Today I'm angry about.....

[bobo the clown]

Is everyone still angry about the royal wedding with the extra bank holiday on the 29th April 2011??

I'm angry about it yeah. Cos it means I won't be getting paid and I'll be sat at home and there'll be sod all else on telly.

Cut your lawns & trim your hedges.

I did that on the day Elton sang 'Candle in the Wind'.

Fck it annoyed some people. One even came by & asked me to stop as it was disrespectful. She did this while I had electric shears in my hands. A brave, if rather stupid ... and ultimately disappointed ... woman !!

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Well I, for one, am thrilled for Willis and Kates (as I know them now).

I'm off school for the Easter holidays from 31st March to 28th April.

I go back on 28th April.

Then I have a four day weekend.

Hoorah and Huzzah!

[bobo the clown]

said Bishop (from previous page) has now been suspended by the Bishop of London who has crawled to Buckingham Palace on hands and knees and kissed the queen's calloused feet in humble and abject pitiful apology...

the one time a bishop says summat I agree with - he is axed! wankers!

Can we point your agreement out to the Bishop of London, to show that the poor axed bishop has more support from within the ranks? Or maybe you want to start a Facebook page of support which we could all subscribe to?

I'm afraid I don't count amongst the CofE ranks....

what is this thing you call "facebook"?

Not RC???!! people could get excommunicated!

nope - sorry....

Ah, ha.

Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster !! Got ya.

[Prufrock]

Paris in April. Yessir.

EDIT: Whoah WtW, I've just thought. As nice as Cordoba sounds, surely, surely, long weekend in Paris finishing in the May day parade on the Monday? Start and end the weekend at Place de la Bastille! S'where I'll be.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'll tell you what I'm angry about, shall I? Once again, the car dealership sent Stumpy O'Legs McNolegs to collect my car and re-deliver it after servicing it. I don't mind someone moving the seat forwards a bit, but do they really have to adjust the seat height, the angle of the back rest, the position of the lumber support and all of the mirrors just to drive the fecking thing three miles?

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Well, they've got to fit the bird they've been dogging with somewhere....

[thebish]

Ah, ha.

Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster !! Got ya.

rumbled!

[ratbert]

I'll tell you what I'm angry about, shall I? Once again, the car dealership sent Stumpy O'Legs McNolegs to collect my car and re-deliver it after servicing it. I don't mind someone moving the seat forwards a bit, but do they really have to adjust the seat height, the angle of the back rest, the position of the lumber support and all of the mirrors just to drive the fecking thing three miles?

Yes.

In my case, it's also cover the seats in clear plastic bags and don't bother taking them off again.

[thebish]

I'll tell you what I'm angry about, shall I? Once again, the car dealership sent Stumpy O'Legs McNolegs to collect my car and re-deliver it after servicing it. I don't mind someone moving the seat forwards a bit, but do they really have to adjust the seat height, the angle of the back rest, the position of the lumber support and all of the mirrors just to drive the fecking thing three miles?

Yes.

In my case, it's also cover the seats in clear plastic bags and don't bother taking them off again.

and retune the radio to radio crappety-crap!

[William the White]

Paris in April. Yessir.

EDIT: Whoah WtW, I've just thought. As nice as Cordoba sounds, surely, surely, long weekend in Paris finishing in the May day parade on the Monday? Start and end the weekend at Place de la Bastille! S'where I'll be.

You know, that sounds really, really tempting.

I shall be putting it to she-who-must-be-consulted (but is equally anxious to spend that day in Republican company)...

[Dujon]

Looking from the outside in to your monarchical structure I've often wondered whether removing the current 'head of state' status of the royal family would save money. I've done no research, but it strikes me that, collectively, they must attract overseas tourists - and even local ones - to spend significant amounts of money in the country. Would taking away the pomp and ceremony and royal attendances at functions affect this 'investment'?

Naturally such a symbolic beheading of the aristocracy would not affect me directly - but the Queen (or King) of England is also Australia's head of state, though the monarch is represented by a locally appointed person known as the Governor General. There are also six State Governors General, although whether or not they are constitutionally bound to consult with the Governor General on matters of state is beyond my ken. Certainly I could do some research but, to be honest, I couldn't be bothered.

