|
claret on my shirt 10:53 Tue May 2
Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
|
Everyone of us has been asked / invited to do this on Saturday, will you do it?
Me personally, I am right wing and i was a Queen lover but no way will I swear allegiance to him or his heirs, especially the little c-nt Harry
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Side of Ham
8:17 Sun May 7
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Says the bloke who ridicules his own lowly background….
|
Swiss.
8:12 Sun May 7
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
All the Aristocracy are thieves and descended from thieves that raped out country and put the common people in servitude.
Why people on here still doff the cap and kneel to them is beyond me.
|
JAC
1:28 Sun May 7
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Hardly difficult ,you either do or you don't ...some really weird idiots on here (surprise, surprise)
|
Robson
12:53 Sun May 7
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
With reference to 'mute point' and 'shoe-in'.
My sister-in-law today referred to Camilla as the "Queen Consult". Several times.
|
Nurse Ratched
12:40 Sun May 7
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
daveyg
If you enjoyed Wolf Hall, may I suggest 'A Place of Greater Safety' which in my opinion is the best book she's written (she has written quite a bit of crap, too) It's about the main players of the French Revolution, the events and their collective fates. It's very good indeed.
|
daveyg
2:54 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Swiss
I'm quite enjoying it all.
It is quite amusing.
But I've just read Wolf Hall and that was brilliant.
I love history. It's quite unbelievable what happened back in the time of Henry Viii.
We glorify in other cultures,religions,cults and say we have to honour them all, right or wrong.
All the history that has gone before us is relevant to today.
Everything is relative . Some things in time look worse , some better.
|
Lovejoy
2:22 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
The guy just singing...... He's one of those.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
2:21 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Fo the Communist 2:08 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
Surf. Last word.
'We all agree that the term unwritten constitution is semantically incorrect when applied to Britain’s constitution.'
Indeed
'But it’s not a term that me and Seb and others have just dreamt up. It is in common use by many many agencies and authorities and has a clear and well understood meaning.'
Not so much - people who actually know what they are talking about consistently attempt to correct the misnomer which has led to widespread misconception. You appear to be saying, 'not only is it OK to be ignorant, I will argue for the right to maintain my and everyone else's ignorance'.
'Just because something is a misnomer, you can’t just expunge its use.'
Of course you can. For instance, anyone who continues to use 'mute point' instead of 'moot point' or 'shoe-in' instead of 'shoo-in' after having their error politely explained is just being wilfully ignorant. Same thing with 'unwritten constitution'.
|
Swiss.
2:18 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Watched 5 mins of this shit and bored already
|
Fo the Communist
2:08 Sat May 6
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Surf. Last word.
We all agree that the term unwritten constitution is semantically incorrect when applied to Britain’s constitution.
But it’s not a term that me and Seb and others have just dreamt up. It is in common use by many many agencies and authorities and has a clear and well understood meaning.
Just because something is a misnomer, you can’t just expunge its use.
|
J.Riddle
9:26 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Will you be watching Hammer & Pickle, I hope you will be able to see properly through that gimp mask and get a signal on your black and white set if Mrs Pickle holds the aerial still, difficult I know when she's getting tea bagged by the karate bloke.
|
Hammer and Pickle
8:16 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Imagine the carnage if someone actually wrote the UK’s constitution in a single document in which we were defined as a “nation of shopkeeper’s”.
Fucking hell.
|
ray winstone
8:10 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Surf, shouldn’t you be crying in your beer given the local election results?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
8:05 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
FO
No, mate. The original post was this.
zebthecat 3:22 Tue May 2
'You can argue that having an elected President to act as a brake on the government of day abusing out unwritten constitution'
When I corrected him on that, you both started with the 'they are the same thing' stuff.
They aren't the same thing because, widely misused as it is, 'unwritten' is plain wrong. Your argument amounts to, 'It's OK for me to use the wrong word because lots of other people do'.
I'm not even sure it's possible to have an 'unwritten' constitution in a modern democracy that acknowledges the rule of law.
|
Fo the Communist
7:48 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Indeed Surf. The scare quotes were used in this instance by UCL to highlight that 'unwritten' constitution does not literally mean it is based on stuff that is not written down. Which is what I and others have said but you obdurately refuse to grasp.
'Unwritten constitution' has a clear meaning in the context we are discussing.
Your own UCL example goes on to explain this point: "It is largely written, but in different documents."
In other words, uncodified. Which is what I have said all along.
You really are in a particularly cantankerous mood today. Anything in the news bothering you currently?
|
Moncurs Putting Iron
7:46 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Is there an atheist alternative or doesn't he need us on his team?
Cheers for the Bank Holiday your Kingness, I quite like being British and you do a Great job of bringing the Tourists in.
*Thumbs up, Irons sign, scarpe and bow, whilst reversing out*
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
7:32 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Scare quotes (also called shudder quotes,[1][2] sneer quotes,[3] and quibble marks) are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an IRONIC (my capitals), referential, or otherwise non-standard sense.[4] Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
7:29 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Fo the Communist 7:10 Fri May 5
I really don't know why you are persisting with this.
'Unwritten' and 'uncodified' are NOT the same thing. 'Unwritten' means 'not written' in any context. Just because an error is widespread doesn't make it correct.
And while you are taking a PHd in British Constitution you can probably look up 'scare quotes'.
|
Far Cough
7:19 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Does the Oxford comma, trump the grocer's apostrophe?
Well you cunt's?
|
Hammer and Pickle
7:13 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
All, and each of the following, are cunts: republicans, publicans, public limited companies and Belgians.
I dare you to use "including" there.
|
Fo the Communist
7:10 Fri May 5
Re: Swear allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successors
|
Surf - this all started because you pulled up Zeb for saying Britain has un unwritten constitution. You said it was not an unwritten constitution but a uncodified one. I said in this context, they were essentially the same thing
The use of the speech marks in the UCL passage you yourself quote (ie 'unwritten') makes the same point.
'Unwritten constitution' does not literally mean a constitution based on elements that are not committed to paper it means they have not been brought together in one (uncodified) document. I think we agree this so I am at a loss to understand why you took such issue with my original - and correct - point.
|
|
|
|
