PDA

View Full Version : Royal Sex Tape Scandal



xindhi
10-28-2003, 08:03 PM
British press gagged by powers that be. Every one else in the world knows who it is why cant we (the british puiblic) be told?
Who is the mystery Royal Rapist?
Tell us if you know!

quiksilver_aus
10-28-2003, 09:46 PM
ME :ph34r:

bigboab
10-28-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by xindhi@28 October 2003 - 20:03
British press gagged by powers that be. Every one else in the world knows who it is why cant we (the british puiblic) be told?
Who is the mystery Royal Rapist?
Tell us if you know!
I know what you mean. I feel sorry for 'Wills'. Imagine being told the royal family are behind you. :lol:

Neo 721
10-28-2003, 10:22 PM
Heh it would'nt suprise me if it were one of the royal protection officers, the guys who supposodly would give their life to protect the royals, the same people who use the palace as a broffel every night.

blackhatknight
10-29-2003, 02:00 AM
Hate to say this as British citizens, do you not feel we are being told a lot of lies lately

1. Diana
2. The Hutton Enquiry

and i'm sure some people will add a lot more to this list, are we in dangerous time in britian

EDITED: for spelling

rf9rider
10-29-2003, 06:42 AM
Its been on the radio last night, its a member of the royal family who is supposed to have commited a lewd sex act, its supposed to be revealed in an Italian newspaper today (Wednesday).

rf9rider
11-07-2003, 05:58 AM
Its official!
The press tonight named Prince Charles as the Royal family member at the centre of the sex scandal.
He has denied the allegation, which was made by a former employee, who was said to be suffering from stress and was a former alcoholic.
No mention of the actual "offence", but everyone thinks it will all come out in the sunday papers.

sirbluey
11-07-2003, 11:22 AM
well well well, you pommies still do not know what the butler saw...
try this on for size....Tampax Charlie caught in bed with Michael Fawcett, should it now be Condom Charlie......lmao..
Happened years ago even Diana knew about it. Why do you think Fawcett got heaps of prezzies of Charlie, Charlie tried to stop the dripping tap(fawcet).hahaha








Don,t drive through any tunnels Bluey

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 12:29 PM
You lot need to remember they are the most high profile family in the world, as soon as a juicy rumour starts it's relayed worldwide through the media like wild fire, and because people sit up and listen it sells papers (tabloids).
Keep lining the tabloids pockets and they will keep feeding you the shit.
Thank god our press have been gagged, who gives a shit what they get up to anyway, the royals are for all you tourists to talk about, they earn us Brits a fortune in tourism ?

Neil__
11-07-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@7 November 2003 - 13:29
You lot need to remember they are the most high profile family in the world, as soon as a juicy rumour starts it's relayed worldwide through the media like wild fire, and because people sit up and listen it sells papers (tabloids).
Keep lining the tabloids pockets and they will keep feeding you the shit.
Thank god our press have been gagged, who gives a shit what they get up to anyway, the royals are for all you tourists to talk about, they earn us Brits a fortune in tourism ?



And they would still earn us a fortune even if we didn't pay them hundreds of millions each year

That money means they work for me "The Taxpayer" so as charlies employer I want to know who he's been diddling on my time.

and yes the tabloids are scum but that's no reason to deny us the right to know.


Neil

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Neil__+7 November 2003 - 12:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil__ @ 7 November 2003 - 12:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@7 November 2003 - 13:29
You lot need to remember they are the most high profile family in the world, as soon as a juicy rumour starts it&#39;s relayed worldwide through the media like wild fire, and because people sit up and listen it sells papers (tabloids).
Keep lining the tabloids pockets and they will keep feeding you the shit.
Thank god our press have been gagged, who gives a shit what they get up to anyway, the royals are for all you tourists to talk about, they earn us Brits a fortune in tourism ?



And they would still earn us a fortune even if we didn&#39;t pay them hundreds of millions each year

That money means they work for me "The Taxpayer" so as charlies employer I want to know who he&#39;s been diddling on my time.

and yes the tabloids are scum but that&#39;s no reason to deny us the right to know.


Neil [/b][/quote]
The right to know what? Who he has been "diddling" with, what he had for breakfast? How many times he yanked one of last night? Where do you draw the line?
It bullshit anyway, i&#39;m no royalist but i do think that compared to some of the scum walking the face of this earth today, they are an honest and extremley honurable family (present day royals).
We should be talking about what are we going to do with that bastard that murdered those two young girls, i know he has yet to be convicted, but have you seen the evidence against him?
Suggestions for a slow painfull death in this thread please.

