|
HOW THERE YOU!!!!!!
Hello,
I am unlike you a devote monarchist!
You Sir have many points, which are WRONG!
The Queen does a hell of a lot for this country!
If you don’t like her, well move to France as they executed their monarch
200 years a go.
And how there you call Queen Victoria a cow.
If you call your self British or English you should not. As people like you
make this country crap! So I say to you, if you don’t like the monarch
move to a other country because I and others don’t want you HERE!
Thank you
Also if I get any Spam you will be reported as it is against the law. And
you do not want to know what I think of you in my own thoughts, as they are
not nice ones!
Daniel Jellyman |
Would you like to actually list what the Queen does and explain
why it cannot be done by anybody else for a fraction of the cost
without having the people of this country permanently bowing to somebody
because of which bed they were born in?
What does "how there you" mean? It isn't what I recognize
as English, the Queen's or anybody else's.
I am far more English than Elizabeth Windsor, who is of largely
German descent and married to a German descended man who somehow
got to be a Greek prince.
England is where I, an Englishman, belong. It is my duty to make
England better. Getting rid of outmoded institutions such as monarchy
and your style of simple-minded deference is a great start.
What is against the law Daniel? I made it very clear that I will
publish your email and if you don't want that to happen don't send
the message. That was as plain as Princess Anne. It seems to me
that you have volunteered to have your email published. If you
don't like the consequences of the action you chose to take you
have nobody else to blame but yourself.
I think people who misrepresent the law should be charged with
an offence, it cannot be right that ignorance of the law is no
defence and yet people are free to misrepresent what the law is
and pull bogus laws out of their arse at the drop of a hat. What
exactly are the terms of this hypothetical You
can't do that, that's spamming law you think exists and when was it passed?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
To Mr Martin Willett,
First I would like thank you for pointing out the grammar mistake.
I am truly sorry. I also have a lot of respect towards people,
which wants the country to be better. But you do not have all my
respect, as you are a republican I believe. The law, which I said,
does not exist like you say. It normally scares people off from
spaming I find. Also I am happy for the emails to be published.
I stand up for what I believe in.
We do not 'bow' down to her. America is a good example. You might
agree that Gorge Bush is not the greatest President the US has
ever had.
The Queen and the Royal family are brought up and got ready for
the job of leading the state. As you and I and others have not.
So you could have another Hitler on your hands.
The Queen along with stopping and passing bills, which the government
put though she is also a symbol and this country. Which has a lot
of History. So she is not old fashioned because she was not born
in 1700 for example. To elect the head of state we as taxpayers
have to pay more to start a election. This is more than we pay
the Queen in two years.
I have more arguments but you said to keep it small.
The modern British public don’t mind the Queen. Like Spain,
which just reinstated the Monarch.
If she left were would the Church be, I go to Church so I and
others would have to make do with another religion, which we don’t
want.
I am not simple minded, far from it. I love this country and so
I love the Queen. And I take into account other views as well.
Yours faithfully
Daniel |
Why do you assume we need an elected president? To answer my
own question it is the only way to make her Madge seem like a bargain.
The Queen doesn't do anything, she is a figurehead for an unelected
and unseen "Buckingham Palace" machine. Everything the
Queen does could be done by either the Speaker of the House of
Commons or senior civil servants such as ambassadors. No new staff
would be needed and certainly no elections.
Have you actually read the page you are overreacting to?
England has plenty of history to be proud of without making any
reference to royalty.
As to the Church of England it should be disestablished at once.
Establishment is a terrible anachronism which does no service to
either the state or the Church. If the Church wants to have the
Queen as its head then by all means, as long as neither the Church
nor the monarchy is formally connected with the state I care not
one jot what you decide to do with her.
The idea that getting rid of the monarchy would somehow stop people
belonging to the Church that wanted to belong is madness. The Church
should be like any other religious order, open to all voluntary
members. Compulsory membership of a church is a terrible idea,
it is a violation of Prince Charles' human rights to make him the
leader of the Church just because he is his mother's son.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
Dear Martin
Why should she not be the Queen? Why should she not lead us?
