God save the Queen... from Donald Trump. So say 1 million Britons More than a million Britons have signed an online petition begging the government to prevent American President Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom. The petition, which the Monday-muddled hacks at The Register are guessing is the most popular to have ever graced the site, broke 1,000,000 signatures …
are unlikely to try putting their hand up the skirt of her great-grandchildren's mother.
Neither is he. Not his type.
In any case, I would not worry about that. Any lady that has played hockey on grass can fend for herself. Someone stupid enough to try his luck uninvited will have his head removed.
Any lady that has played hockey on grass can fend for herself.
My wife was ordered by her school to use a different hockey stick when she was young - her dad had repaired her gran's old hockey stick by the dint of screwing a metal plate to the short part of the stick. Apparently, it made a fairly good scythe..
are unlikely to try putting their hand up the skirt of her great-grandchildren's mother.
Neither is he. Not his type.
In any case, I would not worry about that. Any lady that has played hockey on grass can fend for herself. Someone stupid enough to try his luck uninvited will have his head removed.
Oh please please please please try....
"You guys still do the tower and axeman?"
Given the tenacity of British bureaucracy:
In some civil servant warren, there's an office with a desk, whose occupant shuffles in every day, and checks his memos.
Then strokes "Old Friend" hanging on the wall, and mutters, "Not today old friend, not today.", before taking it off its hooks for oiling and sharpening.
"Signing Internet petitions is the 21st century equivalent of shouting at the telly. And about as effective."
No, it's not.
It's the equivalent of signing a massive physical petition, as was done before the internet.
It will be presented to the relevant parties. It is reported in mainstream media. Nothing like you shouting at your telly.
@anonymous boring coward
"It's the equivalent of signing a massive physical petition, as was done before the internet.
It will be presented to the relevant parties. It is reported in mainstream media."
It will then be totally ignored by the relevant parties, as was done before the internet.
(See Petitions Committee response to 250,000 signatures calling for further debate on the IP Act)
(about online petitions)
"It's the equivalent of signing a massive physical petition, as was done before the internet.".
Not per definition, not even close even.
The problem lies in the details: how the petition is carried out. Not many people who open such petitions also have the technical know-how to prevent abuse. You know: signing the petition multiple times using all the e-mail aliases you have for example. And speaking of which: what about actually verifying the validity of an e-mail address?
I know: let's request people to register prior to signing. All it takes is one valid e-mail address. Here we go again.
Maybe one sign per IP address? But that would deprive your family from signing. Or worse: those who know how public VPN's work will once again have plenty of ways to sign multiple times.
Online petitions are by far the same as physical ones.
>Signing Internet petitions is the 21st century equivalent of shouting at the telly. And about as effective.
I agree .... and .... I signed it as well ... not that I see the royals as anything other than bloodsuckers. I am an atheist, so the "They are the earthly representation of god" makes no sense to me, which, basically, disqualifies them from any prerogative they claim to have. However, I would not want Trump to mate with May, which might have already happened, she has been to the US, right ? I digress ... anyway, we have enough excrement in our country with May alone, no need for another helping!
Fellow Brits, as is customary with me, you know where the down-vote button is ... I have 2:1 upvotes vs downvotes and I would like to inverse that so .... be my guest!
@Hans1 - How about trying out: 'Constitutional monarchy' is tried and tested and probably one of the least worst (if not the least worst) options on the table. Having a 'president' is no guarantee against bloodsucking asshattery, or any of the other options designed to limit over weening power greed and idiocy.
If you have a significantly better alternative, let's being having it, with reasons.
but it was predicated on a non elected 2nd chamber to bring some thing a bit more - um make that considerably less unpleasant than the vote catching swamp that is democracy in action
(though that is the least worst option compared to everything else - especially perhaps those having elected heads of state)
@Doctor Syntax "So what sort of head of state would you prefer? The sort of product of the sort of process we've see in the US?"
Removing the royal element does not automatically mean we will be a republic operating the way the USA operates. Other republics exist in the world which in no way resemble that of the USA.
Why can't we have a prime minister, just as we have now, without the Royal barnacles clinging to the hull weighing us down?
In fact why can't we have a prime minister tempered by the proportional representation of the other parties involved? And if stalemate is achieved, so what? It would prevent one side or the other from fiddling with things and trying out their latest crack pot theories - EG Education is in constant flux as each party continuously tries to fix it according to their current ideology. Stalemate might force them to make a bit more effort to achieve consensus and allow society to remain more stable for longer and let it catch its breath before the next wave of ideological tinkering occurs.
"Why can't we have a prime minister, just as we have now, without the Royal barnacles clinging to the hull weighing us down?"
I suppose we could, but without the Royal barnacles our head of state would either be that prime minister or a barnacle chosen from the same pond or a barnacle chosen by popular vote on a Saturday evening TV show.
"Why can't we have a prime minister, just as we have now, without the Royal barnacles clinging to the hull weighing us down?"