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 01:09 PM
I used to do work for a government department called Crown Estates. This was, in essence, the Royal "firm". This department ran and profited from the Royal Estates. The money earned from the Royal Family far outstrips their cost, by megabucks. They cost you, the taxpayer, nothing. As Coco said, they earn BILLIONS a year for Britain, and not just in tourism. They, like you, are entitled to a degree of privacy. If Charlie is a shirt lifter that&#39;s his business, not yours.


:)

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 02:07 PM
taxpayer&#39;s money was used to build the royal estates you idiot&#33; Prince Albert used a lot of taxpayers money to build Balmoral etc...So stick your royal estates bullshit up your arse you royalist prick&#33; If it wasn&#39;t for the taxpayer those assholes would on the streets begging&#33;&#33;

Lets get this story out in the open and get that useless Royal Family fucked off from British society&#33;&#33;&#33; They are fucking useless and do fuck all for this country. Please don&#39;t use the tourist excuse for them cos tourists come and see the buildings not those Royal Pricks&#33;&#33;&#33; Anyway, they&#39;re never around for tourists...most probably cos they&#39;re all too busy buggering each other&#33;

Jesus Christ their not even British&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;they&#39;re all fucking German...the bastards had to change their last names to Winsdor back in the Great War...So there is nothing British about them at all&#33;&#33;&#33;

The royals are inbread, queer, wierd and god knows what else&#33;&#33; I don&#39;t want those fuckers representing this country any more&#33;&#33;&#33;

Fuck &#39;em off&#33;&#33;&#33;

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude@7 November 2003 - 14:07
taxpayer&#39;s money was used to build the royal estates you idiot&#33; Prince Albert used a lot of taxpayers money to build Balmoral etc...So stick your royal estates bullshit up your arse you royalist prick&#33; If it wasn&#39;t for the taxpayer those assholes would on the streets begging&#33;&#33;

Lets get this story out in the open and get that useless Royal Family fucked off from British society&#33;&#33;&#33; They are fucking useless and do fuck all for this country. Please don&#39;t use the tourist excuse for them cos tourists come and see the buildings not those Royal Pricks&#33;&#33;&#33; Anyway, they&#39;re never around for tourists...most probably cos they&#39;re all too busy buggering each other&#33;

Jesus Christ their not even British&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;they&#39;re all fucking German...the bastards had to change their last names to Winsdor back in the Great War...So there is nothing British about them at all&#33;&#33;&#33;

The royals are inbread, queer, wierd and god knows what else&#33;&#33; I don&#39;t want those fuckers representing this country any more&#33;&#33;&#33;

Fuck &#39;em off&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you a British resident ? If so i&#39;m emigrating.

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 02:21 PM
No but I&#39;m a British Citizen...

Emigrate then...one less Royalist&#33;

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 02:46 PM
Hey, Coco, how about we put a prize together for the most ignorant prick to grace this forum?

Bum_Dudle would win hands down&#33; If you&#39;ve got nothing sensible to say, swear&#33;

I found his post to be quite comical actually.


... and do fuck all for this country

Jesus Christ their not even British&#33;&#33;

I don&#39;t want those fuckers representing this country ...

And then the idiot comes up with this ...

Question: Are you a British resident?


No but I&#39;m a British Citizen...

Haha&#33; He doesn&#39;t even live there.

He&#39;s probably a Kurdish refugee, got his citizenship, then pissed off back to Kurdistan with his ugly wife and kids.





:) :)

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 03:29 PM
Willy_Cleaner starts well with this:


how about we put a prize together for the most ignorant prick to grace this forum?

the bitch then ruins it with this:


If you&#39;ve got nothing sensible to say, swear&#33;

then the silly idiot crashes and burns with these statements:


Haha&#33; He doesn&#39;t even live there.


He&#39;s probably a Kurdish refugee, got his citizenship, then pissed off back to Kurdistan with his ugly wife and kids.

