas of England and in every age group and social class, but the findings are not good reading for Charlie, most people feel the line of succession should jump a generation and go to William.

Should TRUE Labour supporters be embaressed about been a supporter of the Queen and the monarchy ?, I say absolutely not, it is clearly obvious that to go down the path of republicanism would lose both support and votes, just as it did to the SNP in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

And so as my next door neighbour who is chairman of the local Conservative club puts out his flags for the celebrations, so shall I, and as a Labour supporter and voter we are both equal in one nation under one Crown.

by jackthelad Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:28 pm

Rock,

I don't doubt a word of what you have said, like the Ancient Roman Empire, the British Empire was run by a lot of arrogant buggers also, that thought the world belong to them. It must be a European trait, or even an Asian one, from Ghengis Khan to Alexander the Great, i will not dispute your argument about the American indian in the first instant, when Europeans landed on those far distant shores, but we can only be blamed for the first thirteen states. The subjugation of the rest of the Indian tribes was the white Americans fault, not the Europeans, unless you still class yourselves as Europeans.
The South is a conquered country, conquered by the North, in the American civil war, i believe at that time the South had there own President and army under General Robert. E. Lee. I ain't whistling Dixie either, i disagree with your part of the argument on that. Very Happy

by jackthelad Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:41 pm

Rock. also agree with you about the House of Lords, but that is being slowly sorted out, not as fast as some of us would like. Both houses should be full of people voted in by the people, not filled with men or women who got their titles from an ancient relative who got his title because he could wield a bigger sword than anyone else. Because anyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouths does not neccesserily mean that they are inteligent enough to make and amend laws, that the rest of us peasant have to follow.

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:54 pm

Jack,

The only kind of European I am is Irish, descended from those who departed the Green Isle to keep from starving to death.

The “white Americans” are Europeans, for the most part English. Italians, Swedes, Norse, Danes, Scots, Irish, Greeks, Armenians, to name a few, didn’t seem to be the driving force, although no doubt some participated. West Africans and Cherokees? I doubt that they subjugated a whole lot of Native Americans. In fact, the Seminole people of Florida are composed in part of escaped West African slaves who chose to join their Native American brothers in staying free.

As far as I know, Native Americans were not subjugated by West Africans that survived the Middle Passage or Cherokees that survived the Trail of Tears or Irish that survived the Potato famine.

Insofar as the South is concerned, my South Carolinian friend would agree with you. That being said, South Carolina was one of the original thirteen states that held their ground 1775-1783, so they’ve got “standing” to say that what has transpired since 1791 ain’t what they were fighting for 11775-1783. Check out Amendment 9 of the United States Constitution to see why. If you do so and you want my help in explaining the significance, let me know.

Slavery? That’s why the American Civil War is such a muddled issue. Another South Carolinian did his part to clear the water by flying a Confederate flag outside his quarters in Mississippi during the summers of 1953 1n 1964, where and when he daily risked his life registering Black voters. This South Carolinian hero despises the usurpation of that flag by the kkk (lowercase intentional) for its evil purposes. I agree with him.

And oh yeah, I was bon with a wooden spoon in my mouth. Been pulling splinter out of my tongue for a long time.

by **Ivan** Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:58 pm

men or women who got their titles from an ancient relative who got his title because he could wield a bigger sword than anyone else.......anyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth

Agreed, jack. Doesn't that also apply to a hereditary (and therefore unelected) head of state?

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:02 pm

Ivan wrote:
men or women who got their titles from an ancient relative who got his title because he could wield a bigger sword than anyone else.......anyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth
Agreed, jack. Doesn't that also apply to a hereditary (and therefore unelected) head of state?

Gotta go with you on this one, Ivan. “Power to the People; All Power to All People.”

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:15 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Jack,

The only kind of European I am is Irish, descended from those who departed the Green Isle to keep from starving to death.

The “white Americans” are Europeans, for the most part English. Italians, Swedes, Norse, Danes, Scots, Irish, Greeks, Armenians, to name a few, didn’t seem to be the driving force, although no doubt some participated. West Africans and Cherokees? I doubt that they subjugated a whole lot of Native Americans. In fact, the Seminole people of Florida are composed in part of escaped West African slaves who chose to join their Native American brothers in staying free.

It's interesting to see US immigration defined by nation of origin, because most contemporary Europeans believe that their American cousins were/are delineated by religion, e.g. Jewish. But you are quite right to disregard that as a factor, because the fact is that Jews comprise only 3.7% of the national population of the USA.

But they are evidently very good at presenting their point of view to successive government administrations.

by ROB Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:52 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
It's interesting to see US immigration defined by nation of origin, because most contemporary Europeans believe that their American cousins were/are delineated by religion, e.g. Jewish. But you are quite right to disregard that as a factor, because the fact is that Jews comprise only 3.7% of the national population of the USA.

But they are evidently very good at presenting their point of view to successive government administrations.

Jewish Rabbis and whole “boatloads” of other Jews walked alongside Black folks with arms interlocking in the streets of Selma, Birmingham, and other locales throughout Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, et al, during the bloody days and nights of the 19960s, suffering attacks by baton-welding “police officers”, dogs, and fire hoses without flinching.

“In the fell clutch of circumstance,
“I have not winced nor cried aloud,
“Under the bludgeoning of chance,
“My head is bloody, but unbowed.”

My Jewish brothers and sisters stood side by side with me and other “rabble-rouser” Black folks in the struggle to bring Black studies into the curricula of so-called “liberal, forward-looking” institutions of higher learning.

Finally, Andrew Goodman (23 November 1943 - 21 June 1964) and Michael Schwerner (6 November 1939 - 21 June 1964) were young Jewish men who, along with James Earl Chaney (30 May 1943 - 21 June 1964), gave their lives in pursuit of liberty and justice for all in my country.

If any wish to covertly disparage my Jewish brothers and sisters, please know that, in the presence of such disparagement, “Ich bin ein Jude.”

by ROB Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:41 am

Shirina wrote:
there shall be no religious test for any federal or state office
My state of North Carolina along with several other states still have a clause in their constitutions requiring anyone holding a public office to affirm their belief in either "God" or "a higher power."

North Carolina is one of the original thirteen states that declared independence on 4 July 1776 as the united (note lowercase) States (note uppercase) of America. Soon after, all of these united sovereign states got their constitutions in order as they attempted to form some sort of lasting bonds with each other under the Articles of Confederation. All thirteen states’ constitutions predated the adoption of the United (uppercase) States Constitution, the form as we usually consider it complete, with the Bill of Rights, coming into being 15 December 1791.

I’m not familiar with the specifics of North Carolina’s constitution, but some of the original states’ constitutions predate even the Declaration o Independence. I think that’s why Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are referred to as “Commonwealths.” Also, it’s possible that North Carolina’s constitution was altered after its secession in 1861.

Whatever the case, consider the fact that the United States Constitution is the constitution of each sovereign state individually; thus, North Carolina has two constitutions, the common constitution, the supreme law of North Carolina, which mandates no religious test for any state office, and its specific state constitution, which must be in line with the U.S. Constitution, and not vice versa.

Shirina wrote:
Those refusing to do so are disqualified.

Not legally. Or let me put I another way. If I applied for a state or local government job in North Carolina (all of which are “officers of the state”), and I was denied a job because I failed to affirm a belief in either God or a higher power, after my “Wilshire lawyer” got through with them, I might not have to work another day in my life.

Shirina wrote:
Whether this provision is actually enforced, I cannot say. But legally, only the religious are allowed to hold office in those states.

Au contraire. Legally, when a law, any law, of any jurisdiction within the United States, its territories, possessions, and commonwealth contravenes the United States Constitution, it’s an illegal law, so it’s not a law.

