Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
are such twats.
I'm not really convinced she's been lobbying so much as expressing an opinion in a conversation. There has to be a distinction - if she talks to political individauls about their work she's bound to sometimes say something like 'it's a shame he can't be arrested. You'd think there'd be a law.' It's not the same as using her power to create one and I'm not convinced she tried to do that.
Part of the issue is their lack of accountability, especially via the Freedom of Information Act - their communications are exempt from disclosure.
Although that could be about to change given the Information Tribunal ruling last week:
I'm sure they'll apply a ministerial veto to it anyway.
I just think seizing on this as evidence of her wading into public affairs is a bit erroneous.
judging by their tweets etc, is with the BBC for being so wet.
and they're taking your money.
Don't want to give money to poor people, happy to give money to the royal family.
I would say you can't put a price on happiness, but you seem to think you kind. You see the price of everything and the value of nothing.
to wave at a jar of jam if you gave it the same ceremonial title.
is that if we had a referendum on it, the country would most likely vote to keep her/them.
Something about Hitler...
But you've got the red mist; there is no reasoning with you.
and why the Queen isn't
i'm sure the Queen is far less a malevolent influence on British affairs than say, that abominable little shit prince charles, meh i guess every family has a black sheep
but if you said "one of these two has apologised", it'd be "oh, that would probably be the Queen then" and then it isn't
is hardly lobbying.
Ignore that comment.
Would they apologise for any other off-the-record chats that worked their way into stories? The correspondent should apologise to the Queen if he's breached her confidence, otherwise this whole apology is a totally weird hang wringing non-story that's bringing masses more attention to what would have passed fairly unremarked.
The Queen is well within her right to ask the Government about controversial issues - it doesn't seem from this like she was making any requests or giving instructions.
What a crock of shit.
it is not like she slammed her fist down and demanded the meddling EU sort themselves out and let us boot Hamza out. She probably just mentioned it in passing. She probably struggles for conversation. Maybe she is just lonely.
She did get involved in a political issue. If she wants to comment about it, stop taking our money. You can't have it both ways.
which doesn't alienate the people you're trying to persuade
You can't reason with royalists. If you could, there wouldn't be any.
If people genuinely want to elevate a group of people above everyone else, based on birth, give them horrendous privileges and fund their lifestyles and entertain their indulgences and think it's acceptable, then you can't tell them otherwise.
don't think he's got the brain capacity to think up that many new gags
but you'd have to stop being such a twat about it.
I'm stating facts. Royalty isn't about reason, it's about identity and belief. You can't persuade people who want them there.
Also, I think it's more your approach than your arguments that is putting people off.
at least, if you don't want to get annoyed by people acting like a prick right back at you, something which very visibly happens
How am I acting like a prick? You're being mega aggro. It's the internetz man.
And we're talking about The Queen. Not your grandma.
i wouldn't have thought it's the royalists you'd be trying to persuade, more the fence-sitters
and it's the fence-sitters, yet to make up their mind either way, that you're actually pushing towards royalism
engage brain etc
Hence me saying you can't reason with royalists.
I've got a right to be pissed off about it though as it costs fuck loads of money. It's also the whole non-egalitarian thang man.
you say something declarative and slightly but only slightly obnoxious
i say hang on this might not be the best approach
you say yes but you can't argue with royalists
i say it's not the royalists who are reading your posts here
you say like i said you can't argue with royalists
i'm going home
I don't like the Royals. That's all.
Brusma has been trolled, tis all.
You're trolling by writing nonsense like "I AM AN AAAANNNNAAAARRRR-KKYYYYSSSSTTTT!"
I'm literally making a case against the royal family and expressing my dislike for them.
FFS, sometimes you can't do shit on DiS without someone getting on your back for no good reason.
but in the most obnoxious way possible.
Confirms the stereotype of Republicans being joyless twunts and makes me want to go and spend £200 on Jubilee souvenirs whilst they're still available.
2) I'm not being obnoxious
At least, not in a way that deserves so much aggression. But after all, this is the internet and you can't expect less.
If you want to get out of your pram, pick all your toys up, come back and discuss it like like a grown up, then i'm sure people will be willing to oblige.
Not me though, i'm just here for the trolls.
and not discussed it in a reasonable way (this comes from the man trolling).
Please show me. Apart from saying "I don't give a fuck" at the beginning, which is also pretty reasonable as who cares about the F word, show me. Please. Show me all the trolling and abuse I've been dishing out.
I have mixed feelings on the Monarchy, and whilst I probably err on the side of wanting to keep it as a British institution, I’m not a Royalist. So are many people in this country.
Like it or not, the Queen, appears to have made private comments, not directly lobbied. It also happens that these private comments resonate with a large proportion of the population, ironically many of whom may not be fully decided on the issue of the monarchy. I would probably count myself as one of that number, though I do appreciate the reasons for the time it has taken to extradite Hamza.
As such, wading in like this goes against convincing the public that a Republic is the best way to run our county, as they are advocating replacing the Monarch, who appears to be in touch with many people on this matter, with an elected Head of state, when politicians appear to be out of touch on the matter. I get the point they are trying to make about it being a PR opportunity, but the BBC’s apology appears to suggest otherwise.
Many people, such as myself, would agree that the Royals should be subject to FOI requests, especially in the case of Charles’ letters to Ministers on Policy. However, a private conversation is pretty different isn’t it?
but it still reeks of intervention. But I'm not bothered really, and I dislike the royals if you hadn't have guessed.
For what it's worth, I also don't agree with Republic. You can have a nominal royal presence without the cost and worship.
But I did watch AND ENJOY the Royal Wedding. I'll admit. But it was more about the coming togevvvver.
Then the Olympics came along and I realised we could all come together an feel proud to be British without them at all.
Queen Jessica Ennis
The Daily Mail would go mad
time we had the chat oojimaflop
Would like to bone.
I can't really get that wound up about an incident that highlights the ridiculousness of the royal family and the embarrassing deference it elicits in some people.