Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
-
The Last Word
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a her
Flat_Eric wrote:
> The British media can hold its collective hands up and honestly
> claim that "it wasn't us, guv!" because the "leak" came from
> foreign media.
The British media was sat on its hands waiting for this to happen. Apparently they'd been aware of Prince H over there for some time and a media blackout had been put in place from the MOD. More here:
Reading between the lines of that, you're right to be questioning the whole spin on this.
> The British media can hold its collective hands up and honestly
> claim that "it wasn't us, guv!" because the "leak" came from
> foreign media.
The British media was sat on its hands waiting for this to happen. Apparently they'd been aware of Prince H over there for some time and a media blackout had been put in place from the MOD. More here:
Reading between the lines of that, you're right to be questioning the whole spin on this.
"Let's do it..."
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
The twat is getting a ?5000 a year pay rise next month...twice as much as he spent on a round of drinks in a west end club a few months back before staggering out 'tired and emotional' all over the pavement.He's a twat like his father and I'm not talking aboutChales.
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
The thing I don't get is why his safety matters. If he's a soldier he should serve. If he's a target so be it. If he's killed or captured that's a soldier's lot.
The only issue was whether he would increase the danger to those serving around him. Especially by being a ginga.
If he had any balls at all he'd have either insisted that he went or taken the more manly decision and announced to the public that he wouldn't go because of the risk he'd present to other soldiers, taking the 'coward' flak that went with that.
Basically all the 'royals' used the armed services as a glorified CCF (does that still exist?). It demeans the armed forces to give those wankers preferential treatment. They should stop playing soldiers and get back to being the idle, feckless rich.
The only issue was whether he would increase the danger to those serving around him. Especially by being a ginga.
If he had any balls at all he'd have either insisted that he went or taken the more manly decision and announced to the public that he wouldn't go because of the risk he'd present to other soldiers, taking the 'coward' flak that went with that.
Basically all the 'royals' used the armed services as a glorified CCF (does that still exist?). It demeans the armed forces to give those wankers preferential treatment. They should stop playing soldiers and get back to being the idle, feckless rich.
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
Why are you guys so anti royal?
This is why
Britain's history has been one of gradual change from absolute monarch toward a modern democracy. And yet that democracy remains incomplete as we continue to hold on to the last remnants of an outdated system of power and privilege.
During the last century and a half, the world has experienced fundamental changes, both political and social. Britain, too, has changed, with democracy and universal suffrage largely replacing an aristocratic and hereditary system. More recently, some powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. However, despite all these changes our constitution remains a family affair, a system in which the 'crown' is sovereign and the Windsor family reign supreme. As citizens we should be sovereign, not the crown nor parliament. In a democracy we should be choosing our next Head of State, not leaving it to the genetic lottery of the Windsor family.
Britain still retains a political culture centred on "Her Majesty's Government" - not ours, but hers, a powerful reminder in days gone by of where our place was in the system. The idea of royal "ownership" continues to pervade this culture and to reinforce the idea that the system is not our own.
Despite the extravagant costs of monarchy, and the increasingly erratic behaviour of the royals, our arguments are concerned with democracy, the principle that this is our country and we should choose our heads of state.
We should have the right to elect and hold to account all who hold public office and such people must remember that they are there to serve us, and not vice versa.
It is time to claim the right to our own country and to choose our Head of State.
This is why
Britain's history has been one of gradual change from absolute monarch toward a modern democracy. And yet that democracy remains incomplete as we continue to hold on to the last remnants of an outdated system of power and privilege.
During the last century and a half, the world has experienced fundamental changes, both political and social. Britain, too, has changed, with democracy and universal suffrage largely replacing an aristocratic and hereditary system. More recently, some powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. However, despite all these changes our constitution remains a family affair, a system in which the 'crown' is sovereign and the Windsor family reign supreme. As citizens we should be sovereign, not the crown nor parliament. In a democracy we should be choosing our next Head of State, not leaving it to the genetic lottery of the Windsor family.
Britain still retains a political culture centred on "Her Majesty's Government" - not ours, but hers, a powerful reminder in days gone by of where our place was in the system. The idea of royal "ownership" continues to pervade this culture and to reinforce the idea that the system is not our own.
Despite the extravagant costs of monarchy, and the increasingly erratic behaviour of the royals, our arguments are concerned with democracy, the principle that this is our country and we should choose our heads of state.
We should have the right to elect and hold to account all who hold public office and such people must remember that they are there to serve us, and not vice versa.
It is time to claim the right to our own country and to choose our Head of State.
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
The Irish had the right idea from 1922 to 1949.
The 'Prime Minister' post was called President of the Executive Council. The Executive Council was him, the Vice-President and the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and one other Minister.
Other Ministers added in the usual way made up the Cabinet- but the difference was that the Executive Council, in as far as the Irish were concerned, were the Head of State collectively for internal affairs. The Crown Representative- their name for the Governor-General- lost more and more powers as the years went on; after 1937, he was evicted from his Government property.
So the Executive Council took office from the will of the Parliament. They signed off Acts, appointed judges and all the things the Crown does in the UK.
And the King? The King remained King of Ireland- but only for the signing of treaties and for international affairs. Ambassadors to the Executive Council came as envoys to the King, and vice versa. Treaties were signed in the name of the King by the Executive Council's nominee.
So if you looked at Ireland from outside, it looked like a Dominion- thereby complying with the 1921 peace treaty. But from inside Ireland, it was a republic in all but name.
Will this model appear again?
The 'Prime Minister' post was called President of the Executive Council. The Executive Council was him, the Vice-President and the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and one other Minister.
Other Ministers added in the usual way made up the Cabinet- but the difference was that the Executive Council, in as far as the Irish were concerned, were the Head of State collectively for internal affairs. The Crown Representative- their name for the Governor-General- lost more and more powers as the years went on; after 1937, he was evicted from his Government property.
So the Executive Council took office from the will of the Parliament. They signed off Acts, appointed judges and all the things the Crown does in the UK.
And the King? The King remained King of Ireland- but only for the signing of treaties and for international affairs. Ambassadors to the Executive Council came as envoys to the King, and vice versa. Treaties were signed in the name of the King by the Executive Council's nominee.
So if you looked at Ireland from outside, it looked like a Dominion- thereby complying with the 1921 peace treaty. But from inside Ireland, it was a republic in all but name.
Will this model appear again?
Re: Prince H.......just off the plane...what a hero?
A few points here:
Alex Salmond is a monarchist and wants a dual monarchy of an independent Kingdom of Scotland with a united Crown with the 'United Kingdom of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar'.
The Welsh are already building links with the Irish in some fisheries and environment areas.
Prince Harry says he wants to live in Africa. Can we have a whip-around for his airfare, anyone?
Alex Salmond is a monarchist and wants a dual monarchy of an independent Kingdom of Scotland with a united Crown with the 'United Kingdom of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar'.
The Welsh are already building links with the Irish in some fisheries and environment areas.
Prince Harry says he wants to live in Africa. Can we have a whip-around for his airfare, anyone?