Civil rights workers were accused of violating laws. They were not; they were adhering to Amendments 14 and 15 of the United States Constitution, and all laws requiring behavior that contravened those amendments were illegal laws.

by **Ivan** Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:43 pm

How depressing! Are we living in the 21st century or the 14th?

An extract from an article by Robert Booth:-

“A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests.

The application of the controversial veto was revealed by ‘The Guardian’ last year and has been described by constitutional lawyers as 'a royal nuclear deterrent'. Some believe it may underpin the influence Prince Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.”

For the full article, followed by some robust reader comments:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed?CMP=twt_gu

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 02, 2012 4:04 pm

Ivan wrote:How depressing! Are we living in the 21st century or the 14th?

An extract from an article by Robert Booth:-

[i]“A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.......

The surprise is that anyone should be surprised at learning about this. Successive Royals have been digging themselves in for 950 years, and by now have survival down to a fine art.

Anyone seeking confirmation can find it in records of the period following Oliver Cromwell's attempt to interrupt the process.

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:22 pm

The Duke of Cambridge, on a tour of Singapore with The Duchess, is reported to have confided in a small child that he would like them to have two children of their own.

"An heir and a spare". What a novel idea!

by bambu Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:15 pm

I like my Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen my Head of State.
The Governor-General her representative in Australia.

A layer of protection for me above the politicians, federal and state.
I like my goverment house on the hill in Sydney, it stands there like a castle 'fortress', a reminder that above the state politicians is the Governor, ready to sack them from office if they don't obey the rules, and/or start acting like dictators.

No 'Idi Amins', 'Pol Pots' etc here, all nice and stable Constitutional Monarchy democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXjbkcW3XC8&feature=related
A Tour of Government House in Sydney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBDaiZ4xHqE&feature=relmfu
A Day in the Life of the Governor of NSW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X_Vr8nqWHw
Swearing-In of the Australian Governor-General Quentin Bryce

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiLlMgd67Us&feature=relmfu
Queen goes roo spotting in Canberra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LCp1zUnrrU
Royal couple stay at Government House

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjBL4PqDZrs
Tour Of Government House Canberra

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:26 pm

No 'Idi Amins', 'Pol Pots' etc here, all nice and stable Constitutional Monarchy democracy.

That's a fallacious argument. Having a democratically-elected Head of State does not make a country more likely to have an 'Idi Amin' or a 'Pol Pot'. Those characters seized power, they weren't elected. And neither was the monarchy.

by bambu Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:52 pm

Ivan wrote:
No 'Idi Amins', 'Pol Pots' etc here, all nice and stable Constitutional Monarchy democracy.
That's a fallacious argument. Having a democratically-elected Head of State does not make a country more likely to have an 'Idi Amin' or a 'Pol Pot'. Those characters seized power, they weren't elected. And neither was the monarchy.

The chance of their ilk seizing power here is about zero, as the military is loyal to the Crown, not the politicians.
A democratically elected head of state is basically a politician, as with Obama...here one minute gone the next.

As for Britain, if the Monarchy were abolished, the elected Prime Minister of the day would be the Head of State, as with Obama.
The rich in Britain would still be rich [and employing poor people], the middle class would still be 'comfortable', and the poor would still be poor.
It's not the Monarchy that's Britain's problem/s.

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:58 pm

The chance of their ilk seizing power here is about zero

As it is in Switzerland - that's a silly argument. An unelected monarchy is not a defence against a takeover by a tyrant, as both Iran and Egypt can testify.

If there was no monarchy in Britain, the Prime Minister wouldn't be the Head of State, an elected President would be. That seems to work in Ireland and Germany today, and there's not an 'Idi Amin' or a 'Pol Pot' in sight in either country.

by bambu Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:36 pm

Ivan wrote:
The chance of their ilk seizing power here is about zero
As it is in Switzerland - that's a silly argument. An unelected monarchy is not a defence against a takeover by a tyrant, as both Iran and Egypt can testify.

If there was no monarchy in Britain, the Prime Minister wouldn't be the Head of State, an elected President would be. That seems to work in Ireland and Germany today, and there's not an 'Idi Amin' or a 'Pol Pot' in sight in either country.