Now it&#39;s time for the English lesson...

cit·i·zen

1) A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.
2) A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.
3) A civilian.
4) A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place

res·i·dent

1) One who resides in a particular place permanently or for an extended period, as:
-A diplomatic official residing in a foreign seat of government.
-A colonial official acting as adviser to the ruler of a protected state, often having quasi-gubernatorial powers.
-A member of an intelligence-gathering or nonuniformed law enforcement agency who resides and oversees operations in a certain locale: the FBI resident in St. Louis.
-One who lives in a dormitory.
2) A physician receiving specialized clinical training in a hospital, usually after completing an internship.
3) A nonmigratory bird or other animal.


And there you have it Willy_Cleaner...your the idiot by being the winner of your own prize&#33;

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 03:33 PM
They bring a lot more dosh into the country than they cost.

In addition, they would hardly be "On the Streets" if they received nothing from the Taxpayer, the Queens personal fortune is quite substantial.

I believe she owns most of Wallstreet in New York...not a bad piece of land to collect rent from, in anyones book.

The Prince of Wales is also owns the Dutchy of Cornwall, and is himself quite well off...


If people dont actually know what they do, then they feel good claiming they do nothing...I can see how this appears, even if its not true.

This said....there are an awfull lot of Royals on the Civil List that dont deserve to be, which helps give the rest a bad name. However some do an awful lot and aren&#39;t on the civil list, so i guess it evens out...

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@7 November 2003 - 14:46
Hey, Coco, how about we put a prize together for the most ignorant prick to grace this forum?

Bum_Dudle would win hands down&#33; If you&#39;ve got nothing sensible to say, swear&#33;

I found his post to be quite comical actually.


... and do fuck all for this country

Jesus Christ their not even British&#33;&#33;

I don&#39;t want those fuckers representing this country ...

And then the idiot comes up with this ...

Question: Are you a British resident?


No but I&#39;m a British Citizen...

Haha&#33; He doesn&#39;t even live there.

He&#39;s probably a Kurdish refugee, got his citizenship, then pissed off back to Kurdistan with his ugly wife and kids.





:) :)
I know, the funny thing is he says they are German, like it was meant to be a suprise. :lol:
He forgets what the royal family did for my grandparents generation during WWII, they represented extreme dignity during this time, the whole country looked to them for comfort.
They are not perfect, but they are better than scum like him, 4sure &#33;

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 03:55 PM
For the benefit of Hum_Drum (the foreigner)...

The Crown Estates.

Profits of £170.8 million for the year ending March 31, 2003 were announced on Tuesday 8th July, 2003.

The Crown Estate incorporates an urban estate including significant London holdings, particularly in Regent Street, Regent&#39;s Park and St James&#39;s, as well as almost 120,000 hectares of agricultural land and extensive marine assets throughout the UK.

The Crown Estate is part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign. However, the profit is paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers.


:)

Edit: The Source. (http://www.crownestate.co.uk/index_4.shtml)

[No Bum_Rude, not the River Thames&#33;]

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:03 PM
I know, the funny thing is he says they are German, like it was meant to be a suprise.

It was said as a matter of fact&#33; Nothing funny or suprising about it??


He forgets what the royal family did for my grandparents generation during WWII, they represented extreme dignity during this time, the whole country looked to them for comfort.

I remember my Grandfather saying that they walked around a few bombed out houses...and that was about it&#33; Winston Churchill was more an inspiration during WW2. They whole country actually looked to him whilst certain members of the royal family including a former King were too busy courting or buggering the Nazis&#33;&#33;


They are not perfect, but they are better than scum like him, 4sure &#33;

It is they who are the scum&#33;&#33;&#33;

You and Willy_Cleaner are now joint 1st place for that prize&#33;

thewizeard
11-07-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude@7 November 2003 - 14:07
taxpayer&#39;s money was used to build the royal estates you idiot&#33; Prince Albert used a lot of taxpayers money to build Balmoral etc...So stick your royal estates bullshit up your arse you royalist prick&#33; If it wasn&#39;t for the taxpayer those assholes would on the streets begging&#33;&#33;

Lets get this story out in the open and get that useless Royal Family fucked off from British society&#33;&#33;&#33; They are fucking useless and do fuck all for this country. Please don&#39;t use the tourist excuse for them cos tourists come and see the buildings not those Royal Pricks&#33;&#33;&#33; Anyway, they&#39;re never around for tourists...most probably cos they&#39;re all too busy buggering each other&#33;

Jesus Christ their not even British&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;they&#39;re all fucking German...the bastards had to change their last names to Winsdor back in the Great War...So there is nothing British about them at all&#33;&#33;&#33;

The royals are inbread, queer, wierd and god knows what else&#33;&#33; I don&#39;t want those fuckers representing this country any more&#33;&#33;&#33;

Fuck &#39;em off&#33;&#33;&#33;
Well....let&#39;s hope you never represent it... <_<

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 04:09 PM
Civil list spending summary:

Net expenditure in 2000 £6.509m
Expenditure transferred to list £1.589m
Adjustments for inflation £137,000
Reduction in other spending -£82,000

Total £8.153m



So.....she pays the Government £170.8 million

The Government then gives her £8.153 million (2000 figures)

That gives a grand total of over £162 million to the Government each year.



