Corporate power, lies about Leveson, and why the royals don’t deserve privacy

Take it theres no news on the imminent arrests of Kate & Gezza then ?

You're all making me laugh, thanks, I've got the dreaded 'manflu'
i like the Queen and Prince Philip. I think Princess Ann does a lot of good too. As for Andrew and Edward, can't see the point of them!
William and Harry will come into their own as they get older, I think. They appear to be good lads.
The rest of them, couldn't care less about!

wjk wrote:You're all making me laugh, thanks, I've got the dreaded 'manflu'
i like the Queen and Prince Philip. I think Princess Ann does a lot of good too. As for Andrew and Edward, can't see the point of them!
William and Harry will come into their own as they get older, I think. They appear to be good lads.
The rest of them, couldn't care less about!

Poor wjk, I hope you feel better soon!

pennylane wrote:

wjk wrote:You're all making me laugh, thanks, I've got the dreaded 'manflu'
i like the Queen and Prince Philip. I think Princess Ann does a lot of good too. As for Andrew and Edward, can't see the point of them!
William and Harry will come into their own as they get older, I think. They appear to be good lads.
The rest of them, couldn't care less about!

Poor wjk, I hope you feel better soon!

Thanks penny
Hope you are keeping well xx

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

Yep - my thinking exactly AG.

I`ve never understood why people go along with all the bowing and curtseying - makes it seem as if these people they bow to are somehow `higher`. I hate it when my dog does his submissive bit too. I`m no higher or better than him.

I was working at a school a few years ago that was planning for a visit by Prince Edward. The pupils planned and rehearsed every day for weeks. When he turned up, landing on the playing fields in a helicopter, lots of kids were standing formally to welcome him. After all that, he whizzed round the school in about 20 minutes and then zoomed off in his helicopter to have lunch and spend the afternoon at the local private school.

I had been told that he would be coming into my room, but I said that if I was required to bend the knee, he should miss me out! I don't bend the knee! I wasn't required to and ended up with him breezing in and out with his entourage. Awful, pompous man.

Good on you, Anna. Twenty minutes.... what a joke!

Lioned wrote:I would put to the guillotine anyone who suggests Prince Charles has big ears.

You should all feel ashamed of yourselves you really should.I would give my last farthing to have the opportunity to wash the hard skin from my Regents feet.

You de-serf a promotion!

pennylane wrote:

Lioned wrote:I would put to the guillotine anyone who suggests Prince Charles has big ears.

You should all feel ashamed of yourselves you really should.I would give my last farthing to have the opportunity to wash the hard skin from my Regents feet.

You de-serf a promotion!

I am applying to be a 'footman' in the Royal household,i think i would be really good at it.

pennylane wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

Yep - my thinking exactly AG.

I`ve never understood why people go along with all the bowing and curtseying - makes it seem as if these people they bow to are somehow `higher`. I hate it when my dog does his submissive bit too. I`m no higher or better than him.

I was working at a school a few years ago that was planning for a visit by Prince Edward. The pupils planned and rehearsed every day for weeks. When he turned up, landing on the playing fields in a helicopter, lots of kids were standing formally to welcome him. After all that, he whizzed round the school in about 20 minutes and then zoomed off in his helicopter to have lunch and spend the afternoon at the local private school.

I had been told that he would be coming into my room, but I said that if I was required to bend the knee, he should miss me out! I don't bend the knee! I wasn't required to and ended up with him breezing in and out with his entourage. Awful, pompous man.

Good on you, Anna. Twenty minutes.... what a joke!

Those kids deserved better. It was a big event for them that they put a lot of effort into.

wjk wrote:You're all making me laugh, thanks, I've got the dreaded 'manflu'
i like the Queen and Prince Philip. I think Princess Ann does a lot of good too. As for Andrew and Edward, can't see the point of them!
William and Harry will come into their own as they get older, I think. They appear to be good lads.
The rest of them, couldn't care less about!

Hope you feel better soon, wjk... You can't blame me for passing the manflu on... I only had a mancold which was bad enough.
As for the Royals... far to many of 'em. Direct descendants and heirs to the throne only for me. The rest should find themselves a real job not leech off the public purse, there's too many MPs doing that.

