End of the Monarchy?

20togo said:
if you are starting to pity me then i know i'm getting it right. Now keep coming up with excuses for your lies.

Oh and just to put you right again. Never seen any Star Wars film. Some people love 'em but they have never been of interest to me. And how van i be angry when just taking the piss out of you and calling out your lies.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know how me pitying you translates to me knowing you're right. Please explain.

I also don't think it's a matter of right or wrong, just opinion.

Don't worry about not seeing Star Wars. It was just a silly analogy for you watching something fictional (not real) and getting angry that it's not true.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't feel as though you are taking the piss out of me. I might not be on your intellectual wave length to see where you're supposedly taking the piss out of me but okay.

Lastly, I don't see how you can call out lies when I've not said any. Please explain.

Without any explanation you're just coming off like an angry little man who can't accept other views or opinions.
 
Clockwork Tangerine said:
I'd like to know how me pitying you translates to me knowing you're right. Please explain.

I also don't think it's a matter of right or wrong, just opinion.

Don't worry about not seeing Star Wars. It was just a silly analogy for you watching something fictional (not real) and getting angry that it's not true.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't feel as though you are taking the piss out of me. I might not be on your intellectual wave length to see where you're supposedly taking the piss out of me but okay.

Lastly, I don't see how you can call out lies when I've not said any. Please explain.

Without any explanation you're just coming off like an angry little man who can't accept other views or opinions.
Click to expand...
think what you want, it bothers me not. Even now you're getting it wrong. First para, I didn't use the word "knowing". So you're wrong there.

Second para, seems you are making an assumption. A wrong one of course.

Third para. You might think i'm taking the piss out of you, i think i am.

Lastly, everything you wrote in your caps lock posts, you didn't mean. Therefore it was untrue. Therefore it was a lie. Simple really.

You've really come quite prolific on the board as of late having a lot to say for yourself. Accusing posters of racism as well. Odd, when your username lied pretty dormant for a while.
 
20togo said:
think what you want, it bothers me not. Even now you're getting it wrong. First para, I didn't use the word "knowing". So you're wrong there.

Second para, seems you are making an assumption. A wrong one of course.

Third para. You might think i'm taking the piss out of you, i think i am.

Lastly, everything you wrote in your caps lock posts, you didn't mean. Therefore it was untrue. Therefore it was a lie. Simple really.

You've really come quite prolific on the board as of late having a lot to say for yourself. Accusing posters of racism as well. Odd, when your username lied pretty dormant for a while.
Click to expand...
You're not even worth the time or effort now to be honest. There isn't a single part of that that doesn't come across as a bit unhinged.

I honestly don't know how you're taking the piss out of me. The mind boggles.

I've also explained my caps lock posts too many times now. You're simply just not getting it.

I've not accused any posters of being racist. I have TOLD them that they are racist. Accusing someone would indicate some element of doubt where as there was no doubt when I did it.

I can't comment on my account being dormant because it hasn't been.

You're just a strange angry little man who I imagine could have an argument in an empty room.
 
Clockwork Tangerine said:
You're not even worth the time or effort now to be honest. There isn't a single part of that that doesn't come across as a bit unhinged.

I honestly don't know how you're taking the piss out of me. The mind boggles.

I've also explained my caps lock posts too many times now. You're simply just not getting it.

I've not accused any posters of being racist. I have TOLD them that they are racist. Accusing someone would indicate some element of doubt where as there was no doubt when I did it.

I can't comment on my account being dormant because it hasn't been.