This is before any of her Contributions in Lieu of Tax from her personal fortune, added benefits to Tourism and her influence in achieving exports for British Industry are taken into account.

It also does not take into account the 2,600 official engagements she had to go to last year.


Something tells me i will not be supporting any drum_dude application to be Chancellor.

Hell, better not even make him treasurer of anything...


:wacko:

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:15 PM
My god Willy_Cleaner your really becoming obsessed with me&#33;&#33;&#33;

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude@8 November 2003 - 02:15
My god Willy_Cleaner your really becoming obsessed with me&#33;&#33;&#33;
You amuse me.


:)

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 04:20 PM
Children, Children..... Papa spank..

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:25 PM
Hmm Willy_Cleaner...we are all guilty of something and we are all capable of digging up the past too&#33;


I&#39;ve just noticed I had 8 unread PM&#39;s. Two were warnings from mod&#39;s about my "abuse" towards j2, and my "attacks" on JPaul.

j2, if you see my remarks in any way other than the light hearted way they were intended, I apologise.

JPaul, if you feel I have in any way attacked you personally, I apologise to you also.

I still reserve the right to argue, discuss and disagree with you both, however.

Anyone else feel they need an apology? Be quick, I&#39;m in a good mood, it may not last&#33;

I&#39;d quit while you can&#33;

shinzuiski
11-07-2003, 04:28 PM
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 November 2003 - 16:20
Children, Children..... Papa spank..
dumb_dud started it. :lol:

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
:D

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
Another valuable thread contribution, we are honoured.

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude@7 November 2003 - 16:25
Hmm Willy_Cleaner...we are all guilty of something and we are all capable of digging up the past too&#33;


I&#39;ve just noticed I had 8 unread PM&#39;s. Two were warnings from mod&#39;s about my "abuse" towards j2, and my "attacks" on JPaul.

j2, if you see my remarks in any way other than the light hearted way they were intended, I apologise.

JPaul, if you feel I have in any way attacked you personally, I apologise to you also.

I still reserve the right to argue, discuss and disagree with you both, however.

Anyone else feel they need an apology? Be quick, I&#39;m in a good mood, it may not last&#33;

I&#39;d quit while you can&#33;
You dumb fugger, we were begining to come round to you, but now you&#39;ve just blown it http://home.no/femma/smilies/Explode.gif

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude@8 November 2003 - 02:25
Bend over Billy Dean and I&#39;ll show you why they call me Bum Dude.
On yer bike&#33;&#33;


:angry:

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+7 November 2003 - 16:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 7 November 2003 - 16:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-drum_dude@8 November 2003 - 02:25
Bend over Billy Dean and I&#39;ll show you why they call me Bum Dude.
On yer bike&#33;&#33;


:angry: [/b][/quote]
lol, very good&#33;

:D :D :D :D

Money Fist
11-07-2003, 04:40 PM
I have read enough&#33;&#33;&#33;

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
Well most of your compatriots dont think so..

Didnt you have referendum to become a Republic recently....and decided that you wished to retain the Queen as Head of State?

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»+7 November 2003 - 16:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö» @ 7 November 2003 - 16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-drum_dude@7 November 2003 - 16:25
Hmm Willy_Cleaner...we are all guilty of something and we are all capable of digging up the past too&#33;


I&#39;ve just noticed I had 8 unread PM&#39;s. Two were warnings from mod&#39;s about my "abuse" towards j2, and my "attacks" on JPaul.

j2, if you see my remarks in any way other than the light hearted way they were intended, I apologise.

JPaul, if you feel I have in any way attacked you personally, I apologise to you also.

I still reserve the right to argue, discuss and disagree with you both, however.