AnnaEsse wrote:

pennylane wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

Yep - my thinking exactly AG.

I`ve never understood why people go along with all the bowing and curtseying - makes it seem as if these people they bow to are somehow `higher`. I hate it when my dog does his submissive bit too. I`m no higher or better than him.

I was working at a school a few years ago that was planning for a visit by Prince Edward. The pupils planned and rehearsed every day for weeks. When he turned up, landing on the playing fields in a helicopter, lots of kids were standing formally to welcome him. After all that, he whizzed round the school in about 20 minutes and then zoomed off in his helicopter to have lunch and spend the afternoon at the local private school.

I had been told that he would be coming into my room, but I said that if I was required to bend the knee, he should miss me out! I don't bend the knee! I wasn't required to and ended up with him breezing in and out with his entourage. Awful, pompous man.

Good on you, Anna. Twenty minutes.... what a joke!

Those kids deserved better. It was a big event for them that they put a lot of effort into.

Its a shame the kids are being indoctrinated to think that these people are special or in some way superior; it would have been better if they`d rehearsed for someone who really appreciated them. Poor loves.

Panda wrote:I too do not like foxhunting tigger, but I am convinced the Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Anne earn their keep and.

The revenue from Tourism pays for their "keep" and for all the glamour of living in a Palace , the Royal Family has no real privacy . Prince Charles started the Prince's Trust many years ago , a great idea to give financial support for young people to start a Business, Anna is President of the Save the Children Fund so they are not exactly layabouts. I felt a pride to be British through the Royal Family and how they are so popular around the world and loved the Jubilee Celebrations, the humour of the Queen to go along with the James Bond spoof. I'm probably in the minority here but everyone is entitled to an opinion but William and Kate are also great Ambassadors for Britain and so give me a Monarchy any day.

You are not in the minority Panda, if you were, the Sovereignty of this country would have gone a long time ago. I am with you and glad they stay. As are millions of others . Perish the thought of the UK being a republic. We have not much left in this country these days. Nothing much left of any traditions and what makes is unique. I am all for casting aside outmoded and outdated institutions that do no one any good but we really have to be careful of what we do as we seem to have a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Many good things have been lost for ever in this country. We will never get them back. Can people say we are better off now we have changed and reformed nearly everything there is here. I do not think so, the best years are well behind us and everyone is looking for someone or something to blame. All of us are to blame. Only IMO of course

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:You're all making me laugh, thanks, I've got the dreaded 'manflu'
i like the Queen and Prince Philip. I think Princess Ann does a lot of good too. As for Andrew and Edward, can't see the point of them!
William and Harry will come into their own as they get older, I think. They appear to be good lads.
The rest of them, couldn't care less about!

Hope you feel better soon, wjk... You can't blame me for passing the manflu on... I only had a mancold which was bad enough.
As for the Royals... far to many of 'em. Direct descendants and heirs to the throne only for me. The rest should find themselves a real job not leech off the public purse, there's too many MPs doing that.

I don't blame you, ms, I know you suffered badly too
Yes, well put, direct descendants and heirs to the throne!
Without Prince Andrew and Prince Edward though

My first husband used to have a small business in Ballater, and we did quite a lot of work up at Balmoral. This was about 25 years ago when Edward was just a young man. He was a complete prat even then. Diana was lovely, you'd see her shopping in the village and she would make the Princes wait in queues, pay for their own sweeties with proper money and hold the door open for older people. The old Queen Mum used to go shopping in Safeway in wellies and a headsquare. I think they really loved being up at Ballater because the locals all knew who they were and pretty much left them alone.

They are only human beings like the rest of us.

I would say i'd rather be a Royal than a benefit scrounger,peadophile,rapist murderer or an otherwise jolly bad person.

Oldartform wrote:`Deserves` is an odd concept really. I suppose if someone deserves something it means they are entitled through merit, through hard work, achievement etc. (Contrary to this it can be deserving of punishment). So it comes down to a moral issue of whether we think, just because someone is born or marries into a privileged family, they automatically deserve something. IMO the answer is No.

In law, we are all supposed to be entitled to privacy, but even that depends on certain things. If one courts and uses the press and public to further ones own ends, then those rights diminish IMO.