You're just a strange angry little man who I imagine could have an argument in an empty room.
Click to expand...
well run along then. Bye.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
This debate has provoked a lot of interest, at least in me.
I live in Italy ATM and in my naive way am quite an admirer of 84 year old Sergio Materella the Italian president since 2015, he seems unpretentious, kind, inclusive and to give his office the dignity that it requires. In my uneducated outsider's opinion he appears to do a lot of good work (ribbon cutting, giving awards, visiting disaster sites etc). His daughter accompanies him on state occasions as his wife is dead which I feel is another nice touch. The constitution requires that the president is above all a force for national unity - given Italy's history and north / south divide that seems like a good idea. He doesn't get involved in the sometimes lively political debates that take place from what I can tell.
Provoked by this debate, I had a look at what happens here. It seems that elected representatives from all tiers of Italian government (Regions, Representatives, Senate) elect the President for a 7 year term - it is not a public election. Materella is now on his second term so has been popular, at least with politicians. The few Italians I have broached the subject with seem a bit less enthusiastic about him than me. His past was as a politician mainly with the centre-left Christian Democrats who governed Italy in the post war period before Belusconi came along and he held many senior positions. To some Italians I would guess that he probably looks like a career politician (from a notoriously corrupt party https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36481) who is maintaining his proximity to the trough.
It would be the equivalent of say John Major, David Steel or Michael Heseltine being president of the UK. Despite its shortcomings, I would definitely prefer this arrangement to the monarchy along with a written UK constitution. There is no forelock tugging, no bowing, no pageantry, no mention of god and no presumption that he is anything other than an ordinary person. He represents the state with a sort of quiet dignity.
Click to expand...
That's interesting,thanks. Here in Portugal,the President is elected by the people. Many things wrong with the politics here but they got that one right.
 
Should have gone to one of Mr Mountbatten Windsors get togethers, he would have had something to help an old soldier stand to attention!
 
Having thought a little more about this I am quite worried about our status as having an unwritten constitution.
It is often said that we rely on the 'good chap' convention, in that we expect the PM to have the best interests of the country at heart. We saw how easily Johnson was able to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and sanction because we have no written constitution. The most important bill of modern times (Brexit) was not debated as it should be because Johnson prorogued parliament and took power from the MPs hands. He was also able to act in a corrupt way as regards favours for friends etc and avoid scrutiny and sanction. He was eventually undone by his own MPs.
If Farage wins the next election as is possible, does anyone seriously think that he will play by a set of unwritten (and unknown) rules? He could move quicker and faster than Trump towards a sort of authoritarianism and dismantle many institutions in double quick time (like the BBC for instance).
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Having thought a little more about this I am quite worried about our status as having an unwritten constitution.
It is often said that we rely on the 'good chap' convention, in that we expect the PM to have the best interests of the country at heart. We saw how easily Johnson was able to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and sanction because we have no written constitution. The most important bill of modern times (Brexit) was not debated as it should be because Johnson prorogued parliament and took power from the MPs hands. He was also able to act in a corrupt way as regards favours for friends etc and avoid scrutiny and sanction. He was eventually undone by his own MPs.
If Farage wins the next election as is possible, does anyone seriously think that he will play by a set of unwritten (and unknown) rules? He could move quicker and faster than Trump towards a sort of authoritarianism and dismantle many institutions in double quick time (like the BBC for instance).
Click to expand...

My own view is that you really shouldn't worry about it too much. The country is very disgruntled at the moment because of the lies, the back tracking and plenty of other issues with this Govt. I'm sure you realise that. I would never vote for Farage as to me he is a one trick pony focused solely on one issue. Whilst that one issue is perhaps the most important one for many people at this current time, i would hope people are capable of thinking beyond that come election time.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Good piece in the National published yesterday;

THE NATIONAL

Mhairi Black: Andrew losing titles isn't the end. Where are the Epstein files?
Jane Cassidy
@MhairiBlack
OPINION
1ST NOV, 2025 05:00 AM
AS a staunch republican, I find the existence of and deference to the royal family an absurdity but this week I find myself commending them.

King Charles finally took the long-overdue actions necessary to strip his brother, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, of his royal titles and honours.

One of the main consequences is that Andrew can no longer live in the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion, gifted to him by the late queen, and will instead reside on the Sandringham Estate.

It should go without saying that the king’s decision is to be welcomed, but I fear we may be witnessing a grandiose PR exercise to preserve the image of the royal family, rather than a meaningful step towards holding powerful men accountable. I hope I’m wrong.

My cynicism comes mainly from the length of time it has taken to come to this decision.

