Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone walling, it
is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the fact that I am not
doing it all proper like and the first person who comes up the lane and
makes any comments re. that will get a pair of gloves and a large stone in
their hands and told to do it then :-) unless it is Prince Charles of
course, but then he would probably do some for me :-) Husband is creosoting
all fences that he can reach and it is keeping us both out of trouble :-)
Retirement is great !

kate
sunny Gloucestershire

"Kate Morgan" wrote in message
o.uk...
Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone walling, it
is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the fact that I am not
doing it all proper like

Don't forget the "through stones".

Mike

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:32:26 +0100, "Kate Morgan"
wrote:

Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone walling, it
is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the fact that I am not
doing it all proper like and the first person who comes up the lane and
makes any comments re. that will get a pair of gloves and a large stone in
their hands and told to do it then :-) unless it is Prince Charles of
course, but then he would probably do some for me :-)


Don't talk to me about loony Prince Charlie.

Apparently he is on a nationwide *green* tour this week.

Teletext reports that today he is making speeches encouraging the
Welsh to help conserve rain forests. As a resident, I wasn't aware
that we had any left.


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

®óñ© © ²°¹° wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:32:26 +0100, "Kate Morgan"
wrote:

Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone
walling, it is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the
fact that I am not doing it all proper like and the first person who
comes up the lane and makes any comments re. that will get a pair of
gloves and a large stone in their hands and told to do it then :-)
unless it is Prince Charles of course, but then he would probably do
some for me :-)


Don't talk to me about loony Prince Charlie.

Apparently he is on a nationwide *green* tour this week.

Teletext reports that today he is making speeches encouraging the
Welsh to help conserve rain forests. As a resident, I wasn't aware
that we had any left.

Well, you've got some forests, and you get rain, don't you?


Ian

In article ,
Ian B wrote:
®óñ© © ²°¹° wrote:

Don't talk to me about loony Prince Charlie.

Apparently he is on a nationwide *green* tour this week.

Teletext reports that today he is making speeches encouraging the
Welsh to help conserve rain forests. As a resident, I wasn't aware
that we had any left.

Well, you've got some forests, and you get rain, don't you?

And I believe that there ARE some temperate rain forests in the UK,
and which are in Wales. Despite the claims of his many opponents,
Prince Charles is not a loon and almost all of his remarks are
justifiable (if debatable) WHEN NOT MISREPRESENTED.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone walling,
it
is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the fact that I am not
doing it all proper like

Don't forget the "through stones".

Mike


tricky innit :-)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:54:32 +0100, Sacha wrote:


Eulogy elided.

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be happy
to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be happy
to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

I am sorry that my light hearted comment re. Prince Charles and my attempt
at dry stone walling was not taken as such, a light hearted comment.

kate

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:38:23 +0100, "Kate Morgan"
wrote:

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be happy
to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

I am sorry that my light hearted comment re. Prince Charles and my attempt
at dry stone walling was not taken as such, a light hearted comment.


No problem, Kate, no problem at all. I followed up with my comments
about the bonny prince with an equally light-hearted arboricultural
remark (ie on- topic)
It is not totally unsurprising that a further (off-topic)
pro-monarchist polemic ensued which will not be dignified by a further
response from this Pc


--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)

"®óñ© © ²°¹°" wrote
Sacha wrote:
Eulogy elided.

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be happy
to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.

True, you are not alone. However the alternative of a Monarch, a President,
fills me with dread not least because he/she would cost us all much more (we
would need a new Presidential Palace etc for a start) and result in more
short term ideas/policies as they are only in a position of power and
influence for say 5 years, not a lifetime with little power. Would they have
the ordinary average Englishman's future it mind or might it just be their
rich friends they worried about so they had another job to go to afterwards.
Indeed it can be argued that our Monarchy cost us nothing if offset with the
tourism it brings in. A visit to Windsor or Buck House will prove that
point.
Our Monarchy system is also envied by many in this world, unlike our
newspapers.
Whilst on that point, if , like me, you refuse to buy/read a British (who
owns them?) Newspaper you get a completely different view of a lot of topics
and Charlie is just one.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

Sacha wrote:
On 2010-08-16 12:17:39 +0100, (Nick
Maclaren) said:
In article ,
Ian B wrote:
®óñ© © ²°¹° wrote:

Don't talk to me about loony Prince Charlie.

Why would anyone bother to talk to you about him?

Apparently he is on a nationwide *green* tour this week.

Teletext reports that today he is making speeches encouraging the
Welsh to help conserve rain forests. As a resident, I wasn't
aware that we had any left.

You know nothing about the effect of forests on climate, then?

Well, you've got some forests, and you get rain, don't you?

And I believe that there ARE some temperate rain forests in the UK,
and which are in Wales. Despite the claims of his many opponents,
Prince Charles is not a loon and almost all of his remarks are
justifiable (if debatable) WHEN NOT MISREPRESENTED.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

So do I. But...

The left wing elements in the press
- and there appear to be many who can barely stand upright so strong
is their inclination - always represent him as a 'loon' when in fact,
he talks good sense and is far more in touch with most of
middle-England's thinking than any recent politician or leftie meeja
luvvie. A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail showed a photo of him
apparently grimacing at being caught in the rain while being
photographed with soldiers returned from Afghanistan. It drew
unpleasant comparisons with their
bravery and his apparent whinge. In fact, the bloke next to him was
laughing and clearly, they were having a joke. But on exactly the
same day, our local paper, owned by the same group as the DM and
knowing the Prince is popular in the west country and with farming
communities, published another photo of him in country clothes,
praising him because he has recently launched a new initiative to help
country communities.
The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the aim
is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its next
incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

The Daily Mail is left wing? Blimey! Their beloved Mussolini would be
spinning in his grave if he were still alive.

