A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as "honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with
their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up
for a change)
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable. And >>that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as "honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with
their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up for
a change)
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as there would have been for any other individual?
On 22/02/2026 09:23, wasbit wrote:
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:They generally don't use blue lights and marked cars if they think it
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as
there would have been for any other individual?
will spook there intended target.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 09:58:52 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:23, wasbit wrote:
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:They generally don't use blue lights and marked cars if they think it
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad. >>> ;->
Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as >> there would have been for any other individual?
will spook there intended target.
Judging by the hunted look he's evidenced in recent times, I'd guess
this particular target would most certainly have been spooked. No
doubt they didn't want to give him a chance to flush all his flash
drives down the shitter.
In article <fc1mpk1ge084gt9n20gbdurrafgq24g8ro@4ax.com>, Cursitor Doom ><cd@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 09:58:52 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
On 22/02/2026 09:23, wasbit wrote:
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:They generally don't use blue lights and marked cars if they think it
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad. >> >>> ;->
Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as >> >> there would have been for any other individual?
will spook there intended target.
Judging by the hunted look he's evidenced in recent times, I'd guess
this particular target would most certainly have been spooked. No
doubt they didn't want to give him a chance to flush all his flash
drives down the shitter.
I suspect there is very little chance that The Firm didn't do a deep
cleanse of his house(s) some years ago and made sure that there was >absolutely nothing left sitting around to be found... They obviously can't
do anything about the huge trove of documents coming out of America but
they absolutely would have sanitised every scrap of paper and digital
media that Andrew had in his possession.
Doesn't look like that'll save him, though - they're going to throw him to >the wolves now to try and protect the Family and he'll end up doing time. >Damage is done, though - I don't think there's a way they'll ever manage
to wash this stink off. Monarchy is on its way out!
Andrew's been thrown under the bus big-time. He's the chief
sacrificial pawn by the look of it and I'm asking myself why all the
focus is on one or two individuals like Andy and Trump when we know
from the girls' accounts that there were*hundreds* of other rich and influential men also involved. Their names have not been made public
and all references to them in the released emails have been redacted.
It seems TPTB are hoping plebs like us will forget all about them and
believe justice will have been done simply by Andy alone left rotting
away in a prison cell.
On 23/02/2026 00:38, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Andrew's been thrown under the bus big-time. He's the chief
sacrificial pawn by the look of it and I'm asking myself why all the
focus is on one or two individuals like Andy and Trump when we know
from the girls' accounts that there were*hundreds*-a of other rich and
influential men also involved. Their names have not been made public
and all references to them in the released emails have been redacted.
It seems TPTB are hoping plebs like us will forget all about them and
believe justice will have been done simply by Andy alone left rotting
away in a prison cell.
I think Andrews issues are less about bonking young women than handing
over state secrets to Epstein et al.
As to the rest - well they are all implicated. Like the Nazis, if you exposed them all, who is left to run Germany? etc..
There have been high class brothels-a before and there will be again.
Like Savile, its amazing how many people who shook his hand 'never met him'
On 23/02/2026 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/2026 00:38, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Andrew's been thrown under the bus big-time. He's the chief
sacrificial pawn by the look of it and I'm asking myself why all the
focus is on one or two individuals like Andy and Trump when we know
from the girls' accounts that there were*hundreds*-a of other rich and
influential men also involved. Their names have not been made public
and all references to them in the released emails have been redacted.
It seems TPTB are hoping plebs like us will forget all about them and
believe justice will have been done simply by Andy alone left rotting
away in a prison cell.
I think Andrews issues are less about bonking young women than handing
over state secrets to Epstein et al.
As to the rest - well they are all implicated. Like the Nazis, if you
exposed them all, who is left to run Germany? etc..
There have been high class brothels-a before and there will be again.