There is a small part of me that is fascinated by pomp and ceremony, but when it comes down to it, its really only because I like watching the horses; the actually ethos of the whole carnival sickens me. It makes me shudder to see people holding royalty in high regard, its just hysteria. Maybe the present Queen has good qualities but so do lots of people. With most royal families, their position and wealth has been obtained through the suffering and killing of probably billions of people, through land grab, theft of opposing religions` wealth, slavery, surfdom, mining, rape of lands and peoples - so what is there to be proud of in that? And why would anyone want to be called a `subject` of people like that?


http://popreflection.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/stupid-things-people-do-celebrate-the-queens-diamond-jubilee-and-thus-the-british-crown/

Sorry to say this, but we are all 'subject' of people like that, as you put it Oldartform.

Our forefathers did a great many things that make us shudder today.

It is no different with Royalty.

As for the hysteria, as its put, well look at America if you want to witness hysteria. They go completely nuts over their new President and First Lady and a few years down the line the majority hate the guy (yes its always a man for President with a First Lady by his side, never the other way around). How utterly old fashioned in this day and age.

Thank goodness for our Royal Family. The ever stable family at the forefront of Britain, no matter how many awful politicians come and go. And if the new baby is a girl, she will be 3rd in line for the throne. We in Britain are modern and as Royalty modernises then I think that naturally some of the pomp and ceremony will scale down as a result.

As for their hunting, what's that got to do with anything? My son has been to hunts. So, dislike me if you will!

Everything has to be controlled in the countryside, including some of the wildlife I'm afraid. No, I couldn't kill anything and got very upset when my lurcher killed a rabbit in the park. But I do live in a semi rural location and, as a non-farmer, what do I know? The farmers by me ensure me that their livelihoods are at risk from certain forms of wildlife and they have no hesitatation but to shoot.

Anyway, don't see what any of this has to do with the McCanns, sorry. Discuss this OP from another angle maybe, from the privacy angle, but what has what's been said so far to do with the McCanns?

For what its worth, if Kate had not been topless at the time her sunbathing photo was taken, would she still have complained about her privacy being breached?

almostgothic wrote:I resent being a 'subject' of anyone - good or bad.

It's about time we got rid of archaic terms like that.
Take for example 'His Royal Highness' or 'Her Majesty'. These titles are used unthinkingly.
But when one rolls them around one's tongue a little, how ridiculous and pompous they seem.
'High' and 'Majestic' - in a pig's ear they are!

I can remember my late mother ranting about all the bowing and scraping.
If any of that family expect me to curtsey to them, they'll have a ruddy long wait (and not because of my arthritic knees either).
I was reading recently that, after centuries of Health & Safety-defying subservience, only two royal retainers are now required to exit the Queen's presence by walking backwards.
ONLY TWO???
Well that's alright then.
I mean, two grown men still do this? Really? Genuflecting as they trip over the corgis, maybe?

What really sickens me, as the TV cameras pan over any royal progress you care to mention, is seeing gaggles of old dears who've waited hpurs and hours in the rain, flag in one hand, posy wrapped in petrol station cellophane in the other, getting so flushed with excitement as their monarchical heroes exchange a few cursory words. Coo, ain't she lovely, gawd bless 'er!

All I see is the stark contrast between them and the haute couture-draped, expensively-coiffed people who are addressing them.
And I imagine them going home, cold and damp .... "Should I put the fire on? Nah, better not, gas has gone up again ..."

:Applaud

LJC wrote:

Oldartform wrote:`Deserves` is an odd concept really. I suppose if someone deserves something it means they are entitled through merit, through hard work, achievement etc. (Contrary to this it can be deserving of punishment). So it comes down to a moral issue of whether we think, just because someone is born or marries into a privileged family, they automatically deserve something. IMO the answer is No.

In law, we are all supposed to be entitled to privacy, but even that depends on certain things. If one courts and uses the press and public to further ones own ends, then those rights diminish IMO.