Anyone else feel they need an apology? Be quick, I&#39;m in a good mood, it may not last&#33;

I&#39;d quit while you can&#33;
You dumb fugger, we were begining to come round to you, but now you&#39;ve just blown it http://home.no/femma/smilies/Explode.gif [/b][/quote]
Yeah right Coco...for some unknown reason I just don&#39;t believe you&#33; <_<

Billy_Dean
11-07-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+8 November 2003 - 02:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 8 November 2003 - 02:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
Well most of your compatriots dont think so..

Didnt you have referendum to become a Republic recently....and decided that you wished to retain the Queen as Head of State? [/b][/quote]
?????


:huh:

drum_dude
11-07-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+7 November 2003 - 16:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 7 November 2003 - 16:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
Well most of your compatriots dont think so..

Didnt you have referendum to become a Republic recently....and decided that you wished to retain the Queen as Head of State? [/b][/quote]
No we didn&#39;t...Some TV talk shows did some phone votes and it was about 50/50...

Australia had a referendum though...

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 04:49 PM
If you look at who i was responding to.... That poster is Australian.


I have already put someone on this thread on Moderation Preview...

PLEASE stop fighting/flaming... I dont want to have to do it to everyone <_<


This is a debating area.... as J2k4 would say, fight with a Rapier...not a Club.

Debate issues all you want, but personal crap and gratuitous bad language will not be tolerated.

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by drum_dude+7 November 2003 - 16:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (drum_dude @ 7 November 2003 - 16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 November 2003 - 16:40
<!--QuoteBegin-shinzuiski@7 November 2003 - 16:28
omg who cares about the royals they are all gay ne way.
Well most of your compatriots dont think so..

Didnt you have referendum to become a Republic recently....and decided that you wished to retain the Queen as Head of State?
No we didn&#39;t...Some TV talk shows did some phone votes and it was about 50/50...

Australia had a referendum though... [/b][/quote]
I still fail to see why some people hate the royals. What harm do they do to us? They just need better spin.

Barbarossa
11-07-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@7 November 2003 - 16:50

I still fail to see why some people hate the royals. What harm do they do to us? They just need better spin.
It&#39;s just jealousy and ignorance.

I actually feel sorry for the Royal Family, especially William and Harry, they must wish they&#39;d never been born sometimes.


They&#39;re only human beings&#33;&#33; Anyway, I&#39;d much rather have the dumb Royals who are fairly harmless than to be in a Republic and have a dumb President who isn&#39;t...

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-07-2003, 06:17 PM
Well i have no complaints about them, but in todays "leftie" world they are some what viewed upon as politically incorrect.
But i still do not understand why they are hated by some quarters, the Aussies got it right, they can see that the royals are a family you do want your country to be associated with.
Good on ya ;) they do a lot more good than harm.

MetroStars
11-07-2003, 06:31 PM
I haven&#39;t got a clue wot&#39;s going on...

but r the rumours about Prince Charlie Bummeing a guy

yes or no

imported_7aint9
11-07-2003, 07:26 PM
Lol. Looks like we may be getting a Queen as King&#33; This stuff is better then Eastenders.

bigboab
11-07-2003, 08:18 PM
If you had to choose between C* P* B* and a young servant. Who would you chose. :lol:

AussieSheila
11-07-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 November 2003 - 02:40


Didnt you have referendum to become a Republic recently....and decided that you wished to retain the Queen as Head of State?
:angry: NO. We had a referendum carefully worded to scare the crap outta anybody who didn&#39;t have the inclination to follow the facts.

The Queen is not our Head of State, the Governer General is. The Queen has no actual power in this country. The only thing she could do is sack the Governor General and when she was asked to do that in Canada she declined on the grounds that it would create a constitutional crisis, which it would.



WSWS : News & Analysis : Australia & South Pacific

Australia&#39;s "Republic" referendum reveals mass disaffection
By Mike Head
4 November 1999

The longer the official campaign has gone on, the more obvious it has become that the November 6 referendum on whether Australia becomes a republic, dispensing with the British monarchy, gives the broad mass of people no choice at all.

With the government-financed &#036;300 million campaign in its last days, media opinion polls and surveys indicate widespread disgust toward the entire project, and deep disenchantment with the political system as a whole.

One poll last week showed that support for a “yes” vote fell by 10 points to 33 percent over the previous fortnight, with the number of undecided voters rising 12 points to 26 percent. The “no” vote remained at 41 percent. Other polls show that only a small minority—some 10 percent of intending “no” voters—actually support retaining the services of the British royal family.