Like Savile, its amazing how many people who shook his hand 'never met
him'
On the other hand-a ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then why
do they need to resort to hookers ?-a - theres at least one documented instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of Pork
On 23/02/2026 13:50, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
On 23/02/2026 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On the other hand-a ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then why
do they need to resort to hookers ?-a - theres at least one documented
instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of Pork
I'll shag Fergie for $15000...and some viagra
On 23/02/2026 14:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/2026 13:50, Abandoned Trolley wrote:
On 23/02/2026 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On the other hand-a ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then
why do they need to resort to hookers ?-a - theres at least one
documented instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of
Pork
I'll shag Fergie for $15000...and some viagra
Only if someone else paid. From all accounts it appears that that she is slightly in debt - to multiple people/companies.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as >"honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with
their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up
for a change)
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A massive fall from grace!Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as >there would have been for any other individual?
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:44:35 +0000, Dan Green <dhg99908@hotmail.se>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad. >>>;->
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as >>"honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with
their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up for
a change)
I was taught that 'with respect' means there is very little in the way
of respect and 'with the utmost respect' means no respect at all.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +0000, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:44:35 +0000, Dan Green <dhg99908@hotmail.se>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable. >>>>And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad. >>>>;->
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as >>>"honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with >>>their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up for >>>a change)
I was taught that 'with respect' means there is very little in the way
of respect and 'with the utmost respect' means no respect at all.
I use: "With all *due* respect" ...
Monarchy is on its way out!
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 09:23:03 +0000, wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 18:15, Cursitor Doom wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable.Why did the police roll up in plain cars? Why no blue lights & sirens as >>there would have been for any other individual?
And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad.
Would it not be the CID for an investigation of this nature?
On the other handa ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then
why do they need to resort to hookers ?a - theres at least one
documented instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of Pork
I'll shag Fergie for $15000...and some viagra
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun,
22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
In message <10nhn80$31ssq$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:12:16 on Mon, 23 Feb
2026, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> remarked:
-a-a On the other hand-a ...
-aif insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then
why-a do they need to resort to hookers ?-a - theres at least one
documented-a instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of
Pork
I'll shag Fergie for $15000...and some viagra
Would it cost extra if she insisted you put your false teeth in?
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun,
22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun,
22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
And having a huge stake in the country that politicians do not, and
having been brought up in such wealth that any more seems pointless,
they are unlikely to be bribable.
No. I'll keep the monarchy, for all its flaws...
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun,
22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump,
he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament
so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
So turns out that the system is about as good as a chocolate teapot when tested.
Theo--
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on
Sun, 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
And having a huge stake in the country that politicians do not, and
having been brought up in such wealth that any more seems pointless,
they are unlikely to be bribable.
No. I'll keep the monarchy, for all its flaws...
On 24/02/2026 12:30, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun, >>>> 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, >>> he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament >> so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes >> her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the
Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
--So turns out that the system is about as good as a chocolate teapot whenIt's never been tested
tested.
Theo
On 24 Feb 2026 at 12:43:23 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 12:30, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun, >>>>> 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, >>>> he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen. >>>>
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament >>> so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes
her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the
Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
Well the converse situation didn't turn out well for Charles I.
On 24/02/2026 15:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 12:43:23 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 12:30, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun, >>>>>> 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, >>>>> he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President >>>>>> Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen. >>>>>
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament >>>> so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes
her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the >>>> Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
Well the converse situation didn't turn out well for Charles I.
to have a king back, but to limit his powers.
On 24 Feb 2026 at 15:23:50 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 15:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2026 at 12:43:23 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 12:30, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun, >>>>>>> 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, >>>>>> he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President >>>>>>> Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen. >>>>>>
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament
so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes
her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the >>>>> Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
Well the converse situation didn't turn out well for Charles I.
to have a king back, but to limit his powers.
Hence the suggestion that we have limited them to the extent that his pointless.
On 24 Feb 2026 at 12:43:23 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 12:30, Theo wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:That wasn't a bridge to die on for the monarchy
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun, >>>>> 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, >>>> he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen. >>>>
The problem is that it did, and they didn't. Johnson prorogued Parliament >>> so that it wasn't sitting when key Brexit decisions had to be made (ie votes
her might lose), and the monarch did nothing about it. It was only the
Supreme Court that prevented him taking all the power for himself.
Well the converse situation didn't turn out well for Charles I.