Not working so well in Zimbabwe though.

The British unelected Christian Monarchy is a defence against a takeover by a tyrant.

Ireland and Germany?
Ireland isn't doing so well, and Germany makes its young unemployed women take jobs as hookers or lose their welfare benefits.
Pity Germany is not run by Lutherans, then that would not be happening to young unemployed women.

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:08 pm

Not working so well in Zimbabwe though.

You're still repeating a fallacious argument. Plenty of monarchs have been, and still can be, tyrants - take a look at Mswati III of Swaziland for starters.

The British unelected Christian Monarchy is a defence against a takeover by a tyrant.

The British monarchy is completely ineffectual. It can't even do anything to stop Cameron's government misusing its powers. Cameron had no mandate to destroy the NHS - especially after promising to do just the opposite - yet Mrs Windsor still meekly signed the enabling bill into law.

Ireland isn't doing so well

What a desperate argument! Ireland's economic condition has nothing whatsover to do with the fact that it has an elected Head of State rather than an unelected monarchy. The problems are all about austerity - which has never worked in any country - and the fact that Ireland is a part of the Eurozone.

Germany makes its young unemployed women take jobs as hookers or lose their welfare benefits.

That's too stupid to merit a reply.

Pity Germany is not run by Lutherans

Ah, make your mind up! Do you want an unelected hereditary monarchy or a theocracy?

by ROB Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:20 pm

bambu wrote:
… Germany makes its young unemployed women take jobs as hookers or lose their welfare benefits.

Prove it.

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:53 pm

Rock. No need to worry, I can disprove it. That pile of rubbish was found out to be false one day after it was posted in 2005, but it suits supporters of far-right groups to peddle such lies because they're bereft of any serious arguments:-

"False story alert: Women in Germany probably not being forced into prostitution by welfare state"
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/02/01/false-story-alert-women-in-germany-probably-not-being-forced-into-prostitution-by-welfare-state/

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:25 pm

This topic can usually be relied upon to bring the looney-tunes on parade.

The second-tier nobility of England were swiftly brought to heel by the application of death-duties by a Socialist government in the late 1940s.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the next Socialist government to perform a similar form of surgery on the Royal Estates. Perhaps making a beginning with the restoration of Cornwall to its people.

by bambu Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:25 pm

Post deleted...off topic.

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:51 pm

a huge joke

bambu. You’re the huge joke, or just blatantly dishonest and attempting to make a mockery of this thread. And I doubt if the Germans want any advice from you; they've tried far-right extremism and didn't exactly prosper.

Didn’t you bother to read my post? That pack of lies you posted appeared in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ on 30 January 2005. Two days later this was posted in the source I provided previously:-

A spokesman for the Federal Labour Office stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn’t specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.

“Germany has special laws about sex work, including a prohibition of coercing people into sex work, and provision that sex workers can quit at any time for any reason, without working (for example) a period of notice.”

Snopes has been looking in the German press without finding any confirmation of the “be a prostitute or lose your benefits” story.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/02/01/false-story-alert-women-in-germany-probably-not-being-forced-into-prostitution-by-welfare-state/

Which part of that don't you understand? Posting a lie twice won’t make it true. I realise that the EDL/BNP scum you so admire probably subscribe to the “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it” mantra of Josef Goebbels, but we have a house rule which says “messages which are clearly intended to deceive and mislead members are likely to be deleted.” Even if you aren’t going to bother with preceding postings before making an ass of yourself, I'd advise you to start reading our posting rules:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules

This thread is about monarchy or republic, so that’s enough deviation from the topic. Any further transgressions will be deleted without notification.

by ROB Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:42 am

Journalism traditionally involved journalists practicing journalistic integrity. I remember a scene from All the King’s Men in which the two journalists that were investigating Watergate were instructed by their boss to verify their story via three independent, reliable sources before publishing it.

