The Jubilee was a scam
#31
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,107
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
- PC Was not able to choose his job. His point is valid.
- My Mum loves homeopathy, what you or I think about it is irrelevant, the NHS have enough idiots in management to make their own decisions.
- You may not like QT's architecture, but I can guarantee that a lot of people DO. Irrelevant.
- PC owns organic food? Nobody else thinks that is a good idea? Can you not choose to buy organic food or not? Irrelevant.
- Chelsea Barracks - he said he didn't like what the Candy's had designed. Opinion.
- Your last point is again, just your opinion.
His personal life, whilst remaining in the public eye, really has very little to do with anyone else but himself and his family / friends.
I agree that the Queen provides us with a near-perfect monarch, fully aware of the role she fulfills. PC is, I think, cut from the same cloth, but only time will tell. I hope the Queen has many more years.
- My Mum loves homeopathy, what you or I think about it is irrelevant, the NHS have enough idiots in management to make their own decisions.
- You may not like QT's architecture, but I can guarantee that a lot of people DO. Irrelevant.
- PC owns organic food? Nobody else thinks that is a good idea? Can you not choose to buy organic food or not? Irrelevant.
- Chelsea Barracks - he said he didn't like what the Candy's had designed. Opinion.
- Your last point is again, just your opinion.
His personal life, whilst remaining in the public eye, really has very little to do with anyone else but himself and his family / friends.
I agree that the Queen provides us with a near-perfect monarch, fully aware of the role she fulfills. PC is, I think, cut from the same cloth, but only time will tell. I hope the Queen has many more years.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour. This was completely underhanded and unethical behaviour from any public figure, much less the unelected HoS in waiting.
Worse yet is that it is an outrageous conflict of interest for him to use his inherited public platform to promote completely unscientific (and potentially dangerous) claims that directly support his own business interests. MPs and peers have to declare a register of interests and recuse themselves from matters that affect their personal business. The head of state - especially an unelected one - should be held to an even higher standard. As it is, as heir he is allowed to ride roughshod and unchallenged over all standard rules of ethics in public life.
Forcing the NHS to spend large amounts of time and money evaluating homeopathy and other "alternative therapies" which have already been thoroughly discredited is a criminal waste of very scarce taxpayer resources. That money could be funding the latest cancer treatments or better care for dementia patients. That it is happening all because of the ignorant vanity of one of Britain's richest men, who is also the beneficiary of the public purse, should have people reacting in the time-honoured Brisitsh fashion: with a riot!
Whether or not people like Quinlan Terry's architecture is not the point; the point is that the heir to the throne has no place promoting him above others whose work has been subject to the public planning process.
The queen makes it all look too easy. It isn't and this nicompoop is clearly not up to the job. And there is no constitutional way to get rid of him.....
Last edited by Miss Anne Thrope; Jun 11th 2012 at 7:40 am.
#32
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
All of these things would be fine if he were a private citizen. Alas he is not.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour. This was completely underhanded and unethical behaviour from any public figure, much less the unelected HoS in waiting.
Worse yet is that it is an outrageous conflict of interest for him to use his inherited public platform to promote completely unscientific (and potentially dangerous) claims that directly support his own business interests. MPs and peers have to declare a register of interests and recuse themselves from matters that affect their personal business. The head of state - especially an unelected one - should be held to an even higher standard. As it is, as heir he is allowed to ride roughshod and unchallenged over all standard rules of ethics in public life.
Forcing the NHS to spend large amounts of time and money evaluating homeopathy and other "alternative therapies" which have already been thoroughly discredited is a criminal waste of very scarce taxpayer resources. That money could be funding the latest cancer treatments or better care for dementia patients. That it is happening all because of the ignorant vanity of one of Britain's richest men, who is also the beneficiary of the public purse, should have people reacting in the time-honoured Brisitsh fashion: with a riot!
Whether or not people like Quinlan Terry's architecture is not the point; the point is that the heir to the throne has no place promoting him above others whose work has been subject to the public planning process.
The queen makes it all look too easy. It isn't and this nicompoop is clearly not up to the job. And there is no constitutional way to get rid of him.....
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour. This was completely underhanded and unethical behaviour from any public figure, much less the unelected HoS in waiting.