Prince Andrew staying in touch with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein even after his first conviction

No real action was taken when Andrew was photographed in New York going for walks, and staying at the home of Epstein after the latter had been found guilty of sexually abusing underage girls.

Similarly, no action was taken when it was alleged in 2014 by Virginia Giuffre that Andrew was one of the men Epstein trafficked her to. The following year, Buckingham Palace actually issued a statement defending Andrew when he was named in Epstein court documents.

It was only several days after Andrew’s utterly disastrous 2019 interview on Newsnight with Emily Maitlis that it was announced he would be stepping back from public duties.

Similarly, it was not until five months after Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the US that the palace decided to strip him of his military affiliations and royal patronages in January 2022.

The palace long made the argument that it had no responsibility for Andrew given his status as a “non-working royal”, only to then publicly accept it does.

Earlier this month, a newly leaked email showed Andrew telling Epstein, “keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!”

after the date he had told Maitlis he had ceased contact with Epstein. So, what has prompted this escalation from the king all of a sudden? Amid the debacle of the Epstein files in the US and the publication of Giuffre’s posthumously published memoir Nobody’s Girl, Andrew’s association with Epstein has continued to make headlines.

According to royal sources, a “tipping point” was reached when the king’s historic visit to meet Pope Leo at the Vatican was overshadowed by stories about Andrew and Epstein.

At every turn the palace has sought to do as little as possible, with as much resistance as possible, in the hope that this unsavoury story will simply go away.

The most recent statement from the palace said: “These ventures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

In other words, these actions have only now been deemed necessary because nothing else has successfully quashed the story. Simultaneously, I hope there is sincerity when the King made clear his thoughts and sympathies are with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

More than our thoughts and sympathies, our admiration, gratitude and priority should be given to survivors.

Andrew was but one part of Epstein’s larger web. The best way to honour victims is to continue to dig until justice is served.

US attorney general and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi had claimed that the so-called Epstein list was on her desk and would be released upon Donald Trump’s election.

This position was then walked back so far as to deny the existence of any list at all. Given Trump’s own friendship with Epstein, it seems obvious that the Republicans are fearful of what may be uncovered. Indeed, Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is still refusing to swear in a newly elected Democrat to prevent the release of all Epstein files.

Arizona representative-elect Adelita Grijalva pledged that her first act in Congress would be adding her name to and thus triggering a vote to publicly release files related to the federal investigation of Epstein.

The former “prince” Andrew is only now being forced to face some semblance of consequences for his alleged actions because of the dogged determination of people such as Giuffre and their persistence in challenging and picking away at some of the most powerful people in the world in the pursuit of justice, one slow step at a time.

Giuffre never lived to see this significant moment, so the best way we can honour her and all the victims of Epstein and others is to continue to dig.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but Mhairi Black is an absolute creep who consistently spreads her bigotry and shouts down anyone who disagrees with her. The most arrogant MSP of modern years.
I see she has asked for the release of the Epstein files, I don’t recall her ever mouthing off about the protected perverts in her beloved SNP like Derek McKay who she was more than happy to suck up to.
This weirdo even wanted adult entertainer drag queens going to primary schools to read to children.
I enjoy seen the irony of SNP championing woman rights when their gender recognition bill blooming took woman’s rights back centuries.
I am no fan of Andrew or the RF I posted the above based on the sheer double standards of those in politics who try to point score.
 
UTMP1989 said:
I’m sorry but Mhairi Black is an absolute creep who consistently spreads her bigotry and shouts down anyone who disagrees with her. The most arrogant MSP of modern years.
I see she has asked for the release of the Epstein files, I don’t recall her ever mouthing off about the protected perverts in her beloved SNP like Derek McKay who she was more than happy to suck up to.
This weirdo even wanted adult entertainer drag queens going to primary schools to read to children.
I enjoy seen the irony of SNP championing woman rights when their gender recognition bill blooming took woman’s rights back centuries.
I am no fan of Andrew or the RF I posted the above based on the sheer double standards of those in politics who try to point score.
Click to expand...
I think that is called shooting the messenger. I don't really have a view on Black, I just thought it was a good article.
I agree with the article - Andrew is a small part of the jigsaw, we need the rest of it to be exposed, the Epstein files must be released.
I saw the other days that the other surviving victims of Epstein are going to name and shame the people that they were trafficked to - good for them.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think that is called shooting the messenger. I don't really have a view on Black, I just thought it was a good article.
I agree with the article - Andrew is a small part of the jigsaw, we need the rest of it to be exposed, the Epstein files must be released.
I saw the other days that the other surviving victims of Epstein are going to name and shame the people that they were trafficked to - good for them.
Click to expand...
Don’t take it personally lol 👍
I just meant that there are far better reliable journalists out there than Mhairi Black to get your sources from and with her article I think the phrase pot calling kettle comes to mind.
Yes I think we are all desperate for the names to get released so they get justice 👍
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Having thought a little more about this I am quite worried about our status as having an unwritten constitution.
It is often said that we rely on the 'good chap' convention, in that we expect the PM to have the best interests of the country at heart. We saw how easily Johnson was able to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and sanction because we have no written constitution. The most important bill of modern times (Brexit) was not debated as it should be because Johnson prorogued parliament and took power from the MPs hands. He was also able to act in a corrupt way as regards favours for friends etc and avoid scrutiny and sanction. He was eventually undone by his own MPs.
If Farage wins the next election as is possible, does anyone seriously think that he will play by a set of unwritten (and unknown) rules? He could move quicker and faster than Trump towards a sort of authoritarianism and dismantle many institutions in double quick time (like the BBC for instance).
Click to expand...
And yet Trump is perpetrating all of his sins against sound Government in a country that has a written constitution.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
And yet Trump is perpetrating all of his sins against sound Government in a country that has a written constitution.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the UK is completely exposed to a tyrant or self serving individual without a written constitution.
If Reform did form a government, I would imagine that it would be somewhat chaotic if their tenure in local governments is anything to go by. So it's possible that a leader could be ousted like Johnson was.
 
UTMP1989 said:
I’m sorry but Mhairi Black is an absolute creep who consistently spreads her bigotry and shouts down anyone who disagrees with her. The most arrogant MSP of modern years.
I see she has asked for the release of the Epstein files, I don’t recall her ever mouthing off about the protected perverts in her beloved SNP like Derek McKay who she was more than happy to suck up to.
This weirdo even wanted adult entertainer drag queens going to primary schools to read to children.
I enjoy seen the irony of SNP championing woman rights when their gender recognition bill blooming took woman’s rights back centuries.
I am no fan of Andrew or the RF I posted the above based on the sheer double standards of those in politics who try to point score.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously saying drag queens shouldn't be allowed near children?

That's weird and founded solely on prejudice.
 
Wizaard said:
Are you seriously saying drag queens shouldn't be allowed near children?

That's weird and founded solely on prejudice.
Click to expand...
Of course I am saying the exact thing that over sexualised drag queens should not be going to primary schools to read books to children.
Similarly I would have the same issue if it were male/female pornstars. Not sure we’re the prejudice lies as I think certain stuff are inappropriate for young children.
 
UTMP1989 said:
Of course I am saying the exact thing that over sexualised drag queens should not be going to primary schools to read books to children.
Similarly I would have the same issue if it were male/female pornstars. Not sure we’re the prejudice lies as I think certain stuff are inappropriate for young children.
Click to expand...
Should children be allowed to see pantomimes?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Should children be allowed to see pantomimes?
Click to expand...
What the hell is that got to do with a sex worker who happens to be a drag queen going to a primary school. Pantomimes are light entertainment (not sexual) in anyway of course children of all ages should see them if they want.
Would you be comfortable with Bonnie Blue going to a primary school?
I swear this forum looks for culture wars at every opportunity!
 
UTMP1989 said:
Of course I am saying the exact thing that over sexualised drag queens should not be going to primary schools to read books to children.
Similarly I would have the same issue if it were male/female pornstars. Not sure we’re the prejudice lies as I think certain stuff are inappropriate for young children.
Click to expand...
So you equate drag queens with porn stars. Wow.

Whatever you do, don't tune in to Strictly or let the kids watch it.
 
Wizaard said:
So you equate drag queens with porn stars. Wow.

Whatever you do, don't tune in to Strictly or let the kids watch it.
Click to expand...
Were in my post have I equated drag queens with porn stars?
I just said to your other post it was perfectly normal for children to go to pantomimes.
What I had issue with was a certain drag queen who shared explicit images online going to a primary school. The event caused uproar from concerned parents and even lead to a public apology from the local council.
So you think it is perfectly acceptable for people in the sex trade going to primary schools?
Why would I not tune into strictly? Last I checked I am no longer a school child.
 
UTMP1989 said:
Were in my post have I equated drag queens with porn stars?
I just said to your other post it was perfectly normal for children to go to pantomimes.
What I had issue with was a certain drag queen who shared explicit images online going to a primary school. The event caused uproar from concerned parents and even lead to a public apology from the local council.
So you think it is perfectly acceptable for people in the sex trade going to primary schools?
Why would I not tune into strictly? Last I checked I am no longer a school child.
Click to expand...
Now can we please stick to the forum topic which is about the end of the monarchy?
 
UTMP1989 said:
Were in my post have I equated drag queens with porn stars?
I just said to your other post it was perfectly normal for children to go to pantomimes.
What I had issue with was a certain drag queen who shared explicit images online going to a primary school. The event caused uproar from concerned parents and even lead to a public apology from the local council.
So you think it is perfectly acceptable for people in the sex trade going to primary schools?
Why would I not tune into strictly? Last I checked I am no longer a school child.
Click to expand...
There's a drag queen on it. Think of the children.
 
And the person you are referring to was going to do that when meeting primary children?

You don't get out much. That kind of behaviour goes on in every city every night of the week. Funny Girls is based on that kind of act. It's not what goes on in other situations.
 
Wizaard said:
And the person you are referring to was going to do that when meeting primary children?

You don't get out much. That kind of behaviour goes on in every city every night of the week. Funny Girls is based on that kind of act. It's not what goes on in other situations.
Click to expand...
No of course they wouldn’nt! but they are in involved in the porn industry which I have mentioned they should not be going to schools! I don’t know why you find this so difficult to understand! If the drag queen did not engage in any sexual activity online then I would have no issue!
Similarly to all porn stars they should not be mixing with school children in any capacity!!
Not sure why you keep on bringing up pointless examples firstly strictly and now funny girls, I dont have a problem with professional drag queens!
Funny girls is based on adult humour unless I am missing something and they make sexual remarks to underage children? Is it not only over 18s allowed entry or is there primary school children at the shows?
 
UTMP1989 said:
No of course they wouldn’nt! but they are in involved in the porn industry which I have mentioned they should not be going to schools! I don’t know why you find this so difficult to understand! If the drag queen did not engage in any sexual activity online then I would have no issue!
Similarly to all porn stars they should not be mixing with school children in any capacity!!
Not sure why you keep on bringing up pointless examples firstly strictly and now funny girls, I dont have a problem with professional drag queens!
Funny girls is based on adult humour unless I am missing something and they make sexual remarks to underage children? Is it not only over 18s allowed entry or is there primary school children at the shows?
Click to expand...
They are not involved in the porn industry. That's a massive incorrect generalisation.
 
UTMP1989 said:
No of course they wouldn’nt! but they are in involved in the porn industry which I have mentioned they should not be going to schools! I don’t know why you find this so difficult to understand! If the drag queen did not engage in any sexual activity online then I would have no issue!
Similarly to all porn stars they should not be mixing with school children in any capacity!!
Not sure why you keep on bringing up pointless examples firstly strictly and now funny girls, I dont have a problem with professional drag queens!
Funny girls is based on adult humour unless I am missing something and they make sexual remarks to underage children? Is it not only over 18s allowed entry or is there primary school children at the shows?
Click to expand...
The script of a pantomime is always on two levels - one level for the children and a sexualised, smutty level for the adults. And there are always drag queens involved. Given your comments I am assuming that children shouldn't be able to see them.

