Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Lord help us… President Blair or President Cameron…. nah… prefer the Royals tyvm
And exactly what power does the monarch in this country have?
The post of Prime Minister has more power than the Queen and her successors will ever have.
She pays lip service to the will of Parliament. She is just a token Head of State and a bloody expensive one at that.
She has the power to dissolve Parliament.
Ty Terry – at least someone else knows what they are talking about! :) and just for the sheer hell of it LOL and :lol:
To Kenty, you have done it to yourself, you have put my name in your first sentence! =D>
@kent f OBE wrote:
Just to clear the record I did not even ackknowledge anc that day in the room…I have certainly never called her skank….I never acknowledge or comment on anything she says….I do know who called her a skank though…..however she is saying she isn’t nasty back? Her post directed at me shows she is…we can all stand our corner……it would help if some actually made sense in the process…..
and also to clear the record further….whoever Thin texts and accuses anything of about anyone has nothing to do with me either…I never told or tell him to text anyone or accuse anyone ….funny thing about some of the postings in this thread is….how contradictory…..post directed at me was accsuing me of bullying but ended with a threat….hilarious :lol: :lol:
and….no I wont lose sleep over it…just because someone types something in here does not mean it’s true no matter how you dress it up …add sprinkles and package it…..
now……how old are we again? :lol:
What a load of complete and utter rubbish – loads of peeps saw it Kenty! :shock:
LOL I know what you mean, and NO, it is deffo not in my nature to hurt anyone’s feelings either – I just seem to come out with what I am thinking at the time, and then, regret it – well, I don’t regret it all the time!!!
ps. been p’ing down here!! LOL :(
@jen_jen wrote:
The Queen has already approved the changes to the legislation…as for power over the Government, in theory yes, in practice…
Could be true, but, she is able to change her mind!!
@wordsworth60 wrote:
Bullying: an intention an/or a tendency to emotionally hurt someone, violate their dignity and/or control in an abusive fashion. It is usually repeated or sustained, but a single intimidating act can also be bullying.
Bullies use their power – real or imagined – from words, being part of an ‘in-group’ or physical power. Some people try to gain ‘in group’ power by aligning themselves with dominant personalities and so end up bullying.
People who are bullied can end up bullying others, including the persons who bullied them in the first place. It might feel justified but it reinforces an intimidating environment.
‘An eye for an eye makes everyone blind’ and all that.
Threatening words or behaviour, sarcasm, spreading libellous information, singling people out for attention or imposing yourself on someone are also used to bully.
I chat for fun and for a place, but I try very hard, and not always successfully, to chat in a way that reflects the kind of person I want to be. I have been singled out by bullies. I have been advised to ignore them, and I usually do but they persist so I oppose them if I can. I understand that one of them has made efforts to find ways into my private life.
I still use the chatroom of course, but I am much more guarded. It’s OK to say ‘trust no-one’ but all interaction involves trust.
The boards were a bit of a haven for a while, I could deal with the individual from the room who continued their efforts here, but others have made their own efforts and that didn’t last. I’m still here, but “here” is not as good.
Leave? Turn off? Off course I can, and I sometimes do. But if ‘decent folks’ are frightened off the ‘streets’ then that leaves ‘them’ running things and they frankly don’t deserve it.
Been there, seen it and got the t-shirt, but I don’t bully back – I just fight my corner, and others’ I like – I don’t see that as bullying, and I deffo never divulge anything about a-one-another, just stupidly me, but, hey, that has already been done! I am truely sorry if you have had that, and yes, I did get wind of it as it were, but you are clever Wordsy, and you can get out of it yourself! Above is well said, as always, mwa mwa xxx
@eve wrote:
@irish_lucy wrote:
@rogue trader wrote:
no wordsy man,i beg to differ,if im in chat,yeh you got to get your lols in quick,because as you are well aware,its fast and furious,on them thar chat sites,but on boards i can take all day,or even all week,to answer,yep i agree lol and all the other emos are a sign of recognition,but imo it depends what the thread is all about.
If you have all day to be on the boards how come you dont take the time to press the space bar after commas??
Love it :D
Yeah, well suppose we all suppose you do, but, what about the banter?! :wink: :lol:
…………save a lot of thimbling time! :D
cor that’s a good turn up – ‘stitch’ him 21 and not 40 erm’ summit?! :lol:
@jen_jen wrote:
The current rules of succession mean that sons (and their children) will be first in line to the throne regardless of when the daughter was born. Princess Anne is an example of that, born after Charles but currently 10th in line to the throne after her younger brothers and their children.
Planned legislation is that the children of the monarch will be in line to the throne in the order that they are born regardless of gender, however that will only apply to those born once the legislation is passed.
What Clegg is saying is that the legislation will apply to any children of William and Kate even if they are born before the legislation has been passed, so if they have a daughter first then she will be Queen before any subsequent brothers she may have. Of course if they have a son first then a daughter, the daughter will have to wait her turn
Not sure what makes him think he has the power to override legislation though…it would be interesting if someone (Pincess Anne? or her children?) chose to challenge that – after all, if it can be applied retrospectively to a daughter of a future monarch, why can’t it be applied to the daughter of a reigning monarch?
I think the Queen may have a say in this! Afterall, she does have power over the Government! Be quite interesting to see what happens!