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on
Sun, 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President >>Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the
Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes
Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
And having a huge stake in the country that politicians do not, and
having been brought up in such wealth that any more seems pointless,
they are unlikely to be bribable.
No. I'll keep the monarchy, for all its flaws...
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least since the >1940s. Some of them seem to have had the odd (manageable) skeleton in the >cupboard, but I don't think any of them have done any actual harm? My >understanding is that they are not enormously expensive, either.
And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided
to have a king back, but to limit his powers.
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on Sun,
22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
On 2026-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided
to have a king back, but to limit his powers.
Polls about abolishing the monarchy seem to be split 50:50, at least while >Liz was in charge. I haven't seen any recently. My guess is that it won't >have changed much.
My feeling is that if we changed anything lots of people would immediately >regret it.
And yet after Cromwell, and the Protectorate, we overwhelmingly decided
to have a king back, but to limit his powers.
Hence the suggestion that we have limited them to the extent that his >pointless.
ps I went to a wine and cheese party at the Elysee Palace about 25yrs
-a-a ago hosted by Jaques Chirac. Tenue de Ville. Most exciting part was
-a-a the motorcycle escort from the conference hotel. A few years later I
-a-a went to similar event, but that was just the Mayor of Paris at his
-a-a gaff.
On 2/24/26 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
ps I went to a wine and cheese party at the Elysee Palace about
25yrs
aa ago hosted by Jaques Chirac. Tenue de Ville. Most exciting part was
aa the motorcycle escort from the conference hotel. A few years later I
aa went to similar event, but that was just the Mayor of Paris at his
aa gaff.
Did you ever get invited to Little Saint James, on the Lolita Express?
Actually it is probably best not to tell us.
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on
Sun, 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
And having a huge stake in the country that politicians do not, and
having been brought up in such wealth that any more seems pointless,
they are unlikely to be bribable.
No. I'll keep the monarchy, for all its flaws...
In message <10nl86r$99h8$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:20:10 on Tue, 24 Feb
2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 2/24/26 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
-aps I went to a wine and cheese party at the Elysee Palace about 25yrs
-a-a-a ago hosted by Jaques Chirac. Tenue de Ville. Most exciting part was >>> -a-a-a the motorcycle escort from the conference hotel. A few years later I >>> -a-a-a went to similar event, but that was just the Mayor of Paris at his >>> -a-a-a gaff.
Did you ever get invited to Little Saint James, on the Lolita Express?
Actually it is probably best not to tell us.
I've never been to anywhere in the Caribbean.
How much would you charge to have a
4 hour dinner with a dickhead like Trump?
On 24/02/2026 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/02/2026 09:02, Roland Perry wrote:Absolutely TNP.-a If we take Republic's figures of -u510m a year to fund
In message <vintageapplemac-2202262012550001@pmg3>, at 20:12:55 on
Sun, 22 Feb 2026, scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> remarked:
Monarchy is on its way out!
We still need a Head of State. Toss a coin and Heads it's President
Blair, Tails President Boris.
Both cost taxpayers more money to accommodate when PM, than the Queen.
Exactly. The point about a Monarch is that if the government goes
Trump, he/she/it can in theory say 'no, I wont sign this shit'.
And having a huge stake in the country that politicians do not, and
having been brought up in such wealth that any more seems pointless,
they are unlikely to be bribable.
No. I'll keep the monarchy, for all its flaws...
the monarchy, that's under -u9 per person per year. A fucking bargain to keep shites like Blair/Johnson et al. shut out. And we would still pay a shedload for those bastard and they would not bring any in tourists and their tourist spend.
On 24/02/2026 21:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
How much would you charge to have a 4 hour dinner with a dickhead like >>Trump?It depends on whether or not I was allowed to choose the ingredients for
the meal.
The other thing we will not know and will probable never find out is how many stupid ideas a Prime Minister might have had, got sunk during the regular meetings between monarch and PM.