I am a republican at heart. A few years ago we had a referendum on the matter of republic versus monarchy. The monarchists won quite easily. Even I voted on the monarchist side. The reason I did that (and I suspect many other people did likewise) was that I thought the model put forward by the republicans was a poor construct and failed to satisfy my idea of a republic and the accountability of Parliament and its members. What the answer is I don't know. Canada seems to have done reasonably well since its declaration of independence - perhaps I should look at its system to formulate my own idea of Nirvana.

When it comes to the media coverage of this, not unexpected, event I'm ambivalent. I find that I can ignore it at will and my wife, who loves all this kerfuffle over royalty, can get her fill of romance in both senses.

[Gravedigger]

I think one of the big questions is indeed, what's the financial balance for having a monarchy, set against not having one? Obviously they attract tourists as a part of the London and national scene. They are in the supersalesperson class when abroad and provide some high level respectability to organisations they are involved with. In comparison to other Euro "Royal" heads of state I think they are more of a tourist magnet. People come to the UK with the hope of bumping into them. The upcoming wedding, in case you haven't heard of it yet, is expected to generate tens of millions of extra revenue by way of a massive tourism increase over that period of time. On the plus side, the young lad is based at Valley and chucking helicopters around the place in support of Search and Rescue Ops and his missus to be is easy on the eye.
I like royalty, but have no argument with someone who prefers republicanism.

edit for speling

[Worthy4England]

Looking from the outside in to your monarchical structure I've often wondered whether removing the current 'head of state' status of the royal family would save money. I've done no research, but it strikes me that, collectively, they must attract overseas tourists - and even local ones - to spend significant amounts of money in the country. Would taking away the pomp and ceremony and royal attendances at functions affect this 'investment'?

Naturally such a symbolic beheading of the aristocracy would not affect me directly - but the Queen (or King) of England is also Australia's head of state, though the monarch is represented by a locally appointed person known as the Governor General. There are also six State Governors General, although whether or not they are constitutionally bound to consult with the Governor General on matters of state is beyond my ken. Certainly I could do some research but, to be honest, I couldn't be bothered.

I am a republican at heart. A few years ago we had a referendum on the matter of republic versus monarchy. The monarchists won quite easily. Even I voted on the monarchist side. The reason I did that (and I suspect many other people did likewise) was that I thought the model put forward by the republicans was a poor construct and failed to satisfy my idea of a republic and the accountability of Parliament and its members. What the answer is I don't know. Canada seems to have done reasonably well since its declaration of independence - perhaps I should look at its system to formulate my own idea of Nirvana.

When it comes to the media coverage of this, not unexpected, event I'm ambivalent. I find that I can ignore it at will and my wife, who loves all this kerfuffle over royalty, can get her fill of romance in both senses.

I'm in the can't be arsed either way camp.

The thought that some person could adopt such a status on a "less than half share" of the vote, is actually not particularly more appealing.

Sarkozy wone the last "round one" vote in France with 31% support - hardly a concensus. Chirac wone round one of the 2002 election with just 19%. So lets not kid ourselves that they're some great personage getting swept in on a tide of electoral concensus.

Just look at the US - they're been collectively dumb enough to elect Reagan, Bush, Clinton. We're talking people who can't spell their name as head of state.

We'd probably end up in a run-off between Jeremy Kyle and Simon Cowell.

[bobo the clown]

We'd probably end up in a run-off between Jeremy Kyle and Simon Cowell.

... which neatly sums up the dilema.

I'm no Royalist, but the alternatives are terrifying.

Fair to ask why a buch of dubiously herditary geezers become head of state. But it is largely ceremonial and they do generally keep out of politics. Largely because they know they have no legitimacy as "who voted for you ?" would erupt if ever they did.

However, if there was a selected/elected one then whoever it was WOULD have a degree of legimicay & would therefore bump up against the Government routinely.