There is a small part of me that is fascinated by pomp and ceremony, but when it comes down to it, its really only because I like watching the horses; the actually ethos of the whole carnival sickens me. It makes me shudder to see people holding royalty in high regard, its just hysteria. Maybe the present Queen has good qualities but so do lots of people. With most royal families, their position and wealth has been obtained through the suffering and killing of probably billions of people, through land grab, theft of opposing religions` wealth, slavery, surfdom, mining, rape of lands and peoples - so what is there to be proud of in that? And why would anyone want to be called a `subject` of people like that?


http://popreflection.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/stupid-things-people-do-celebrate-the-queens-diamond-jubilee-and-thus-the-british-crown/

Sorry to say this, but we are all 'subject' of people like that, as you put it Oldartform.

Our forefathers did a great many things that make us shudder today.

It is no different with Royalty.

As for the hysteria, as its put, well look at America if you want to witness hysteria. They go completely nuts over their new President and First Lady and a few years down the line the majority hate the guy (yes its always a man for President with a First Lady by his side, never the other way around). How utterly old fashioned in this day and age.

Thank goodness for our Royal Family. The ever stable family at the forefront of Britain, no matter how many awful politicians come and go. And if the new baby is a girl, she will be 3rd in line for the throne. We in Britain are modern and as Royalty modernises then I think that naturally some of the pomp and ceremony will scale down as a result.

As for their hunting, what's that got to do with anything? My son has been to hunts. So, dislike me if you will!

Everything has to be controlled in the countryside, including some of the wildlife I'm afraid. No, I couldn't kill anything and got very upset when my lurcher killed a rabbit in the park. But I do live in a semi rural location and, as a non-farmer, what do I know? The farmers by me ensure me that their livelihoods are at risk from certain forms of wildlife and they have no hesitatation but to shoot.

Anyway, don't see what any of this has to do with the McCanns, sorry. Discuss this OP from another angle maybe, from the privacy angle, but what has what's been said so far to do with the McCanns?

For what its worth, if Kate had not been topless at the time her sunbathing photo was taken, would she still have complained about her privacy being breached?

Agree 100%! Can you imagine President Blair and his fragrant 'yuman rights' first lady? Giving a birthday party for their son at their stately home (bought with blood money imo) they bussed the guests in for security reasons and then charged them for the bus ride!
That's the kind of people you get when you think they're democratically elected. Semi-detached freeloaders. Blair is still aiming for the European presidency. In your dreams Miranda!
I do think the ghastly Andrew and Edward and co can be missed - Princess Anne actually does a lot for Save the Children without any publicity. Countries with long established monarchies tend not to have revolutions. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands for instance.
With royalty it's the luck of the draw, with presidency it's the manipulation of voters - and that's easy enough as we've seen many times.

As for hunting, I am complicit in mass slaughter every time I eat a chicken. Hunted animals have generally had a 'normal' life right up to the moment they are shot. The myth of the aristocracy and hunting is just that, a myth. Farmers, farm workers and all sorts go on shoots.
I do disapprove of fox hunting because the earths are stopped and dozens of dogs tearing a fox apart isn't a sport imo. Beside, the dogs are kept in kennels most of the time, not a natural habitat or role for the dogs either.
Deer and swine have to be culled otherwise there would be no forests left. Imo eating game rather than farm-reared animals should be seen as a morally better option.
I had a half wild Abyssinian cat for years. He lived mainly from rabbits he caught and never accepted my offerings of sachets of Whiskas. It was hell keeping him wormed, but finding a half-eaten rabbit in the living room didn't worry me. It's nature and it's honest imo.
Unless you're a vegan (vegetarianism doesn't count imo) one cannot point the finger at anyone eating or procuring meat. I generally eat free range, it's more expensive but then I eat less meat than most. It's a compromise between mass slaughter and hunting. Not ideal, but I can live with it.

I agree with you and LJC tigger

tigger wrote:

LJC wrote:

Oldartform wrote:`Deserves` is an odd concept really. I suppose if someone deserves something it means they are entitled through merit, through hard work, achievement etc. (Contrary to this it can be deserving of punishment). So it comes down to a moral issue of whether we think, just because someone is born or marries into a privileged family, they automatically deserve something. IMO the answer is No.

In law, we are all supposed to be entitled to privacy, but even that depends on certain things. If one courts and uses the press and public to further ones own ends, then those rights diminish IMO.