In today’s world, a masthead on a piece of paper, or broadcast of a 6:00 o’clock news show, does not signify that journalistic integrity is practiced by those organizations. In fact, for me, it’s down to a select few news sources that I trust. Reuters is one source that I trust; the Telegraph is not.

by bambu Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:01 pm

Ivan wrote:
a huge joke
bambu. You’re the huge joke, or just blatantly dishonest and attempting to make a mockery of this thread. And I doubt if the Germans want any advice from you; they've tried far-right extremism and didn't exactly prosper.

Didn’t you bother to read my post? That pack of lies you posted appeared in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ on 30 January 2005. Two days later this was posted in the source I provided previously:-

A spokesman for the Federal Labour Office stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn’t specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.

“Germany has special laws about sex work, including a prohibition of coercing people into sex work, and provision that sex workers can quit at any time for any reason, without working (for example) a period of notice.”

Snopes has been looking in the German press without finding any confirmation of the “be a prostitute or lose your benefits” story.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2005/02/01/false-story-alert-women-in-germany-probably-not-being-forced-into-prostitution-by-welfare-state/

Which part of that don't you understand? Posting a lie twice won’t make it true. I realise that the EDL/BNP scum you so admire probably subscribe to the “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it” mantra of Josef Goebbels, but we have a house rule which says “messages which are clearly intended to deceive and mislead members are likely to be deleted.” Even if you aren’t going to bother with preceding postings before making an ass of yourself, I'd advise you to start reading our posting rules:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules

This thread is about monarchy or republic, so that’s enough deviation from the topic. Any further transgressions will be deleted without notification.

I read your post.
No posting lies, no dishonesty, and no deceit...I posted my article, from your British newspaper in good faith...compiling it as you posted yours...or after it and not having read your post first.
I'm quite happy for you to delete the relative posts I made, as I cannot, ...no facility here to do that.

by bambu Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:15 pm

oftenwrong wrote:This topic can usually be relied upon to bring the looney-tunes on parade.

The second-tier nobility of England were swiftly brought to heel by the application of death-duties by a Socialist government in the late 1940s.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the next Socialist government to perform a similar form of surgery on the Royal Estates. Perhaps making a beginning with the restoration of Cornwall to its people.

I just noticed this at the top of the page under this site's title;

"A left-inclined international forum "........................ Wink

So now I fully understand what's going on here. Smile

Abolish the Protestant Christian Monarchy, the palace, the gold carriages, the pomp and ceremony, the Monarchy system...and what will you have left?

Who will be the Head of State of Britain then?...."Karl Marx ilk" and "the communist manifesto"?
My ancestor got out of Prussia in 1851 after Karl Marx ilk made decrees that previously hereditary properties had to be purchased by the inheritors.
He boarded a ship in Hamburg, sailed off into the sunset, and left the communists behind!

by ROB Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:22 pm

bambu wrote:
… I posted my article, from your British newspaper in good faith…

You have failed to check the veracity of that which you have chosen to post. Your bad, period.

by bambu Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:38 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
… I posted my article, from your British newspaper in good faith…

You have failed to check the veracity of that which you have chosen to post. Your bad, period.

So, I made a mistake...what happens now, I get kicked over the goal posts and out of ths stadium?
There are moderators...they can simply delete the posts, as I've stated.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:01 pm

Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose).

European Republics have exactly the same sort of palaces, the gold carriages, the pomp and ceremony in support of an elected President.

by ROB Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:09 pm

bambu wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
You have failed to check the veracity of that which you have chosen to post. Your bad, period.
So, I made a mistake…

So own your mistake.

by bambu Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:42 am

oftenwrong wrote:Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose).

European Republics have exactly the same sort of palaces, the gold carriages, the pomp and ceremony in support of an elected President.