--
Mike.

Over the last few days I have been trying my hand at dry stone walling, it
is a very addictive occupation. I am well aware of the fact that I am not
doing it all proper like and the first person who comes up the lane and
makes any comments re. that will get a pair of gloves and a large stone in
their hands and told to do it then :-) unless it is Prince Charles of
course, but then he would probably do some for me :-) Husband is
creosoting
all fences that he can reach and it is keeping us both out of trouble :-)
Retirement is great !

kate
sunny Gloucestershire


If it's anything like building/repairing Cornish hedges (a bit like a
dry stone wall, but with a core of earth and small stones, and
generally much thicker and well able to support plant growth), then
IME you do need a very good selection of stone so that you can choose
just the right size and shape to fill that gap.

--

Chris

The wall was knocked down by a tractor so we have lots of stones to use to
build it back up again. It is a bit like a giant jig saw puzzle but a lot
more fun.

kate

Bob Hobden wrote:
[...]

True, you are not alone. However the alternative of a Monarch, a
President, fills me with dread not least because he/she would cost us
all much more (we would need a new Presidential Palace etc for a
start) and result in more short term ideas/policies as they are only
in a position of power and influence for say 5 years, not a lifetime
with little power. Would they have the ordinary average Englishman's
future it mind or might it just be their rich friends they worried
about so they had another job to go to afterwards. Indeed it can be
argued that our Monarchy cost us nothing if offset with the tourism
it brings in. A visit to Windsor or Buck House will prove that point.
Our Monarchy system is also envied by many in this world, unlike our
newspapers.
Whilst on that point, if , like me, you refuse to buy/read a British
(who owns them?) Newspaper you get a completely different view of a
lot of topics and Charlie is just one.

I'm actually cautiously (I say again, /cautiously/) republican,
especially for my native Australia. It needn't cost any more, and there
should be absolutely no question of giving a president any political
power: it works very well for Ireland.

Nevertheless, what I always say to American friends who don't understand
the monarchy is "We have a hereditary president, while you have an
elected king." Back in 1858, Walter Bagehot was pointing out that one of
the functions of the British monarchy was to disguise from the public
that they lived in a republic; it was characteristically amusing, but he
wasn't joking.

--
Mike.

"Martin" wrote
One doesn't have to be left wing to believe that a republic has advantages
over
a monarchy.

What advantage could there possibly be in a President as apposed to a
Monarchy?
I see none.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK

Bob Hobden wrote:
"®óñ© © ²°¹°" wrote
Sacha wrote:
Eulogy elided.

The hypocrisy is shocking but there's no doubt in my mind that the
aim is to rid us of the monarchy by deriding and poking fun at its
next incumbent and the lazy and easily-led fall for it.

I am not lazy, hypocritical, or easily-led. I do object to Chas'
outspoken political (and, yes, often loony) agendas, I object to him
being himself hypocritical and being an "incumbent" and would be
happy to see the Monarchy end with the demise of our current Queen,
hopefully in the far-distant future..

I am not alone.

True, you are not alone. However the alternative of a Monarch, a
President, fills me with dread not least because he/she would cost us
all much more (we would need a new Presidential Palace etc for a
start) and result in more short term ideas/policies as they are only
in a position of power and influence for say 5 years, not a lifetime
with little power. Would they have the ordinary average Englishman's
future it mind or might it just be their rich friends they worried
about so they had another job to go to afterwards. Indeed it can be
argued that our Monarchy cost us nothing if offset with the tourism
it brings in. A visit to Windsor or Buck House will prove that point.
Our Monarchy system is also envied by many in this world, unlike our
newspapers.
Whilst on that point, if , like me, you refuse to buy/read a British
(who owns them?) Newspaper you get a completely different view of a
lot of topics and Charlie is just one.

Well, in practical terms the monarch is only a figurehead; an institution.
The Prime Minister does the equivalent job to e.g. the US President.

I'm not committed on either side of this debate, but if we did want to get
rid of the monarchy, we could replace their notional role as the vessel of
power with anything; a lottery winner, a sheep or a chamber pot. The
(equally imaginary) Constitution would continue to function regardless.

Personally, I wish the Roundheads had lost the Civil War. We may have ended
up with a considerably less daft constitutional structure. We never sorted
out where the ownership of the country lies- with a monarch or with an
assembly appointed by the people- so we just kept fudging it and fudging it
until we have all these instiutional arrangements pretending to be and do
things they really aren't or do. The Prime Minister isn't officially leader
(it isn't even an official job title, s/he is actually "First Lord Of The
Treasury") and the parliament are supposedly merely "advising" the monarch
to pass laws, but in reality the monarch is obligated to take their
"advice". There are no restraints on power, as in say the USA, because
laughably our Constitution and Bill Of Rights work on "latest takes
precedent" rather than "highest takes precedent", so any "right" can simply
be abolished by passing a law, which is why we have no rights left. People
bang on about Magna Carta without realising that virtually all of it has
been repealed except for something about the right of a Freedman to worry
geese in Watling Street. There's a right to bear arms in our Bill of Rights
(1689) what happened to that? Lolz.

Anyway, the key constitutional issue for the next few decades is going to be
our existence not as a nation but as a province of a new nation called The
EU, and the monarchy is clearly redundant in that system. The Prime Minister
is now a State Governor, whose local power will ultimately derive from
Brussels, not the monarch, or the appointed chamber pot.


Ian