Royal Sex Tape Scandal

[*´¯`·.¸¸.»Çô©ö»]

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]

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»]

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]

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]

Lol. Looks like we may be getting a Queen as King&#33; This stuff is better then Eastenders.

[bigboab]

If you had to choose between C* P* B* and a young servant. Who would you chose.

[AussieSheila]

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?

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]

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.

[Rat Faced]

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.

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 of the Government General.

[AussieSheila]

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.

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

B)