There is a small part of me that is fascinated by pomp and ceremony, but when it comes down to it, its really only because I like watching the horses; the actually ethos of the whole carnival sickens me. It makes me shudder to see people holding royalty in high regard, its just hysteria. Maybe the present Queen has good qualities but so do lots of people. With most royal families, their position and wealth has been obtained through the suffering and killing of probably billions of people, through land grab, theft of opposing religions` wealth, slavery, surfdom, mining, rape of lands and peoples - so what is there to be proud of in that? And why would anyone want to be called a `subject` of people like that?


http://popreflection.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/stupid-things-people-do-celebrate-the-queens-diamond-jubilee-and-thus-the-british-crown/

Sorry to say this, but we are all 'subject' of people like that, as you put it Oldartform.

Our forefathers did a great many things that make us shudder today.

It is no different with Royalty.

As for the hysteria, as its put, well look at America if you want to witness hysteria. They go completely nuts over their new President and First Lady and a few years down the line the majority hate the guy (yes its always a man for President with a First Lady by his side, never the other way around). How utterly old fashioned in this day and age.

Thank goodness for our Royal Family. The ever stable family at the forefront of Britain, no matter how many awful politicians come and go. And if the new baby is a girl, she will be 3rd in line for the throne. We in Britain are modern and as Royalty modernises then I think that naturally some of the pomp and ceremony will scale down as a result.

As for their hunting, what's that got to do with anything? My son has been to hunts. So, dislike me if you will!

Everything has to be controlled in the countryside, including some of the wildlife I'm afraid. No, I couldn't kill anything and got very upset when my lurcher killed a rabbit in the park. But I do live in a semi rural location and, as a non-farmer, what do I know? The farmers by me ensure me that their livelihoods are at risk from certain forms of wildlife and they have no hesitatation but to shoot.

Anyway, don't see what any of this has to do with the McCanns, sorry. Discuss this OP from another angle maybe, from the privacy angle, but what has what's been said so far to do with the McCanns?

For what its worth, if Kate had not been topless at the time her sunbathing photo was taken, would she still have complained about her privacy being breached?

Agree 100%! Can you imagine President Blair and his fragrant 'yuman rights' first lady? Giving a birthday party for their son at their stately home (bought with blood money imo) they bussed the guests in for security reasons and then charged them for the bus ride!
That's the kind of people you get when you think they're democratically elected. Semi-detached freeloaders. Blair is still aiming for the European presidency. In your dreams Miranda!
I do think the ghastly Andrew and Edward and co can be missed - Princess Anne actually does a lot for Save the Children without any publicity. Countries with long established monarchies tend not to have revolutions. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands for instance.
With royalty it's the luck of the draw, with presidency it's the manipulation of voters - and that's easy enough as we've seen many times.

As for hunting, I am complicit in mass slaughter every time I eat a chicken. Hunted animals have generally had a 'normal' life right up to the moment they are shot. The myth of the aristocracy and hunting is just that, a myth. Farmers, farm workers and all sorts go on shoots.
I do disapprove of fox hunting because the earths are stopped and dozens of dogs tearing a fox apart isn't a sport imo. Beside, the dogs are kept in kennels most of the time, not a natural habitat or role for the dogs either.
Deer and swine have to be culled otherwise there would be no forests left. Imo eating game rather than farm-reared animals should be seen as a morally better option.
I had a half wild Abyssinian cat for years. He lived mainly from rabbits he caught and never accepted my offerings of sachets of Whiskas. It was hell keeping him wormed, but finding a half-eaten rabbit in the living room didn't worry me. It's nature and it's honest imo.
Unless you're a vegan (vegetarianism doesn't count imo) one cannot point the finger at anyone eating or procuring meat. I generally eat free range, it's more expensive but then I eat less meat than most. It's a compromise between mass slaughter and hunting. Not ideal, but I can live with it.

I'm vegetarian and I've never thought of my way of life as an 'ism,' or sought to 'count,' for anyone other than myself. Also, I don't point the finger at people who eat meat. What other people choose to eat is their business as far as I am concerned. I don't preach to others about what they do or don't eat. Hunting is fine by me if people hunt for food to eat and don't waste any of the animal they kill: my nephew hunts with falcons, skins the animals and uses every part of them. I'm not sure about game birds that are bred specially for shooting parties for people who want to go out and 'bag a gross.' Those birds are often so docile it can't take much to 'bag,' a few.