Yes, but those elected Presidents are mostly Left/Far-Left socialists?

by bambu Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:47 am

Off topic post deleted.

by ROB Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:21 am

bambu wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
So, I made a mistake…
So own your mistake.
I do…

Excellent.

bambu wrote:
And since I've asked for the relative posts of mine to be deleted,¹ the moderators now own the posts.²

I’ve no dog in that fight.
You researched it. You composed it. You posted it. You own it.

by bambu Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:15 am

Post deleted.

by ROB Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:58 am

bambu wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
2. You researched it. You composed it. You posted it. You own it.
I cannot be made to own them…

You are not “made to own them.” Your ownership of your Cutting Edge posts begins the instant you post them. That’s Forumotion’s published policy, by which Cutting Edge staff are bound.

bambu wrote:
… if I'm not allowed to delete them.

I’ve no dog in that fight.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:46 am

This may be an elementary misunderstanding over a simple exercise. Any author can pull up any of their own postings and hit the "edit" key. (If there is no "edit key" visible, you're trying to delete someone else's work.)

If anyone cares enough, you can see how this works on the next posting.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:47 am

This may be an elementary misunderstanding over a simple exercise. Any author can pull up any of their own postings and hit the "edit" key. (If there is no "edit key" visible, you're trying to delete someone else's work.)

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:04 am

Which part of "post deleted" do you think other readers might not comprehend, bambu?

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:30 am

bambu. It’s extremely sneaky and dishonest to delete the contents of a message after it’s been answered. That just makes a mockery of subsequent posts and destroys the flow of a thread. If you ever do that again you will be banned.

You are responsible for anything and everything you post, regardless of how long it stays in the public domain. The staff of this forum never ‘own’ your postings, you do, but it is for the staff to decide how to deal with anything which transgressing our rules or the law.

However, in this instance, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t think the German social security system is likely to prosecute either you or the co-administrators of Cutting Edge for a libel which was immediately disproved.

As to your rubbish about Karl Marx, he was exiled from what is now Germany in 1849 and was in London before your ancestor left Prussia, where there were no communists to leave behind.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:02 pm

"The Prince, the brutal dictator and a friendship he just won't give up"
by Tom Peck.

His lavish spending of taxpayers' money on private jets, not to mention his numerous uncomfortable friendships with questionable world leaders and a convicted paedophile, forced Prince Andrew to step down as the UK's Special Representative for Trade and Investment, amid claims that he had become an embarrassment to the government.

But now, more than a year later, the Duke continues to take an interest in the affairs of Azerbaijan, where he is friends with President Ilham Aliyev, regarded as one of the most brutal and corrupt rulers in the world.

For the rest of the article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-prince-the-brutal-dictator-and-a-friendship-he-just-wont-give-up-8270022.html

by ROB Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:44 pm

Ivan,

He’s a whole lot better than his older brother.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Royal Navy

… [the Prince] joined his first front-line unit [in 1982], 820 Naval Air Squadron, serving aboard the aircraft carrier, HMS Invincible.

Falklands War

Invincible was one of the two operational aircraft carriers available at the time [of the Falklands War], and, as such, was to play a major role in the Royal Navy task force assembled to sail south to retake the islands. However, Prince Andrew's place on board and the possibility of The Queen's son being killed in action made the British Government apprehensive, and the Cabinet desired that Prince Andrew be moved to a desk job for the duration of the conflict. The Queen, though, insisted that her son be allowed to remain with his ship, meaning Prince Andrew remained on board Invincible to serve as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot, flying on missions that included anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, casualty evacuation, transport, and search and air rescue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Royal_Navy

I remember seeing coverage of this on CNN. Cable was in its infancy; the Falklands War was the first major world event that I followed on CNN. Correspondents were amazed at Andrew’s courage. I remember one moving graphic in which the Excocet decoy mission profile was illustrated step by step. Umph!

If a monarchy it must be, y’all at least need a system wherein the best of the bloodline is selected as crown prince/princess regardless of birth order or gender. Andrew, whatever his shortcomings, is a legitimate war hero.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:19 pm

".... a system wherein the best of the bloodline is selected as crown prince/princess regardless of birth order or gender."

How should marks be awarded in order to make that selection?

by Sponsored content