Off Topic Messages

Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:52 am

You didn't mention the flying tram!!!!


Kinda agree with ya. Pauline asked me to tape it but I stuffed up somehow,

at least she didn't miss anything.


:lol:

Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:08 am

I wasn't glued to the set, but it just seemed to be a bit all over the place.

But as I said. I was busy with other things so wasn't paying 100% attention.

8)

Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:58 pm

sam wrote:I was busy with other things so wasn't paying 100% attention.

8)


That's about par for the course, these days.

Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:03 pm

ColinB wrote:
sam wrote:I was busy with other things so wasn't paying 100% attention.

8)


That's about par for the course, these days.


Yes, you should try it Colin!!! :wink:

:oops:

Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:04 pm

sam wrote:Yes, you should try it Colin!!! :wink:

:oops:


Try what ?

Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:16 pm

ColinB wrote:
sam wrote:Yes, you should try it Colin!!! :wink:

:oops:


Try what ?


Using your imagination!!! :shock:


:D

Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:36 pm

sam wrote:Using your imagination!!! :shock: :D


Oh, that went AWOL years ago !

Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:15 pm

The Commonwealth Games ?..................a mickey mouse event if ever there was one.

Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:18 pm

Ezzz wrote:The Commonwealth Games ?..................a mickey mouse event if ever there was one.


Well, it's like the Olympics but without the big boys !

Gives the UK a better chance in the medal stakes !

Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:56 pm

I heard on the BBC that they managed to incorporate a giant thong.

Disappointed to discover it was flip-flop, lost interest after that, though Sam is right, the flying tram was an interesting diversion.

Do you have a fairly relaxed attitude to mind altering substances in Oz?

Geoff

Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:36 pm

Actually, I thought the Queen was quite enjoying herself:

Image

Well, in its proper size you can see she is !

Don't know why it came out like a postage stamp !

Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:42 pm

ColinB wrote:Actually, I thought the Queen was quite enjoying herself:

Image

Well, in its proper size you can see she is !

Don't know why it came out like a postage stamp !


Perhaps she's happy because someone is licking the back of her head?

Geoff

Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:36 am

I blame Walt Disney.

Had he put pants on Donald Duck then the flower of Australian manhood would have remained faithfull to the ewe.

Perhaps a duck is a softer lay on. :D

Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:45 am

Why do you folks use the term 'commonwealth'? I didn't think the commoners get wealthy, or that wealth was particularly common in your countries.

Is this some quasi-socialistic wishful-thinking label?

Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:21 am

Pete Dube wrote:Why do you folks use the term 'commonwealth'? I didn't think the commoners get wealthy, or that wealth was particularly common in your countries.

Is this some quasi-socialistic wishful-thinking label?


Well, it's an archaic term well past its sell-by date.

Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:32 pm

ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:Why do you folks use the term 'commonwealth'? I didn't think the commoners get wealthy, or that wealth was particularly common in your countries.

Is this some quasi-socialistic wishful-thinking label?


Well, it's an archaic term well past its sell-by date.


Like the Monarchy. Although they ain't common (thankfully). But they are wealthy! But here's an idea for ya Colin: You Brits stop supporting the royals with your tax pounds. Then they'll be less wealthy, you commoners will be more wealthy, then you'll have something approximating an actual commonwealth! (And you get to keep the term). That's a common sense approach! :)

Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:41 pm

Pete Dube wrote:But here's an idea for ya Colin: You Brits stop supporting the royals with your tax pounds.
Then they'll be less wealthy, you commoners will be more wealthy, then you'll have something approximating an actual commonwealth! (And you get to keep the term).
That's a common sense approach! :)


Would love to !

Unfortunately, it's not up to us !

Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:01 pm

Do you not have a representative government Colin? House of Lords/House of Commons whom you elect?

Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:11 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Do you not have a representative government Colin?
House of Lords/House of Commons whom you elect?


Well, yes [House of Commons, anyway] but no main party has it in their manifesto to get shot of the royals, unfortunately !

Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:38 am

ColinB wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:Do you not have a representative government Colin?
House of Lords/House of Commons whom you elect?


Well, yes [House of Commons, anyway] but no main party has it in their manifesto to get shot of the royals, unfortunately !


But if the public who vote the main parties into Parliament let it be known that they will vote them out if they don't do something about the Monarchy I would think there would be at least some movement towards this end.

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:55 am

Pete Dube wrote:But if the public who vote the main parties into Parliament let it be known that they will vote them out if they don't do something about the Monarchy I would think there would be at least some movement towards this end.


Difficult for the 'public' to speak with one voice.

Not sure they all think like me, anyway.

Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:27 pm

Colin -
About a year or so ago somebody on this board explained to me the basics of the U.K. government. If memory serves the lords aren't elected to Parliament correct? It's a hereditary position correct?

Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:25 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Colin -
About a year or so ago somebody on this board explained to me the basics of the U.K. government. If memory serves the lords aren't elected to Parliament correct?
It's a hereditary position correct?


It was once !

Tony Blair's government has thankfully done away with the 'hereditaries'.

Now, you get 'appointed' as a favour for political or financial support of the Labour Party.

A peerage costs around a million quid.

This has caused a bit of a stink, however, and some recent 'appointees' have been disallowed.

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:52 pm

So in other words Colin, the party in power basically gets to appoint whom they want to the house of lords?

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:58 pm

That seems to be what Colin's saying.

I had heard about Blair's change in the tradition, but what did he replace it with?

I still wonder how monarchy (albeit neutered) survives in the21st century UK.