So, we choose our way of life and I choose mine: as well as being vegetarian, I don't pollute my home with nasty toxic cleaning products or use toxic toiletries. It's just the way of life I choose and my choices 'count,' to me, but I don't ever wonder if they 'count,' to anyone else.

Hi AnnaEsse. I don't want you to misunderstand. You are certainly not 'pointing the finger' at meat eaters. I had friends who turned vegetarian however, they were forever lecturing me on how bad it was for the poor animals. Whilst thinking nothing of wearing leather, using products with rennet and so on.
That sort of attitude I find hypocritical. So that's why I said only vegans can take the moral high ground if they so wish.

I do eat meat and I totally agree that hunting is fine as long as all of the animal is used. That's why I'm happy to wear sheepskin, but no other furs where the animals are bred for their skins. Just saw an article on a mink farm! in NL. I thought those things were long gone. Small cages too. Good news is they have to close down, bad news is only in 2014.
I use make up which hasn't been tested on animals and so on. I just wanted to make the point that some vegetarians like to preach the gospel whilst using animal products. I certainly didn't mean that you were one of the pointers.

tigger wrote:Hi AnnaEsse. I don't want you to misunderstand. You are certainly not 'pointing the finger' at meat eaters. I had friends who turned vegetarian however, they were forever lecturing me on how bad it was for the poor animals. Whilst thinking nothing of wearing leather, using products with rennet and so on.
That sort of attitude I find hypocritical. So that's why I said only vegans can take the moral high ground if they so wish.

I do eat meat and I totally agree that hunting is fine as long as all of the animal is used. That's why I'm happy to wear sheepskin, but no other furs where the animals are bred for their skins. Just saw an article on a mink farm! in NL. I thought those things were long gone. Small cages too. Good news is they have to close down, bad news is only in 2014.
I use make up which hasn't been tested on animals and so on. I just wanted to make the point that some vegetarians like to preach the gospel whilst using animal products. I certainly didn't mean that you were one of the pointers.

Thanks tigger. I didn't want to offend you by what I said and I'm glad that I don't seem to have done so. I agree about vegetarians who lecture others. In the 1990s I helped a friend set up a wholefood shop. One of the other helpers was a man who always seemed really uptight, resentful and hateful towards others. He was a purist who let everyone know and he was a pain in the bum. I don't go into the shop very often now because the people who work there are a bit too 'worthy,' for me! I'm one of the folk they would look down their noses at as I buy my organic veg from supermarkets, but do I care? Not a bit!

I go to my daughter's at Christmas. My son makes the nut roast with exotic ingredients like black truffles. My daughter's partner eats some kind of fowl and last year he ate a whole Guinea fowl. Now that didn't bother me at all. Why should it? He eats what he likes. What amazed me was that he ate a whole one!

Panda wrote:I too do not like foxhunting tigger, but I am convinced the Queen, Prince Charles and Princess Anne earn their keep and.

The revenue from Tourism pays for their "keep" and for all the glamour of living in a Palace , the Royal Family has no real privacy . Prince Charles started the Prince's Trust many years ago , a great idea to give financial support for young people to start a Business, Anna is President of the Save the Children Fund so they are not exactly layabouts. I felt a pride to be British through the Royal Family and how they are so popular around the world and loved the Jubilee Celebrations, the humour of the Queen to go along with the James Bond spoof. I'm probably in the minority here but everyone is entitled to an opinion but William and Kate are also great Ambassadors for Britain and so give me a Monarchy any day.

I am at a loss as to how they contribute to tourism, it's not as if the tourists are going to meet the royal family. All they can do is look at the castles and palaces from afar. France has probably the highest rate of tourism in Europe and they chopped the heads off their royals, didn't hurt their tourism business.

I think that would be a step too far Carolina. Having a referendum would be far more civilised. I have not looked up to see if France has far more tourists than us I will take your word for it. However the reasons for the tourism there may be for different reasons to ours, as for all countries.

If there wasn't a history of royalty there would be no Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Coronations, Royal Weddings etc . I think the general public like the Queen, in fact she is very popular around the world , the Diamond Jubilee brought a lot of Tourists and my Friends in America watched the event and loved it.

The basic difference I think is that we elect our own leeches and kick them out every four years or so.