Happy 80th Birthday M'aam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathy
  • Start date Start date
Bets: see my suggestion above. Of course not - they'd have to take a leaf out of Lord Bath's book, and work to keep themselves, their vast estates and eeeenormous property portfolios going. Prince Chesney has at least shown some gumption with his Duchy produce, even if he isn't going to give the land away to the serfs who work it on his behalf.
 
It's not the royals I have a problem with (if you'd been born one of them you'd be sitting in the car waving the dummy hand yourself) it's the royalists. IMHO they're the ones who should be put down.
 
Ardross, I have a grave dislike for our President but at least i have the right to vote against her.
 
You mistake me Gearoid I should like to see the back of the royals asap - the only downside is what sort of tosser you get as President.
 
A small correction. De Valera was not President of Ireland in 1945, Sean T O Kelly was. De Valera was elected as was O Kelly. De Valera was protocol bound to sign the book of condolences of a dead head of state, and would have done so if Stalin, Roosevelt or even Churchill had died.

Don't get all upset with me, I think Dev was the most malign influence Ireland has seen in the last 70 years, but history must be read in the context of his times. It was only a generation since Winston unleashed the Auxiliaries into Ireland (Black and Tans) and prior to 1939 a lot of people would have had him up there with Adolf.

I think Dev should have resigned rather than go to the German embassey, but it was 60 years ago.
 
Yes I know he wasn't President at the time an capall but you did get him mouldering away in that role later . I don't buy the protocol argument with condolences for genocidal maniacs it is a very poor excuse.

On another note I should be interested to know the views of Irish contributors on the return of a state celebration of the Easter Rising . I think it perfectly valid to celebrate it but I thought the militaristic nature of it was in poor taste .
 
Originally posted by Maurice@Apr 21 2006, 05:41 PM
On days like today, I look forward to the abolition/dissolution/overthrow of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
I always look to Republics around the world, and the twats who the braindead populace generally elect to be head of state, and thank fcuk that we have a monarchy.
 
There you go again. I am not being rude - I thought you had addressed a question to me and responded, which over here is thought to be polite.

My last post was a polite correction that our president did not sign Hitlers condolence book, which some less informed members may have believed from the wording of your contribution. I hugely agree with your point of view on the condolences issue.

Yet it invited what reads like a school master correcting an errant and stupid pupil. Thats why I have no iterest in discussing complex political nuances with you.

Respectfully,

AC.

(ps..I don't think Mary McAleese is a tosser, nor do I believe your queen to be one. They both seem like perfectly decent and dignified women to me.)
 
Ah the scope for forum misunderstandings . I just wanted to correct any impression that might have been given by your posting that I thought that de Valera was President in 1945.

I don't see how that was intended to correct an "errant or stupid pupil" - I agree that what you posted was entirely accurate.

I agree that Mary McAleese or The Queen do not fit the description " tosser" on the other hand the world has a few Heads of State who could I think be legitimately described as tossers - George W Bush and Jacques Chirac come to mind.

They are admittedly executive presidents but the post of a president without such powers is always attractive to former politicians . I think Lenihan stood against Mary Robinson and if we had such a role in the UK the likelihood is that politicians would stand . The risk then is that you get a tosser .

Ardross
 
I'd far rather any children of mine attended a public or private school if I could afford it, rather than on of these shithole comprehensives going. Not that I'm saying they're all shitholes, but a bloody large proportion of them are!
 
SL, did you manage to see the TV prog the other week where the presenter put forward stats showing kids from comprehensives do better at uni than those from private schools?
 
I didn't see it but that really doesn't surprise me as they have had to work hard to get there and not just had it handed to them on a plate like many private schools pupils.
 
Work hard to get into a comprehensive?????? :lol:

No Mo, I didn't see it - but I stand by my view. If I can't afford a private school it will more than likely be an independent school. Hells teeth, the stories I hear of kids at Comprehensives having to be taught the times tables makes me cringe - I knew the lot by rote at the age of 7 and could snap back an answer within a couple of seconds if asked off the cuff.
 
Referring to "comprehensives" as a group is similar to talking about "restaurants". There are some very bad comprehensive schools and there are some brilliant ones. There are also, of course, all grades in between.

It seems that my solo campaign on this forum against generalisations has a long, long way to go.
 
They work hard at University, and at Comprehensive school if from a less privileged background.

Brian, I agree absolutely. After all, I went to one...
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Apr 22 2006, 02:51 PM
Work hard to get into a comprehensive?????? :lol:
Click to expand...
I trust that was tongue in cheek ;)

In case you were being serious, what PDJ meant was that those from state schools have to work harder to get to uni. Teaching & learning approaches also tend to be different, with less spoon-feeding in state schools, therefore those who do make it cope better with having to learn independently.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with the T&L environment, which can be pretty soul destroying in state comps.
 
Back
Top