... and here ? well, we'd have had Thatcher for years .... then Blair. Vince Cable would have a run at it recently. Would you really want that ? Or the 'show biz' options as stated by Worthy. God help us ... Old King Cowell (see what I did there ?), Queen Widdicombe the First, King Wagner. Joint Monarch's Ant & Dec. Queen Cheryl Cole.

Politics thread really. Sorry.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Looking from the outside in to your monarchical structure I've often wondered whether removing the current 'head of state' status of the royal family would save money. I've done no research, but it strikes me that, collectively, they must attract overseas tourists - and even local ones - to spend significant amounts of money in the country. Would taking away the pomp and ceremony and royal attendances at functions affect this 'investment'?

Naturally such a symbolic beheading of the aristocracy would not affect me directly - but the Queen (or King) of England is also Australia's head of state, though the monarch is represented by a locally appointed person known as the Governor General. There are also six State Governors General, although whether or not they are constitutionally bound to consult with the Governor General on matters of state is beyond my ken. Certainly I could do some research but, to be honest, I couldn't be bothered.

I am a republican at heart. A few years ago we had a referendum on the matter of republic versus monarchy. The monarchists won quite easily. Even I voted on the monarchist side. The reason I did that (and I suspect many other people did likewise) was that I thought the model put forward by the republicans was a poor construct and failed to satisfy my idea of a republic and the accountability of Parliament and its members. What the answer is I don't know. Canada seems to have done reasonably well since its declaration of independence - perhaps I should look at its system to formulate my own idea of Nirvana.

When it comes to the media coverage of this, not unexpected, event I'm ambivalent. I find that I can ignore it at will and my wife, who loves all this kerfuffle over royalty, can get her fill of romance in both senses.

You might find Canada's system, Dujon, to quote Yogi Berra, that "it's like deja vu all over again". Canada's head of state is the Queen, her representative in the country is the Governor General (selected by the Prime Minister not the monarch) and each of our 10 provinces have a Lt. Governor filling a similar role for their legislatures. So we not only have the same level of independence as Australia we have practically the same system. In 1982 we patriated our constitution (formerly the British North Americas Act, 1867) which severed any dependence on Westminster but did not affect the monarchy. Not sure if Oz still has any dependence on the British government structures.

[thebish]

You might find Canada's system, Dujon, to quote Yogi Berra...

wait - I know this!

Hey there, Boo Boo! pic-a-nic baskets!

I'm smarter than the average bear!

[Hoboh]

Not really angry but not sure about the new layout, looks a bit Tesco ish to me

[thebish]

Not really angry but not sure about the new layout, looks a bit Tesco ish to me

every little helps...

[Lofthouse Lower]

Went to Mancini's for a meatball sandwich - had been recommended by the Manchester Confidential blokes - was disappointing.

[Dujon]

You might find Canada's system, Dujon, to quote Yogi Berra, that "it's like deja vu all over again". Canada's head of state is the Queen, her representative in the country is the Governor General (selected by the Prime Minister not the monarch) and each of our 10 provinces have a Lt. Governor filling a similar role for their legislatures. So we not only have the same level of independence as Australia we have practically the same system. In 1982 we patriated our constitution (formerly the British North Americas Act, 1867) which severed any dependence on Westminster but did not affect the monarchy. Not sure if Oz still has any dependence on the British government structures.

Ah, thanks, Monty, please excuse my ignorance.

Australia has had its own constitution (not a 'bill of rights') since 1901 when the various states formed a federation. Whilst it's a relatively short document - compared with many other legally recognised documents/acts and such like - it is probably the most scrutinised, analysed and contested declaration in Australia's legal history. If memory serves me correctly it was concocted by a small group of state leaders who isolated themselves on a boat anchored in the Hawkesbury river, just north of Sydney. They were wise men.

That aside, yes, we still use the Westminster system of government. As far as dependence on the British (legal) system goes I believe we do. It's a few years ago now but I'm sure there was an occasion where a plaintiff was granted leave to forward a submission to the British High Court (or Privy Council) to plead a case. Whether or not that avenue for action has been revoked or otherwise I know not.