Yet these are the only options on the ballot paper. A “no” vote will continue an hereditary British-based monarchy with its ancient and unspecified “reserve powers” held in the hands of a Governor-General who is appointed purely by the Prime Minister of the day. A “yes” vote will simply transfer the potentially dictatorial powers of the Crown—including the right to dismiss governments and dissolve parliaments—to an unelected President.

It was certainly not desire to keep the royal family that defeated the referendum. I don&#39;t have anything against them, I think they are fairly entertaining at times. And I don&#39;t care what they do in their spare time, and I think the British attitude that you "own" them and they are therefore accountable to you "at all times" is disgusting. They are only people, give them a break, and some goddam privacy&#33;

B)

Jems
11-07-2003, 09:24 PM
It was certainly not desire to keep the royal family that defeated the referendum. I don&#39;t have anything against them, I think they are fairly entertaining at times. And I don&#39;t care what they do in their spare time, and I think the British attitude that you "own" them and they are therefore accountable to you "at all times" is disgusting. They are only people, give them a break, and some goddam privacy&#33;

Well, its mostly the so called &#39;unbaised&#39; media. While they don&#39;t actually say they support one side or another in most things, the way things are written making their intentions obvious. They only have to show what they want. For example, when discussing a court case, they would put the most stunning qoute they could get from the prosecution or defense and make it their headline, as if its a fact. Innocent until speculated guilty...
The media also lives in a fantasy world. They make pronouncements like &#39;people are saying it will bring down the royal family&#39;. No it won&#39;t. The mysterious people they refer to are usually the rest of the media or biased representatives of various causes. There have been plenty of homosexual royals throughout history, but comics, sorry, &#39;newspapers&#39; like The Sun have an artical pronouncing a historic scandal and derising it at the mere mention of anything remotely sexual, while topless Debbie on page 3 tells us her opinion on the matter. :ph34r:

Rat Faced
11-07-2003, 09:49 PM
A “yes” vote will simply transfer the potentially dictatorial powers of the Crown—including the right to dismiss governments and dissolve parliaments—to an unelected President.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


The "Royal Perogative" is in the hands of the elected Prime Ministers, not the Governor Generals...they only sign the laws that the governments pass, in the name of the Queen..

The dictorial "Royal Powers"...ie Power to Declare War etc (without recourse to Parliament)...are in the PMs hands.

The only "Power" that the Governer General has in the name of the Queen, as you pointed out, is to dismiss a Government...and force an election for a new one, or refuse to sign a Law Passed.

As the Powers of the Governer General arent "enshrined" within Constitution they could lose that power within a week of a new Government being elected... Its wholley upto the Australian Government.

The Queen is in the same boat in the UK. I cant think of a situation, short of a Prime Minister about to instigate a Nuclear War or something, which would make her use that power.

She detested Thatcher, as an example, and would have been justified in forcing an election at the time of the Poll Tax riots in the UK....but she didnt. That "Power" will only be able to get used once, before being taken away by the next Government in office....whatever way that Government leans...

Reserve Powers (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn25.htm) of the Government General.

AussieSheila
11-08-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 November 2003 - 07:49

A “yes” vote will simply transfer the potentially dictatorial powers of the Crown—including the right to dismiss governments and dissolve parliaments—to an unelected President.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



:) Yeah, it&#39;s funny isn&#39;t it. It was that sort of wording that killed the whole thing.

B)

MagicNakor
11-08-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by AussieSheila@7 November 2003 - 22:09
...The Queen is not our Head of State, the Governer General is. The Queen has no actual power in this country. The only thing she could do is sack the Governor General and when she was asked to do that in Canada she declined on the grounds that it would create a constitutional crisis, which it would...
I have no idea where you got that from, but it&#39;s incorrect.

Canada has never asked to have Adrienne Clarkson removed from office. People are upset about the spending, and the Alliance and Catholic Church are upset about the same-sex endorsement, but there&#39;s never been any talk of having her forcibly removed from office.

Are you sure you&#39;re not confusing your own Governor-General with ours?

:ninja:

AussieSheila
11-08-2003, 01:14 AM
It could be incorrect, this is where I got it from. I don&#39;t know who they are talking about regarding the Canadian Governor General. :)


Dismissal of the Governor-General
At present the Prime Minister cannot dismiss the Governor-General - He can only ask the Queen to dismiss him. The claim is made that if Whitlam had asked the Queen to dismiss Sir John Kerr she would have had to do so immediately.