On 25/02/2026 08:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10nl86r$99h8$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:20:10 on Tue, 24 Feb >>2026, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> remarked:
On 2/24/26 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
aps I went to a wine and cheese party at the Elysee Palace about 25yrs >>>> aaa ago hosted by Jaques Chirac. Tenue de Ville. Most exciting part was >>>> aaa the motorcycle escort from the conference hotel. A few years later I >>>> aaa went to similar event, but that was just the Mayor of Paris at his >>>> aaa gaff.
Did you ever get invited to Little Saint James, on the Lolita Express?
Actually it is probably best not to tell us.
I've never been to anywhere in the Caribbean.
You have missed out.
On 24/02/2026 21:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
How much would you charge to have aIt depends on whether or not I was allowed to choose the ingredients for
4 hour dinner with a dickhead like Trump?
the meal.
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue, 24
Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least
since the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more
than the British Monarchy.
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue, 24 >>Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least since >>>the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more >>than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
On 25/02/2026 in message <10no0mt$16png$1@dont-email.me> Simon Simple wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue, 24 >>> Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least since >>>> the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more
than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
It is highly relevant because many anti monarchists argue the monarchy is more expensive than a presidency.
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue,
24 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least >>>since the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more >>than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
On 26 Feb 2026 at 08:51:33 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" wrote:
On 25/02/2026 in message <10no0mt$16png$1@dont-email.me> Simon Simple wrote: >>
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue, 24 >>>> Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least since
the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more
than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
It is highly relevant because many anti monarchists argue the monarchy is
more expensive than a presidency.
Which it almost certainly is even in terms of annual revenue costs. That's >'president' rather than presidency,
which tends to attract a bureaucracy which would likely remain even if
there was no president.
If you factor in the
accumulated wealth of the UK monarchy, there's no discussion - c.u20B.
Which is admittedely not a great deal in the scheme of things. I think you'll >find most anti-monarchists have many other reasons to support abolition.
On 25/02/2026 in message <10no0mt$16png$1@dont-email.me> Simon Simple wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue,
24 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least >>>>since the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more >>>than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
It is highly relevant because many anti monarchists argue the monarchy
is more expensive than a presidency.
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
On 25/02/2026 in message <10no0mt$16png$1@dont-email.me> Simon Simple
wrote:
On 24/02/2026 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
<snipped>
In message <3655130490.9a2cf24e@uninhabited.net>, at 12:35:51 on Tue,
24 Feb 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents, at least
since the 1940s.
AIUI both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more
than the British Monarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.
It is highly relevant because many anti monarchists argue the monarchy
is more expensive than a presidency.
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the
income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the government would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't defend their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I expect that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the government's claim.
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
On 26/02/2026 02:00 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the
income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown
Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the
government
would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't
defend
their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I
expect
that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the
government's claim.
Why would it get to that? The law is clear on private possessions
(dating right back to Magna Carta, whoever she was).
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
They could appeal the the UK's courts.
On 26/02/2026 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2026 02:00 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the >>>> income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the
Crown
Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the
government
would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't
defend
their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I
expect
that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the
government's claim.
Why would it get to that? The law is clear on private possessions
(dating right back to Magna Carta, whoever she was).
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
They could appeal the the UK's courts.
AIUI the *income* from the crown estates - *which the Windsors still own*...was ceded in return for-a a guaranteed government income.
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the
income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown >Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the government >would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't defend >their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I expect >that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the >government's claim.
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
In message <n0b202Fem0mU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:00:34 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> remarked:
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the
income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown
Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the
government
would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't
defend
their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I
expect
that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the
government's claim.
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
Given they've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown
Estates to the government, there's very little reason for the Windsors
to keep up any future involvement. They could simply retire to their
private estates and start charging money for opening supermarkets and things, rather than doing it for free.
On 27/02/2026 08:32 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0b202Fem0mU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:00:34 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> remarked:
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:Given they've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown >>Estates to the government, there's very little reason for the Windsors
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe u100m
a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the >>>> income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown >>> Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the >>>government
would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't >>>defend
their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I >>>expect
that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the
government's claim.
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
to keep up any future involvement. They could simply retire to their >>private estates and start charging money for opening supermarkets and >>things, rather than doing it for free.