There are two distinct roles, head of government and head of state. We keep them separate. The US doesn't. I'm surprised at that. At the time of the revolting colonials we'd already separated them. I find it odd that the US should, in the name of democracy, have devised a system that doesn't. They have checks and balances in that the legislative body can counter the head of govt & state. However, as far as I've seen, the most they can do is impose paralysis in most circumstances with impeachment as the only option. We have a situation whereby Parliament can, by a vote of confidence, provoke a general election and, less drastically, the cabinet (senior members of the majority party, which largely amounts to the same thing) can effectively remove the head of government.
We certainly don't have, as May has discovered, an equivalent of the Executive Order.
And having removed the monarch from active politics we have a non-political head of state which I think is a good thing although it's certainly cruel and unusual punishment to put anyone in the position of having to soldier on with no chance of retirement.
Now Doctor, don't drop your syntax.
"So what sort of head of state would you prefer? The sort of product of the sort of process we've see in the US?"
If you want to compare "head of state" in the USA and the UK it's about the president and the prime minister, Trump and May. And you know it very well and I believe most Americans know it too.
Kings and Queens in Europe have no power and are on the whole accepted, it's about tradition and while there is a certain cost to it, there is also some on the plus side. You could, in a way, compare the Queen to the Eiffel tower in Paris. Our friends in Paris won't chop it down because of the costs as they know there are very similar "somethings" on the plus side.
am an atheist, so the "They are the earthly representation of god" makes no sense to me
Makes no sense to me either, and I am a Christian. She's my queen, but she's nothing in the chain-of-command to the big man at the top (the Real One, not the weird orange freak with the weirder freakier hair!). The Bible says we have "one mediator between man and God", and any one else who tries to claim that throne (pope, queen, whoever/whatever) does not belong.
Fellow Brits, as is customary with me, you know where the down-vote button is ... I have 2:1 upvotes vs downvotes and I would like to inverse that so .... be my guest!
Afraid that you would have to write more downvote-worthy material to fix that. Look at BB, TV and a few other posters for advice (not me, I am better than 3:1). Does it mean something that your 13th upvote was from me? (probably not, 13 is seldom anything special especially when it occurs as a natural progression, like the floor between the 12th and 14th)
I actually quite enjoy shouting at the telly from time to time. A bit of a variant of punching a sack of potatoes like the Silastic Armourfiends of Striterax, as an alternative to the healthy and natural channeling of aggressive instincts in deeds of senseless violence.
Doffs hat (roo leather Barmah today) to the late, great Douglas Adams
~I bloody love Katie Hopkins
Is she still here? I thought she promised to move to the US if Trump became POTUS. Come to think of it, Sadiq Khan won the London Mayor election and there's no sign of her running down the road bollock naked with a sausage up her arse.
One big difference between Hopkins and Trump then - at least he's making an effort to fulfill all his pre-Election promises.
Ironically, this puts the government in a bit of a quandry, as clearly Europe aren't going to want to trade with us, and we don't have too many other options, the US being one. Now if the PM follows the wishes of the people, and not allow Trump over here, that will likely damage our trade negioations with the US.
So it's basically ignore the people to get get a trade deal, and risk peeing off the people, or listening to the people and risking a US trade deal.
I don't get how this is a problem for the government. So 1 million clicked on the petition. What about the rest of the population? Where is THEIR petition? Does it even exist?
I do understand that the 1M mark now requires Parliament to consider the petition, but are they not also tasked with considering the will of the other 63 million citizens?
"I do understand that the 1M mark now requires Parliament to consider the petition, but are they not also tasked with considering the will of the other 63 million citizens?"
You raise an interesting point here. In last year's EU Referendum, I do understand that the 33.5M turnout now requires Parliament to take us out of the EU, but are they not also tasked with considering the will of the other 13 million citizens?
You can't have it both ways.
> "...are they not also tasked with considering the will of the other 13 million citizens?"
No.
And you know perfectly well why not. Those people chose not to vote. Yet somehow you expect others to respect that non-event? Aren't you the desperate one.
Bottom line, your 'both ways' argument doesn't exist.
The vote does not require us to go out the EU, the vote was advisory, even though leave & remain both lied to voters & behaved as if it was binding.
Any PM with courage, would have said, the vote was marginally different from 50:50, however lots of people did not vote, so given it was advisory and insufficient mandate for such a major change, especially as certain "country" regions e.g Scots, Irish were against it making result very complex.
But Cameron was PM of zero courage, his own fault for thinking he would win & lying so the populace believed it was binding instead of a badly phrased opinion poll.
Which is the whole reason the judges said parliament must approve article 50 as non binding referendum so no mandate (though they were weak and feeble & brushed the Scots / Irish issues under the table).
There is now a petition supporting the state visit; it's at 3,132 signatures having collected 2,136 in the last hour. So I assume it's a bit more than an hour old. Making any potential comparisons a little premature.
I signed the no-state-visit petition because it's a way to express sentiment that passes before the government's eyes. I'll have an infinitesimal effect, but it took a negligible amount of time. So the return on my time investment is acceptable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