You don’t have to answer any of them. If we do not want
a monarch.
Do you not think by now she would have gone? After world war
two perhaps. They tried with Queen Victoria but they wanted to
keep her.
Throughout history men like you and others always point out floors.
Either in the queen or religion. Why are you against her?
Are you jealous of her? And why not should it be her?
Why should it be Jo Boggs down the street? We have had a monarch
for a thousand years. And you want to stop that. And others don’t.
We are one of the modernist countries in Europe. The queen is
still there. What’s the difference between a president
and a monarch?
One is elected and the other is born. it sounds to me martin
that you are a bit communist (sorry if it offends you) you want
everyone to be equal. And you don’t want someone to get
something for nout.
Yours Faithfully
Daniel |
I want everybody to have an equal chance, but not to be equal.
You want to be subservient and it seems like that is the natural
order of things. You're not very smart. You know your place. You
are probably happiest on your knees. I on the other hand do not want
to be made to look up to people who are more stupid than I am.
Why would you want somebody else to get something for nowt?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
Dear Martin
I am not stupid! And I know my place. My GOD SIR I am higher
in society than you. My family has worked its way up.
We now own a number of properties across this country.
The Queen and the Royal Family has deserved to be higher than you. I call
you a communist and don’t give a dam what you think.
You are simple minded because you think I am thick when you don’t listen
to other people views
Yours not a thick as you
Dan
P.S
This debate is about why we should have a Queen or not. NOT about our personal
selves. |
| I judge people as I find them. You come across as stupid. You
have offered no reasons for your beliefs and you have done nothing
to defend your views. All you have done is express your views while
your language use has been decidedly below par.
Why has the Royal family deserved to be higher than me? How can
a family deserve anything? You have offered no reasons at all.
If you have no reasons to justify your beliefs you should silently
slip away not get more and more agitated.
I have offered plenty of reasons to explain my attitude to the
institution of royalty and to explain why it is corrosive to the
social and moral fibre of the nation and how Britain or England
could easily manage without a monarchy. All you have done is get
hysterical and rant. I think you have no solid reasoning behind
your attitude, no reasoning that you can frame and defend.
I am quite prepared to believe your family has worked its way
up, but what have you done? The reason for getting rid of the monarchy
is to get rid of the idea that people count because of their families
and their family's wealth. Your family may have been hard working,
entrepreneurial or shrewd wheeler-dealers quick-witted enough not
to get caught. Whatever the story that does not make you any more
or less than what you are in your own skin.
An idiot son of a Duke is just as much of an idiot as the idiot
son of a dustman or the idiot son of a self-made millionaire.
Your sensitivity to class makes me think you are quite happy to
get more than you yourself deserve and ride on the achievements
of your family.
I was quite prepared to listen to you justify your views but all
I can perceive is strength of feeling and a total lack of rational
thought. Have you started shaving yet?
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
Shaving? Yes. The monach. Should still be here. You sound to me
like a communist.
You also sound like a prick. I have never met you and you have never
met me. And nethier would I like too meet you. I have many reasons
for keeping the monarch. But you seem to say the same thing. they
are the backbone of socity.
They help us when we grife. and i reckon if you had one chance to
rule this country. We would have to say to you HAIL MARTIN MEIN FUHRER!
I will defend my viwes to the end.
Any More Insults to me? |
| You claim to have many reasons for keeping the monarch but you
haven't offered any of them. It seems to me you want to keep
the monarchy for the same reason I want to remove it: because
it is a symbol of the past, of privilege, "breeding" and
of and wealth, rank and respect earned by earlier generations
passed on to their offspring.
How can anybody be born deserving of rank and respect?
