Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend - 6/5/2012 9:22:57 PM   

Posts: 15912
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
United Kingdom can always change the laws as you see fit if the need arise to replace a bad monarch. Therefore I see no real point is dismantling the monarchy now because some event that may never take place. Such things should be handled when it happens.

Besides. I think the possibility that a politician gains power and do really bad things is as likely and that might be harder to remedy.


Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 61
RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend - 6/5/2012 11:31:27 PM   

Posts: 4315
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Watching the highlights, I was impressed by the parade!


(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 62
RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend - 6/6/2012 1:32:25 AM   

Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

A good monach like the queen disguises the fact that a hereditary head of state runs the risk of having a corrupt idiot on the throne and no mechanism to remove him.

A total non-issue now. As the monarch has no effective power whatsoever, 'corruption' is not an issue. Nor is idiocy, come to that. The Queen doesn't even have a say in who gets the gongs any more. You can only be 'corrupted' if somebody gives you something they want in exchange for something you want and that giving constitutes an abuse of power. And as the monarch, if not necessarily everyone in the family (or their ex-wives), isn't exactly short of cash anyway, and gets the position (like it or not) without having to do anything, what what are they likely to want?

An elected Head of State is far more likely to be corrupt. Gaining political power needs powerful help, and powerful help leads to powerful favours being owed. The same with keeping power. Sure, in theory, you can vote them out (assuming they don't change the constitution to stop that happening - hardly an uncommon occurance in the world!) IF that corruption comes to light while they are in office, but in practice you would never get the chance as their own colleagues would gang up to swing the axe first hoping for a power grab of their own.

< Message edited by Hertston -- 6/6/2012 1:33:28 AM >

(in reply to PunkReaper)
Post #: 63
RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend - 6/6/2012 9:56:08 AM   

Posts: 1086
Joined: 8/23/2006
From: England
Status: offline
Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Yesterday, Wikileaks released a US diplomatic cable about a meeting between Prince Andrew - who has "gainful employment" as a British trade ambassador - and a group of British businessmen in Kyrgyzstan, which revealed the prince's support of corruption:

Having exhausted the topic of Kyrgyzstan, he turned to the general issue of promoting British economic interests abroad. He railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the “idiocy” of almost scuttling the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia. (NOTE: The Duke was referencing an investigation, subsequently closed, into alleged kickbacks a senior Saudi royal had received in exchange for the multi-year, lucrative BAE Systems contract to provide equipment and training to Saudi security forces. END NOTE.) His mother’s subjects seated around the table roared their approval. He then went on to “these (expletive) journalists, especially from the National Guardian, who poke their noses everywhere” and (presumably) make it harder for British businessmen to do business.
But it gets worse - it turns out that he had been using his position as a member of the royal family to demand special briefings from the UK Serious Fraud Office on their corruption investigation into BAE:
The head of the SFO, Richard Alderman was summoned to Buckingham Palace shortly afterwards, on the morning of 13 May 2008, according to a palace spokesman.
Asked if Andrew had discussed the BAE case at that meeting, the spokesman said: "I would be surprised if he didn't." But he said: "The director of the SFO didn't report to him anything other than publicly available information."

After his return from Kyrgyzstan, Andrew accepted an invitation to tour the SFO's headquarters in Elm Street, London on 9 December 2008.

According to the palace, he again discussed the state of the BAE case, which was still probing secret alleged payments to clinch arms deals in several other countries.

There is no conceivable honest reason for this. The only reason for someone in his position to demand such a briefing is to obtain secret information which could then be passed to BAE or the Saudis and used to undermine the investigation.
If Windsor was an elected politician, he'd be drummed out of office for this. But that's the problem: he's not elected.

Another issue

The prince's connections to Kazakhstan, another former Soviet republic rich in hydrocarbons and minerals, had been in the spotlight following the 2007 sale of the duke's former marital home to Timur Kulibaev, the Kazakh president's son-in-law.

There have been concerns that Prince Andrew has compromised his position in part because of the understanding that he received £3 million more than the guide price for the property.

Prince Charles

Secret documents detailing the use by Prince Charles of his little-known power of veto over government bills must be released, the information commissioner has ruled.

A limited number of papers that show how the prince was consulted, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, over the marine and coastal access bill, should be released within a month. Many others will remain confidential under the ruling, which was described by freedom of information campaigners as only a partial victory.

The case centres on the Whitehall convention that means the Prince of Wales must be consulted on any government bill that might affect his own interests, in particular, the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income.

Another issue

Correspondence between the office of the Prince of Wales and London mayor Boris Johnson about planning issues in the capital is being kept secret, according to national newspaper reports

The Guardian had asked City Hall to release correspondence between the prince and his aides, and elected representatives and officials at the Greater London Authority (GLA) about planning matters in the capital since Johnson became mayor, and specifically letters relating to the plans for the rebuilding of Chelsea Barracks and tall buildings.

But in a letter to the publication, information governance manager Albert Chan replied that Sir Michael Peat, Prince Charles’s private secretary, had written to Johnson but the prince had not consented to disclosure of the letter and, although the request came under environmental information regulations, it would not be released.

Another report

Witnesses ‘concocted an untrue story’ to cover up the influnce of the Prince of Wales and the Emir of Qatar in the cancellation of Richard Rogers’ Chelsea Barracks scheme, a High Court judge has been told

Justice Vos heard the case last month between property developer Christian Candy and his Qatari partners but was called back to court today to hear new disclosures.

Lord Grabiner QC, representing Candy, said the reason Qatari Diar witheld that the Emir after meeting Charles had ordered a planning application to be withdrawn was because it would have been a breach of the contract with Candy’s company CPC and they would have to pay him £81 million.

< Message edited by Punk Reaper -- 6/6/2012 10:30:28 AM >

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 64
RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend - 6/6/2012 7:51:49 PM   


Posts: 850
Joined: 6/23/2010
Status: offline
I'm going to lock the thread on the request of the originator. It's also in danger of becoming a little too political.



(in reply to PunkReaper)
Post #: 65
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Weekend Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI