We should have an English referendum, Scotland in/out of the UK.

On 25/07/2016 11:30, bm wrote:
We should have an English referendum, Scotland in/out of the UK.




Why not just have a vote for england to leave the UK?
That's what you actually want isn't it?

On 25/07/16 12:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:32:09 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:


Why not just have a vote for england to leave the UK?
That's what you actually want isn't it?

LOL. Exactly my thought of a few weeks ago! Let Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Wales form a single nation and see how they manage, and
England can go its own independent way.

Cant we keep Wales?

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 25/07/2016 13:07, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking someone other than your dear wife?

On Monday, 25 July 2016 12:56:55 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cant we keep Wales?

Why???

Owain

On 25/07/2016 14:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:11:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 25/07/2016 13:07, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking someone other than your dear wife?


LOL Fred. Not in my case, that's for certain.

Are you insinuating you're not married!

But you must speak for
yourself, of course. :-)

Many, many moons ago, yes. Then I saw the light and have been single
ever since.

BTW, I take it that you're a royalist.

Not really, just take note where there's a jealousy of others,

On 25/07/16 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 25 July 2016 12:56:55 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cant we keep Wales?

Why???

Owain

Cos I quite like Wales?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/07/16 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 25 July 2016 12:56:55 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cant we keep Wales?

Why???

Owain

Cos I quite like Wales?

or is it the sheep?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"bm" wrote in message
eb.com...
We should have an English referendum, Scotland in/out of the UK.




I like the way she stuck it into Cameroon

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference now

tim

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.

Thought you said earlier you wanted the UK broken up?

--
*Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
No thanks. We have a HoS who is nicely apolitical at the moment. D'ye
really want the shenanigans they have in the US? President Blair
anyone?

I'd imagine Trump would go down very well with a large number on here.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
There'd be no need for either a president or an alternative HoS. We'd
carry on just as we are, except instead of the monarch having to
'approve' laws passed in parliament, or whatever she does and is
obliged to do ATM, once parliament passes a law, it becomes law, with
no presidential or royal consent, approval or whatever. The monarch is
purely a passive figurehead ATM, and could easily be dispensed with
and no one would be any the worse off. Of course, the 'establishment'
would get terribly stuffy about it and raise all sorts of objections
and imagined obstacles, but that's what they do.

But who would open things and so on? Can't expect a PM or whatever to take
time off for such trivial things.

And would tourists flock to see the changing of the policeman at No 10?

At least you could squeeze a few council flats into Buck House.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/07/2016 14:38, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:14:11 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 25/07/2016 14:07, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:11:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 25/07/2016 13:07, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking someone other than your dear wife?


LOL Fred. Not in my case, that's for certain.

Are you insinuating you're not married!

But you must speak for
yourself, of course. :-)

Many, many moons ago, yes. Then I saw the light and have been single
ever since.

BTW, I take it that you're a royalist.

Not really, just take note where there's a jealousy of others,

So what am I supposed to be jealous of? His new wife? I don't think
so, although I'm sure she's a nice enough person. His hypocrisy
perhaps, taking marriage vows in front of millions of people in the
highest church in the land, and then ignoring them? Er..no. Maybe his
adultery?

Adultery has been going on for aeons. Most of the adult UK population
would have committed adultery in their lifetime.

Jealousy doesn't come into it there; I would never do that.

But you know you want to.

On 25/07/16 14:29, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/07/16 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 25 July 2016 12:56:55 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Cant we keep Wales?

Why???

Owain

Cos I quite like Wales?

or is it the sheep?

what sheep? only good sheep is a roast sheep.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 7/25/2016 2:38 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:


So what am I supposed to be jealous of? His new wife? I don't think
so, although I'm sure she's a nice enough person. His hypocrisy
perhaps, taking marriage vows in front of millions of people in the
highest church in the land, and then ignoring them? Er..no. Maybe his
adultery? Jealousy doesn't come into it there; I would never do that.
Or perhaps because he's going to be King one day? IMO it would take a
very odd person to be jealous of that, given all it entails. HRH QEII
does an excellent job and I admire her for it, but I have absolutely
no respect for her firstborn! I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.


+1

On 25/07/16 17:25, newshound wrote:
On 7/25/2016 2:38 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:


So what am I supposed to be jealous of? His new wife? I don't think
so, although I'm sure she's a nice enough person. His hypocrisy
perhaps, taking marriage vows in front of millions of people in the
highest church in the land, and then ignoring them? Er..no. Maybe his
adultery? Jealousy doesn't come into it there; I would never do that.
Or perhaps because he's going to be King one day? IMO it would take a
very odd person to be jealous of that, given all it entails. HRH QEII
does an excellent job and I admire her for it, but I have absolutely
no respect for her firstborn! I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.


+1
I hope it doesn't, because a monarch is ultimately the last line of
defence against a really bad government.

OTOH much as I understand Charles, I have to say he would make a
terrible King. He isn't bright and he likes to interfere.

He should abdicate and pass the throne straight on to Wills, or Harry.



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 25/07/16 11:30, bm wrote:
We should have an English referendum, Scotland in/out of the UK.



In population terms Scotland is the same size as Yorkshire. Leeds is
bigger than Glasgow and Sheffield is bigger than Edinburgh.

Home rule for Yorkshire!

http://tinyurl.com/hafqh6o

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to gmxhttp://tinyurl.com/hafqh6o

Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Then you need a new hearing aid, BAD.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking
someone other than your dear wife?

Then you need a new hearing aid, BAD.

Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking someone other than your dear wife?

LOL Fred. Not in my case, that's for certain.

Are you insinuating you're not married!

But you must speak for yourself, of course. :-)

Many, many moons ago, yes. Then I saw
the light and have been single ever since.

BTW, I take it that you're a royalist.

Not really, just take note where there's a jealousy of others,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Neither of the silly cows big ears has actually been
stupid enough to **** are worth ****ing, particularly
the first utterly brainless bimbo. The second one isnt
quite such a brainless bimbo but is nothing to be
jealous about.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Or perhaps because he's going to be King one day? IMO it would take a
very odd person to be jealous of that, given all it entails. HRH QEII

ITYM: HM EQII

does an excellent job and I admire her for it, but I have absolutely
no respect for her firstborn! I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.

No thanks. We have a HoS who is nicely apolitical at the moment. D'ye
really want the shenanigans they have in the US? President Blair
anyone?

Makes more sense to do it the way Eire does it.

One of the very few things they did manage to get right.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

I'd be quite happy if the UK became a republic when QEII dies.

Thought you said earlier you wanted the UK broken up?

He actually said that he wants a referendum on that.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

No thanks. We have a HoS who is nicely apolitical
at the moment. D'ye really want the shenanigans
they have in the US? President Blair anyone?

I'd imagine Trump would go down very well with a large number on here.

Can't see it myself. Their rabid bigotry about yanks would
prevail over their agreement with his policys about muslims.

Although that fool Salmond did lick his arse very enthusiastically indeed.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

There'd be no need for either a president or an alternative HoS.
We'd carry on just as we are, except instead of the monarch having
to 'approve' laws passed in parliament, or whatever she does and is
obliged to do ATM, once parliament passes a law, it becomes law,
with no presidential or royal consent, approval or whatever. The
monarch is purely a passive figurehead ATM, and could easily be
dispensed with and no one would be any the worse off. Of course,
the 'establishment' would get terribly stuffy about it and raise all
sorts of objections and imagined obstacles, but that's what they do.

But who would open things and so on?

The mayor etc.

Can't expect a PM or whatever to take time off for such trivial things.

And would tourists flock to see the changing of the policeman at No 10?

Who cares ?

At least you could squeeze a few council flats into Buck House.

Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Why? Just so the jug-eared adulterer can keep his title?

I hear envy.

Sounds like a fantasy of bonking someone other than your dear wife?

LOL Fred. Not in my case, that's for certain.

Are you insinuating you're not married!

But you must speak for yourself, of course. :-)

Many, many moons ago, yes. Then I saw
the light and have been single ever since.

BTW, I take it that you're a royalist.

Not really, just take note where there's a jealousy of others,

So what am I supposed to be jealous of? His new wife?
I don't think so, although I'm sure she's a nice enough
person. His hypocrisy perhaps, taking marriage vows in
front of millions of people in the highest church in the
land, and then ignoring them? Er..no. Maybe his adultery?

Adultery has been going on for aeons. Most of the adult UK
population would have committed adultery in their lifetime.

So they are unlikely to be jealous of what Big Ears got up to.

And certainly arent going to be jealous of the risk Big Ears
has to take that the reptiles of the press will be desperately
attempting to take photos of his latest ****ee etc.

Jealousy doesn't come into it there; I would never do that.

But you know you want to.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , MKF
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Or perhaps because he's going to be King one day? IMO it would take a
very odd person to be jealous of that, given all it entails. HRH QEII

ITYM: HM EQII

does an excellent job and I admire her for it, but I have absolutely
no respect for her firstborn! I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.

No thanks. We have a HoS who is nicely apolitical at the moment. D'ye
really want the shenanigans they have in the US? President Blair
anyone?

Makes more sense to do it the way Eire does it.

One of the very few things they did manage to get right.

So you want a President then?

No, it makes a lot more sense to not have any head of state at all.

I just meant that if there is a president, it can be an irrelevant one like
Eire has.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:33:54 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

Or perhaps because he's going to be King one day? IMO it would take a
very odd person to be jealous of that, given all it entails. HRH QEII

ITYM: HM EQII

does an excellent job and I admire her for it, but I have absolutely
no respect for her firstborn! I'd be quite happy if the UK became a
republic when QEII dies.

No thanks. We have a HoS who is nicely apolitical at the moment. D'ye
really want the shenanigans they have in the US? President Blair
anyone?

There'd be no need for either a president or an alternative HoS. We'd
carry on just as we are, except instead of the monarch having to
'approve' laws passed in parliament, or whatever she does and is
obliged to do ATM, once parliament passes a law, it becomes law, with
no presidential or royal consent, approval or whatever. The monarch is
purely a passive figurehead ATM, and could easily be dispensed with
and no one would be any the worse off. Of course, the 'establishment'
would get terribly stuffy about it and raise all sorts of objections
and imagined obstacles, but that's what they do.

She's also head of the armed forces, IIRC.

And the Church of England too, but it makes no sense for her to be
either and that is an entirely figurehead role, no power at all anymore.

Who would be head of state in your picture then?

Don't need one.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And would tourists flock to see the changing of the policeman at No 10?

Who cares ?

I do. Unlike you, I want this country to prosper. And tourism is a good
earner.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.




--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 09:04:32 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

The amount I've spent on this place I'd be cheaper renting it from her, if she'd fix the bloody roof.

Owain

On 26/07/16 09:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:04:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Tradition, no more, no less. Could the Queen have stopped Blair from
going to war? In theory, perhaps, but in practice, no.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

That would all change, but from a purely practical POV, nothing would
appear to change. Life would continue just as before, although
obviously the lawyers and the establishment would try and raise all
sorts of spurious 'constitutional' obstacles, when in reality there
would be none. It would simply be a matter of 'just doing it'.

Of course, but that is not the reason to have a monarchy.

It represents an ultimate longstop on parliamentary executive powers.

It's never had to be used. Not since the demise of Cromwell. But its a
worthwhile insurance policy IMHO.




--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/07/16 09:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:04:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Tradition, no more, no less. Could the Queen have stopped Blair from
going to war? In theory, perhaps, but in practice, no.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

That would all change, but from a purely practical POV, nothing would
appear to change. Life would continue just as before, although
obviously the lawyers and the establishment would try and raise all
sorts of spurious 'constitutional' obstacles, when in reality there
would be none. It would simply be a matter of 'just doing it'.

Of course, but that is not the reason to have a monarchy.

It represents an ultimate longstop on parliamentary executive powers.

It's never had to be used. Not since the demise of Cromwell. But its a
worthwhile insurance policy IMHO.


Effectively, it was used in Australia some years ago. The Governor General
- the Queen's representative - disolved parliament and called for a general
election.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Because otherwise she has no purpose at all apart from swanning
around waving at the crowd and opening things and stuff like that.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen.

From the queen too.

Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesnt own Buck House either.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/07/16 09:47, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:04:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Tradition, no more, no less. Could the Queen have stopped Blair from
going to war? In theory, perhaps, but in practice, no.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen. Even your house belongs to the Queen. Freehold
means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

That would all change, but from a purely practical POV, nothing would
appear to change. Life would continue just as before, although
obviously the lawyers and the establishment would try and raise all
sorts of spurious 'constitutional' obstacles, when in reality there
would be none. It would simply be a matter of 'just doing it'.

Of course, but that is not the reason to have a monarchy.

It represents an ultimate longstop on parliamentary executive powers.

It's never had to be used. Not since the demise of Cromwell. But its a
worthwhile insurance policy IMHO.

Effectively, it was used in Australia some years ago.

No it was not.

The Governor General - the Queen's representative - disolved parliament

Like hell he did. He actually replaced Whitlam with Fraser.

and called for a general election.

In fact the parliament passed the money bills
after that and there was no point what Kerr did.

On 26/07/16 11:01, MKF wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Because otherwise she has no purpose at all apart from swanning
around waving at the crowd and opening things and stuff like that.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen.

From the queen too.

Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesnt own Buck House either.
I see you have as little knowledge of the laww as you do of anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_(law)

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 26/07/16 11:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:01:41 +1000, "MKF" wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesnt own Buck House either.

I'm afraid she does, Rod. She owns all of the UK, all of Australia
(including your humble plot, if you have one), and all of Canada. In
fact she legally owns about 16% of the entire land surface of the
world, 6.6 billion acres of it! See http://tinyurl.com/5ufjuxs (and
the New Statesman is a left-wing magazine, so no right-wing bias
there).

You might not like it, and it doesn't have much effect in reality, but
in theory and in law, she is the ultimate owner of all of it.

But come the revolution... :-)

....she will own the whole ****ing planet!



--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/16 11:01, MKF wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/16 08:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is entirely a nominal position and in reality carries no executive
powers.
Do you say but then...

As with all the monarch's other 'head of' positions, the
monarch does what they're instructed to do by parliament and/or the
prime minister.

Why, if she has no executive powers, would she need to do this?

Because otherwise she has no purpose at all apart from swanning
around waving at the crowd and opening things and stuff like that.

The Chief of the Defence Staff would run the military,
the Archbishop of Canterbury would run the church, the Prime Minister
would run the country, for as long as he was elected. The judiciary
would still be independent.

Except from the queen.

From the queen too.

Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesnt own Buck House either.

I see you have as little knowledge of the laww as you do of anything else.

We'll see...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_(law)

Says nothing what so ever about Liz owning everything.

The reality is that if Liz was actually stupid enough to
try taking anything off anyone and giving it to anyone
she liked better, she's get the bums rush so fast her feet
wouldnt even touch the ****ing ground, and she knows it.

Chris Hogg wrote
MKF wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesn't own Buck House either.

I'm afraid she does, Rod.

Like hell she does.

She owns all of the UK,

Like hell she does.

all of Australia (including your humble plot, if you have one),

Like hell she does. And there is nothing humble about what I own either.

and all of Canada.

Like hell she does.

In fact she legally owns about 16% of the entire
land surface of the world, 6.6 billion acres of it!

Like hell she does.

And if we decide to become a republic, we don't have
to pay her a cent and there is absolutely nothing she
can ever do about that beyond kicking a corgi or two.

See http://tinyurl.com/5ufjuxs

Just because some fool claims something...

(and the New Statesman is a left-wing
magazine, so no right-wing bias there).

Still utterly mindless silly ****.

You might not like it, and it doesn't have much effect in reality,
but in theory and in law, she is the ultimate owner of all of it.

Like hell she is.

But come the revolution... :-)

Don't need any revolution. When we give her descendents
the bums rush at the referendum ballot box, even you will
notice that she didn't actually own a damned thing except
some race horses and a bit of real estate in that soggy little
frigid island off the west cost of europe.

Plenty of other places that have given those krauts
the bums rush have worked that out long ago.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And would tourists flock to see the changing of the policeman at No 10?

Who cares ?

I do.

More fool you.

Unlike you, I want this country to prosper.

It would do fine without those actually stupid enough
to watch the changing of the guard at Buck House.

And tourism is a good earner.

There would still be plenty of that even if Liz and Phil
and Big Ears were out on their ear and had to get to
like it or lump it in some cheaper place than Buck
House and the Blues and Royals etc were disbanded
and the horses eaten by those unspeakable foreigners.

On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 11:49:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Chris Hogg wrote
MKF wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Even your house belongs to the Queen.

Like hell it does.

Freehold means you rent it for free....but she still owns it.

Like hell she does. She doesn't own Buck House either.

I'm afraid she does, Rod.

Like hell she does.

She owns all of the UK,

Like hell she does.

all of Australia (including your humble plot, if you have one),

Like hell she does. And there is nothing humble about what I own either.

and all of Canada.

Like hell she does.

In fact she legally owns about 16% of the entire
land surface of the world, 6.6 billion acres of it!

Like hell she does.

And if we decide to become a republic, we don't have
to pay her a cent and there is absolutely nothing she
can ever do about that beyond kicking a corgi or two.

See http://tinyurl.com/5ufjuxs

Just because some fool claims something...

exacty what we look for is proof which can be supported by URLs and the like rather than some foreign ****wit talking out of their arse.

On 26/07/16 11:39, MKF wrote:

..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_(law)

Says nothing what so ever about Liz owning everything.

"Notes

Strictly speaking, all land in England, Wales and Scotland belongs to
the Crown. Freehold is ownership of an estate in land rather than the
land itself. This distinction dates back to the Middle Ages and makes
relatively little difference nowadays, so legal authorities often do not
bother to distinguish between ownership of the land and ownership of an
estate"

We may conclude that you are to lazy or too stupid to read.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.