"[T]hey've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown Estates
to the government" in consideration of receiving (a smaller sum) from
the Exchequer each year for the expenses of running the Monarchy.
If that funding were to cease, which it presumably would do if the
Monarchy were abolished, the Crown Estate income would consequently
come back to the family, the arrangement under which it was assigned to
the Treasury having determined.
There would be nothing to support any other outcome.
Nothing that would comply with the Yooman Rites Act, at least.--
Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus*
a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?
On 23 Feb 2026 18:33:52 GMT, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +0000, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:44:35 +0000, Dan Green <dhg99908@hotmail.se>
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:15:14 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
A massive fall from grace!
You know where he went wrong, don't you? He was just too honourable. >>>>>And that laudible character trait inevitably led to his downfall. Sad. >>>>>;->
Seems like all these people in public life who refer to each other as >>>>"honourable" are precisely the opposite. So many of them caught with >>>>their pants down (except Mandy - who thank god - actually had his up for >>>>a change)
I was taught that 'with respect' means there is very little in the way
of respect and 'with the utmost respect' means no respect at all.
I use: "With all *due* respect" ...
That's probably the best formulation.
On 23/02/2026 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/2026 00:38, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Andrew's been thrown under the bus big-time. He's the chief
sacrificial pawn by the look of it and I'm asking myself why all the
focus is on one or two individuals like Andy and Trump when we know
from the girls' accounts that there were*hundreds*a of other rich and
influential men also involved. Their names have not been made public
and all references to them in the released emails have been redacted.
It seems TPTB are hoping plebs like us will forget all about them and
believe justice will have been done simply by Andy alone left rotting
away in a prison cell.
I think Andrews issues are less about bonking young women than handing
over state secrets to Epstein et al.
As to the rest - well they are all implicated. Like the Nazis, if you
exposed them all, who is left to run Germany? etc..
There have been high class brothelsa before and there will be again.
Like Savile, its amazing how many people who shook his hand 'never met him' >>
On the other hand ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then why
do they need to resort to hookers ? - theres at least one documented >instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of Pork
In message <n0dr74Fsb3hU1@mid.individual.net>, at 15:23:15 on Fri, 27
Feb 2026, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 27/02/2026 08:32 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <n0b202Fem0mU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:00:34 on Thu, 26
Feb 2026, Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> remarked:
On 2026-02-26, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:-aGiven they've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown
Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the
concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe -u100m >>>>> a year.
And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the
Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the >>>>> income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.
One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the
Crown
Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the
government
would have a tenable claim to ownership.
As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't
defend
their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I
expect
that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the
government's claim.
I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?
Estates to the government, there's very little reason for the
Windsors to keep up any future involvement. They could simply retire
to their private estates and start charging money for opening
supermarkets and things, rather than doing it for free.
"[T]hey've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown Estates
to the government" in consideration of receiving (a smaller sum) from
the Exchequer each year for the expenses of running the Monarchy.
If that funding were to cease, which it presumably would do if the
Monarchy were abolished, the Crown Estate income would consequently
come back to the family, the arrangement under which it was assigned
to the Treasury having determined.
There would be nothing to support any other outcome.
Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus*
a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?
Nothing that would comply with the Yooman Rites Act, at least.
On the other hand ...
if insanely rich and powerful men are so attractive to women, then why
do they need to resort to hookers ? - theres at least one documented
instance of a girl being paid $15,000 to shag the Duke of Pork
Did he claim that back off the taxpayers, too?
Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus*
a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus*
a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?
The mission of the Marxist-Leninist useful idiots isnAt related to the >reality of the situation - the goal is destabilisation of society.
On 28 Feb 2026 11:13:45 GMT, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:yeah. Back in the 60s that's what the commie students said and I laughed
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus* >>> a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?
The mission of the Marxist-Leninist useful idiots isnrCOt related to the
reality of the situation - the goal is destabilisation of society.
It goes beyond mere destabilisation, Spike. They want to destroy all
the established institutions and start over with their own twisted
vision of how reality should be, taking their inspiration from the Bolsheviks. And anyone who's read history will know how that worked
out....
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:07:25 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,198 |