Worse yet is that it is an outrageous conflict of interest for him to use his inherited public platform to promote completely unscientific (and potentially dangerous) claims that directly support his own business interests. MPs and peers have to declare a register of interests and recuse themselves from matters that affect their personal business. The head of state - especially an unelected one - should be held to an even higher standard. As it is, as heir he is allowed to ride roughshod and unchallenged over all standard rules of ethics in public life.
Forcing the NHS to spend large amounts of time and money evaluating homeopathy and other "alternative therapies" which have already been thoroughly discredited is a criminal waste of very scarce taxpayer resources. That money could be funding the latest cancer treatments or better care for dementia patients. That it is happening all because of the ignorant vanity of one of Britain's richest men, who is also the beneficiary of the public purse, should have people reacting in the time-honoured Brisitsh fashion: with a riot!
Whether or not people like Quinlan Terry's architecture is not the point; the point is that the heir to the throne has no place promoting him above others whose work has been subject to the public planning process.
The queen makes it all look too easy. It isn't and this nicompoop is clearly not up to the job. And there is no constitutional way to get rid of him.....
What's your opinion on something like the Prince's Trust?
#33
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
the monarchy has no political opinion, policy opinion or any other opinion or position officially
#34
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
I think the bloke is allowed an opinion. I fail to see whether you or I agree with it has any real relevance when he has zero power to make a new law / rule / whatever.
#35
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
the queen in 60 years has yet to give an interview or say anything publicly that wasn't fairly banal, the last time she did it was an annus horribilus that she lived to regret
#36
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
Ah yes........... the vote on becoming independent from England (let's be honest)....... while remaining in the European Union........
By the way, if my country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is going to be broken up, shouldn't everyone get a vote? It's just as important to residents in Gloucester as those in Glasgow..........
By the way, if my country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is going to be broken up, shouldn't everyone get a vote? It's just as important to residents in Gloucester as those in Glasgow..........
A real democratic move would be to put it to vote throughout the entire Union...and anyone with a brain would know Scotland would suffer in the EU, just like Ireland have.
N.
#37
Account Closed
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 0
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
that's the problem he exerts power and influence hence the protocol for the monarchy not having opinions.
the queen in 60 years has yet to give an interview or say anything publicly that wasn't fairly banal, the last time she did it was an annus horribilus that she lived to regret
the queen in 60 years has yet to give an interview or say anything publicly that wasn't fairly banal, the last time she did it was an annus horribilus that she lived to regret
#39
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 112
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope
All of these things would be fine if he were a private citizen. Alas he is not.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour.
This was NOT fabricated. I saw the Petition, know the person who wrote it and we watched while it was delivered into the British Embassy. We also were kept informed of its progress throughout the weekend. It was a very big deal at the time, and luckily worked.
All of these things would be fine if he were a private citizen. Alas he is not.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour.
This was NOT fabricated. I saw the Petition, know the person who wrote it and we watched while it was delivered into the British Embassy. We also were kept informed of its progress throughout the weekend. It was a very big deal at the time, and luckily worked.
#41
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
Come off it - they just know that if they voted "NO", the same thing would happen as last time - they'd be told they were 'too small' to derail the Euro project, so they must vote again and again until they 'get it right' - a disgraceful and contemptuous denial of democracy to the proud people of a proud country.
#42
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,107
Re: The Jubilee was a scam
Originally Posted by Miss Anne Thrope
All of these things would be fine if he were a private citizen. Alas he is not.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour.
This was NOT fabricated. I saw the Petition, know the person who wrote it and we watched while it was delivered into the British Embassy. We also were kept informed of its progress throughout the weekend. It was a very big deal at the time, and luckily worked.
All of these things would be fine if he were a private citizen. Alas he is not.
As a hereditary constitutional monarch it is simply wrong for him to be taking positions on controversial matters and applying pressure to government (letters to ministers etc.). In the Chelsea case he wrote a letter to the Al Thanis (the ultimate owners of the site) which meant by protocol (of reciprocal sycophancy of feudal monarchies - the same thing that has enabled that obviously fabricated Bastakiya myth to take hold) they had to intervene in his favour.
This was NOT fabricated. I saw the Petition, know the person who wrote it and we watched while it was delivered into the British Embassy. We also were kept informed of its progress throughout the weekend. It was a very big deal at the time, and luckily worked.
However, if Charles' intervention helped then good for him. Similarly the Price's Trust is a good thing. But neither of these would seem to justify his existence being pretty much the minimum somebody in his position could do. His first wife, as dubious as her behaviour was in many respects, certainly did a lot more in less time to help more people than he has ever done.