This is an untried, unwarranted assumption. It has never happened in Australia. It has however in Canada.

In Canada, I understand, the Prime Minister did once ask the Queen to dismiss the Governor-General. The Queen pointed out that if she did there would be a Constitutional crisis - as there would have been in Australia. It would have left the nation with a government who could not get supply in Parliament but with no mechanism to dismiss the government and resolve the crisis with fresh elections.

In the situation in Canada the Queen consulted with the Prime Minister and with the Governor-General and arranged an orderly hand over to a new Governor-General as the old one resigned.

SOURCE (http://www.angelfire.com/id/ronajoyner/tuckvote.html)

Rat Faced
11-08-2003, 02:27 AM
Im glad you didnt become a Republic Shiela, as the PM already as too much power... the "Royal Perogatives" are much more frightening than the "Reserved".


Among the powers theoretically possessed by the monarch under the Royal Prerogative are:

The power to select and dismiss ministers;
The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
The powers of clemency and pardon;
The awarding of dignities and honours;
The declaration of war;
The declaration of an emergency;
The granting of Charters of Incorporation;
The collection of tolls;
The issuing of passports and their revoking;
The expulsion of a foreign nationals;
The creation of new common law courts;
The creation of new universities;
The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
The printing of the authorised Church of England version of The Bible;
The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council.
The monarch is also immune from prosecution in the courts, though the scope of the immunity that once attached to the Crown has reduced.

Most powers execised by the government in international and foreign affairs come from the Royal Prerogative. These include

The accreditation of diplomats;
The granting of Sovereign Immunity;
The negotiation of treaties;
Many uses of the prerogative in foreign affairs are called Acts of State.

Among the odder royal prerogatives are:

The power to order a subject of His or Her Majesty not to leave the realm;
Royal ownership of swans.

In reality these powers are all exercised by the Prime Minister, who instructs the monarch as to when to use them.

In 2003, prior to British involvement in the war on Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair in a major break with precedent sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament&#39;s decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. However Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he would not formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative and declare war. Given that Blair had an overwhelming Labour majority in the British House of Commons and had the support of the opposition Conservative Party, there was little likelihood that parliament would vote down the motion recommending participation in the war. It remains to be seen whether a future government with a small majority or in a minority in the House of Commons will seek parliamentary approval prior to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Former left wing Labour MP Tony Benn campaigned for the abolition of the Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, arguing that all governmental powers in effect exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and cabinet should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and require parliamentary approval. He attempts however were unsuccessful, with successive governments arguing that such is the breath of topics covered by the Royal Prerogative that requiring parliamentary approval in each instance where the prerogative is currently used would overwhelm parliamentary time and slow down the process of parliamentary enactment of legislation.




I emphasised the powers that the PM has.... as you can see, the Governer General is just a balance that can dismiss the PM if he gets too....enthusiastic?

The Republican blueprint in Australia would have given the Australian Prime Minister total power......he could declare war, without Parliamentary approval, and no one could remove him from office.

This isnt to say that a Republic wouldnt work. In my opinion though, if you want a President and a Prime Minister...then they should be totally independant of each other. Possibly both posts being elected seperately.

Currently:

I think the Queen is the "Head of State", as you fall into the catagory of a "Commonwealth Realm" (as opposed to Commonwealth Nation). However as there are 16 Commonwealth Realms, it would be physically impossible for the Queen to fulfill that job in all of them.

The Realm therefore appoints a Governor General to act upon the Queen behalf, and he/she is the de facto Head of State.

I think that it is upto the individual countries; how its decided who to appoint to the position. As has been said, the only power the Queen could exercise is the dismissal of the Governor General.


Magic probably knows a lot more about it than me ;)

MagicNakor
11-08-2003, 02:51 AM
Well, the Queen&#39;s the de facto head of State in Canada (and any other Commonwealth Realm), which is a constitutional monarchy. The Commonwealth of Nations (or British Commonwealth) is an association that&#39;s been formed with the United Kingdom and its former colonies.