In seriousness, if you are secure in your role as a parent and impart good values onto your children, a half hour session with a drag queen is nothing to worry about. What do you think they are going to do to the children?
 
Wizaard said:
They are not involved in the porn industry. That's a massive incorrect generalisation.
Click to expand...
I never once claimed all drag queens are involved in the porn industry or have I said they should never be in the company of children even though you keep insinuating I have!
The individual I mentioned on my very first post had visited primary school who had also posted videos of them simulating oral sex and playing with dildos and my view like the majority of parents at the school said they should never of been invited. This individual (only) is a porn star and should not be going to primary schools.
This has nothing to do with children watching strictly or young adults watching funny girls.
 
UTMP1989 said:
I never once claimed all drag queens are involved in the porn industry or have I said they should never be in the company of children even though you keep insinuating I have!
The individual I mentioned on my very first post had visited primary school who had also posted videos of them simulating oral sex and playing with dildos and my view like the majority of parents at the school said they should never of been invited. This individual (only) is a porn star and should not be going to primary schools.
This has nothing to do with children watching strictly or young adults watching funny girls.
Click to expand...
they are just trying to manipulate you by twisting your words.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The script of a pantomime is always on two levels - one level for the children and a sexualised, smutty level for the adults. And there are always drag queens involved. Given your comments I am assuming that children shouldn't be able to see them.

In seriousness, if you are secure in your role as a parent and impart good values onto your children, a half hour session with a drag queen is nothing to worry about. What do you think they are going to do to the children?
Click to expand...
Yes I know pantomimes contains some dark humour that only adults will understand.
Why would I have an issue with a child going to a pantomime and seen the Cinderella’s ugly sisters in drag? I guarantee majority of audience are children and the pantomime will be professional actors. Pantomimes are children/family events there is nothing sexual or inappropriate for young children at these events.
My point is not just about drag queens it is ANYONE involved in the porn industry should not be teaching to primary school children.
I don’t have any issues with drag queens who are not involved in the porn industry going to schools. The issue is not that they are a drag queen it is because they have explicit images online playing with sex toys.
 
UTMP1989 said:
I never once claimed all drag queens are involved in the porn industry or have I said they should never be in the company of children even though you keep insinuating I have!
The individual I mentioned on my very first post had visited primary school who had also posted videos of them simulating oral sex and playing with dildos and my view like the majority of parents at the school said they should never of been invited. This individual (only) is a porn star and should not be going to primary schools.
This has nothing to do with children watching strictly or young adults watching funny girls.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that explanation. That isn't how I read the original post, hence the crossed wires.
 
20togo said:
they are just trying to manipulate you by twisting your words.
Click to expand...
Bloody twisting my words I would call it going off away in a tangent and waiting for a ‘gotcha’ moment and then scream bigot!
I swear I these threads are getting more mental by the day!
 
Wizaard said:
Thanks for that explanation. That isn't how I read the original post, hence the crossed wires.
Click to expand...
No worries mate 👍 just for the record I deplore all forms of bigotry.
I am actually a fan of Caitlin Jenner who covers alot of pints on such issues.
 
UTMP1989 said:
Bloody twisting my words I would call it going off away in a tangent and waiting for a ‘gotcha’ moment and then scream bigot!
I swear I these threads are getting more mental by the day!
Click to expand...
that's life on AVFTT for you. Just have to laugh it off.
 
UTMP1989 said:
Yes I know pantomimes contains some dark humour that only adults will understand.
Why would I have an issue with a child going to a pantomime and seen the Cinderella’s ugly sisters in drag? I guarantee majority of audience are children and the pantomime will be professional actors. Pantomimes are children/family events there is nothing sexual or inappropriate for young children at these events.
My point is not just about drag queens it is ANYONE involved in the porn industry should not be teaching to primary school children.
I don’t have any issues with drag queens who are not involved in the porn industry going to schools. The issue is not that they are a drag queen it is because they have explicit images online playing with sex toys.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough - I agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top