Prince Charles had the finest education money could buy and achieved
a mediocre degree. He isn't clever, he isn't smart or shrewd or
a beacon of morality. He hasn't got an appreciation of the national
character and he does not seem to be in touch with the mood of
the nation. He doesn't represent anything that requires representing
and he was not selected for the job in any way. How can you defend
that? I see you are avoiding doing so.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
The Queen theoretically. she can still start a war and she can
still dissolve parliment!
This brings me on to my biggest point. Imagine having the power to
send that braying bunch of ne'er-do-wells from the palace of Westminster
home, and not doing it. Not even for a bit of fun, during a party.
Whatever you may think of the Queen she has willpower, that is for
sure. You may argue that she has too much money passed on from ancestors.
This may be true. But what would she speend it on? An Aston? You
say say she should by replaced with a president.
But who? At the cost of 82p per person per year why should it be
someone who does not desreve it? And why not Charles or William? |
"At the cost of 82p per person per year why should it be someone
who does not desreve it? "
Isn't that MY point? (apart from the spelling mistake)
How the hell can being born to the right mother at a particular time
make anybody deserve a job, any job? What did you do to deserve to be
born to your mother when you were? What job on the public payroll do
you deserve to get for managing to do that?
Why don't you read the page? For the love of humanity read
the page and you will see what I am proposing so you don't need to ask those rhetorical
questions that you think are so clever, I have already anticipated them
all and answered them.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org
Dear Martin
So you are saying from what I can see is that you should not
get something from being born. Well let’s say we get rid
of the Monarch and just have a MP.
What gives the prime Minster the right to be the PM. He has been
born. Just like the Queen. And if he is meant to be the PM he
is, the same as the Queen. Now on your page it says don’t
ask me any question.
This one is not a rhetorical question. I want to see if you can
answer it. Why do you not like the Queen? So far you have not
said I have said why I like her.
And in case you forgot. She is a figurehead, which helps this
country and makes us who we are.
Yours
Daniel |
I think I will have to take this slowly, but that will only work
if you read it slowly too. Can you do that? Lip movements are optional.
Being born doesn't make anybody qualified to be Prime Minister.
To become Prime Minister a person has to become elected to the
House of Commons and lead or at least gain the full support of
a political party which has a majority of the seats in the House.
To do this usually takes somebody of exceptional ability.
Elizabeth Windsor has no educational qualifications and no vocational
qualifications. Her CV reads:
Didn't go to school
Got taught how to be a princess and speak a bit of French
Had a go at being an ambulance driver in the war (No 230873 Second Subaltern
Elizabeth Windsor)
Did a bit more princessing
Met this spiffing Prince Philip chappie, very handsome
Got married
Has two children, one of each (a prince and a princess)
Daddy died, became Queen
Has two more little princes
What gives the Prime Minister the right to be Prime Minister?
The will of the people expressed through parliament.
Nobody gets to be Prime Minister without being bright, quick-witted
and respected. Like them or loathe them any fair-minded person
has to see that British Prime Ministers are never drooling idiots,
you simply cannot be a simpleton and get to lead a major political
party in Britain. You can be King just by being the first child
the right mother has with a dick. (Yes, that sentence is ambiguous,
I'll leave it like that).
It is totally irrelevant whether I like Elizabeth
Windsor or not as a person, actually I think she's alright,
about as smart as the average daytime TV presenter, and she
keeps her dirty linen well out of sight, we could do a lot
worse. And that's the problem. We could easily do worse. It
is a genetic lottery and sometime soon it is inevitable that
we will lose big time. Looking at Charles I think that time
may come in my lifetime. |
 |
If we elect a shower of wankers into a majority in parliament
we may end up with somebody not very good as Prime Minister, but
we're not going to be stuck with them until they die.
A country doesn't need a figurehead who is a real person. The
job of figurehead is best left to statues and mythical characters
such as Britannia, John Bull, Uncle Sam or Marianne.
Uncle Sam never gets caught in bed with his valet or talking to
trees. Marianne never gets criticized for getting the air force
to take her and some chums golfing. Britannia never gets divorced
and John Bull has never been suspected of conspiracy to murder
or having been cuckolded by his wife.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
|