The Governor General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

:ninja:

AussieSheila
11-08-2003, 06:54 AM
:) My point was not so much what role the Queen plays, or how much power she does or doesn&#39;t have. It was really that Australia DID NOT vote to keep the Queen. The majority of Australians voted to keep a system they were accustomed to and comfortable with because the way the questions were worded made it seem like Saddam Hussien could be president if he wanted and the Australian people would have no say in it. There were also a couple (I think, it was a while ago) of phrases in the Preamble which were designed to scare people from agreeing to it. An ALMOST apology to the Aborigines it might have been? Which then led to scare tactics about Koori&#39;s suing for the better part of Australia. I don&#39;t have time right now to research the details (don&#39;t s&#39;pose anyone actually cares anyway) but I listened to people being frightened out of voting for a Republic, and much as I tried I was unable to convince them (that I had contact with) otherwise.

Like I said, nothing against the Royals. Quite a lot of Australia feels just the way I do. (Hmmm. Could just be the female population, going by the comments of my partner, who is a Pom btw, but that&#39;s a lot of us.) We feel desperately sorry for them, especially Harry and Wills, we loved Diana, think Charles is a bit of a twit, but OK. The thing is, we&#39;re all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.

So, call her Head of State if you want, I&#39;d just rather admire her from afar, as ruler of your country not mine.

B)

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-08-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by AussieSheila@8 November 2003 - 06:54
:) My point was not so much what role the Queen plays, or how much power she does or doesn&#39;t have. It was really that Australia DID NOT vote to keep the Queen. The majority of Australians voted to keep a system they were accustomed to and comfortable with because the way the questions were worded made it seem like Saddam Hussien could be president if he wanted and the Australian people would have no say in it. There were also a couple (I think, it was a while ago) of phrases in the Preamble which were designed to scare people from agreeing to it. An ALMOST apology to the Aborigines it might have been? Which then led to scare tactics about Koori&#39;s suing for the better part of Australia. I don&#39;t have time right now to research the details (don&#39;t s&#39;pose anyone actually cares anyway) but I listened to people being frightened out of voting for a Republic, and much as I tried I was unable to convince them (that I had contact with) otherwise.

Like I said, nothing against the Royals. Quite a lot of Australia feels just the way I do. (Hmmm. Could just be the female population, going by the comments of my partner, who is a Pom btw, but that&#39;s a lot of us.) We feel desperately sorry for them, especially Harry and Wills, we loved Diana, think Charles is a bit of a twit, but OK. The thing is, we&#39;re all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.

So, call her Head of State if you want, I&#39;d just rather admire her from afar, as ruler of your country not mine.

B)
So basically you are saying that your fellow countrymen and women would prefer to not have the Queen as head of state because they may end up with Saddam Hussien as leader, wow, are you Aussies really that stupid ? :lol:

*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»
11-08-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by AussieSheila@8 November 2003 - 06:54
The thing is, we&#39;re all grown up now and it irks us to be (however mythically) attached to the apron strings of the British Monarchy.
Well who is holding on to those apron strings ?
Do you think we (British) are holding you back ?
Do you need some scissors ?

Neil__
11-15-2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by *´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»+7 November 2003 - 14:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö» @ 7 November 2003 - 14:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Neil__@7 November 2003 - 12:34
<!--QuoteBegin-*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»@7 November 2003 - 13:29
You lot need to remember they are the most high profile family in the world, as soon as a juicy rumour starts it&#39;s relayed worldwide through the media like wild fire, and because people sit up and listen it sells papers (tabloids).
Keep lining the tabloids pockets and they will keep feeding you the shit.
Thank god our press have been gagged, who gives a shit what they get up to anyway, the royals are for all you tourists to talk about, they earn us Brits a fortune in tourism ?



And they would still earn us a fortune even if we didn&#39;t pay them hundreds of millions each year

That money means they work for me "The Taxpayer" so as charlies employer I want to know who he&#39;s been diddling on my time.

and yes the tabloids are scum but that&#39;s no reason to deny us the right to know.


Neil
The right to know what? Who he has been "diddling" with, what he had for breakfast? How many times he yanked one of last night? Where do you draw the line?
It bullshit anyway, i&#39;m no royalist but i do think that compared to some of the scum walking the face of this earth today, they are an honest and extremley honurable family (present day royals).
We should be talking about what are we going to do with that bastard that murdered those two young girls, i know he has yet to be convicted, but have you seen the evidence against him?
Suggestions for a slow painfull death in this thread please. [/b][/quote]



No, Just diddling.

Neil.