Jive a cut and paste from the line below your cut and paste.

“By extension, “exchequer” has come to mean the Treasury and, colloquially, pecuniary possessions in general; as in “the company’s exchequer is low”.”

So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who’s behalf were the security services acting?

The constitution

So are you telling me a piece of paper told them to do it without any input from any person?

“Do you mean the constitution of Her Majesty’s Government? “

the constitution is the constitution of the country it really is quite simple especially if you read a book instead of pretending to try and enquire by means of loaded question. The Queen plays a role within the constitution she is not and does not dictate the constitution which explains why we have historically been able to swop our Royalty for others at will and why we now have a German family as our Royalty.

“So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who’s behalf were the security services acting? “
well they weren’t cos it did not happen but if it was planned and I believe it was they were probably acting on their own initiative with a degree of us support in what they believed was “the best interests ” of the country . If the Royal family were involved and it makes more sense not to have involved them it would have been more consistent for them to have been informed and given tasset approval rather than for them to have been leaders.

So are you telling me a piece of paper told them to do it without any input from any person?

No. Unlike the Americans, we do not have a written constitution. As I already explained, our constitution is just the way the elected political structure and the estates that it serves, operates – insured by a figurehead who has no “constitutional” power – that is, the Queen.

Oh, right, so you do mean the constitution of Her Majesty’s Government…

LOL

Jivey, if the Queen has the power you claim she does…

Then why didn’t she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him? Why the need for all the secret plans, and security service involvement, and then it didn’t happen anyway.

She rings him up and says, “Hi Harold, it’s Liz…. You’re fired, leave your security pass at reception. Thanks.”

Your
Theories
Make
No
Sense
You
Muppet

jivehoneyjive – Member
Oh, right, so you do mean the constitution of Her Majesty’s Government…

Edit: No. I mean the constitution of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. The Northern Irish part of the “constitution”, for instance, has changed comparitively recently with the advent of the “power sharing” agreement. Reported and accounted for. The “constitution” is a set of circumstances and relationships that changes over time, rather than being a set of objectives or standards set down on paper.

In which the Queen holds no power of authority.

@eipc glad to hear it. Being at an Ashes test match and drinking too much beer before singing “God Save your Queen” to the Aussies is an excellent way to pass an afternoon.

Jivey, if the Queen has the power you claim she does…

Then why didn’t she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him? Why the need for all the secret plans, and security service involvement, and then it didn’t happen anyway.

Easy… if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~

Let’s say you’re a Queen neal…

You don’t really want 64 million people (in the UK, then there’s also Her Majesty’s governments in the other Commonwealth Realms etc) cottoning on to the fact that you’re on the blag and that whoever they vote in, despite making some concessions to keep the majority sufficiently content to prevent rebellion, you will pursue agendas far beyond the democratic process.

Easy… if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~

Ok. Let’s pretend that’s true for a second (it isn’t)

You claim she has ultimate power over things. (she doesn’t)

But you’ve now claimed she is totally unable to use it.

So the reality either way, is that she has no real power.

So….. What was your point again ?

She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge

Be a gem and answer this could you…

The security services are there to maintain the status quo, that is to say – the elected government figure-headed by the Queen.

So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who’s behalf were the security services acting?

She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge

Prove it.

(Your not doing very well so far)

Be a gem and answer this could you…

Explain why ?

I didn’t say either of those quotes, so why am I being asked to justify them

Feel free to ask me to justify something I have said and I’ll happily oblige.

I reckon 4 pages into a topic suggests otherwise…

I’ll give you this cut and paste the once, but you’re going to have to stop being lazy and do some reading:

Who holds power regardless of elections?

How many Prime Ministers have there been since 1953?

How many Monarchs?

Oops, I see you’ve edited… if you don’t want to converse, then perhaps you should leave this topic for those who are glad for their theories to be put to the test…

Then why didn’t she just sack Wilson if she wanted rid of him?

Easy… if she did that, it would shatter the illusion of democracy~

So the reality either way, is that she has no real power.

She still has the power, but she uses it wisely, not exposing it too openly so as to avoid challenge

🙂

I love the way some people think they can “win” an argument with conspiracy theorist.

The number one fallback for conspiracy theorists when confronted with facts that don’t fit with their theories is “Ah yes, that’s because that’s what they want you to think!”.

It covers a whole multitude of awkward questions.

By contrast though, I did answer, yet for some reason, neal was a touch more reticent…

So in the case of a coup to remove the elected government, on who’s behalf were the security services acting?

Go on then, I’ll answer.

But I need to know which “coup to remove the elected government” you are talking about so I can be specific in my answer.

Which one are you referring to ?

Let’s keep it local…

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG6FR03BqIQ[/video]

Brilliant.

You picked a coup that didn’t happen.

Bravo sir.

How am I supposed to say who was in charge of something that didn’t even happen.

Pick another, one that did happen, and we can see if the queen was in charge ?

Let’s make it simpler…

On who’s behalf do the security services work and to whom do the Armed Forces of Commonwealth Realms pledge allegiance?

Let’s make it simpler…

I don’t honestly think you could be any more Simple than you make yourself look on here.

I mean ffs, you asked me who was in charge of a coup that didn’t happen. An “event” that even Wikipedia has under the main heading of “Conspiracy Theory”

On who’s behalf do the security services work and to whom do the Armed Forces of Commonwealth Realms pledge allegiance?

What about the Scouts??? Are they at it too? I knew that bloody Bear Grylls was up to no good!!!

I love the way some people think they can “win” an argument with conspiracy theorist.

The number one fallback for conspiracy theorists when confronted with facts that don’t fit with their theories is “Ah yes, that’s because that’s what they want you to think!”.

It covers a whole multitude of awkward questions.

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

And the Scouts are ****

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

That’s what they want you to think.

jambalaya – Member
@eipc glad to hear it. Being at an Ashes test match and drinking too much beer before singing “God Save your Queen” to the Aussies is an excellent way to pass an afternoon.

They’d probably think you’re referring to Priscilla…

JHJ, I suspect you have a form of depression. I’m not saying this to be negative,quite the opposite. You are well read, you are eloquent and obviously intelligent.However the way you produce ‘evidence’ to back up your idea of reality has very little substance. When challenged you just propose more questions, post more videos or links you have nothing to do with that you think will back up your idea of reality.

There is a difference between being genuinely aware and being delusional and sucked into every conspiracy theory going. Lets face it, you are pretty well versed on them all!

If you find yourself thinking you know more than everybody else. That your more enlightened to conspiracies. That all the conspiracies are connected, possibly mathematically. And you are NOT Edward Snowden or in a position of equal insight into secretive organizations, you could possibly have issues best addressed by a mental health professional.

Do you mean a Her Majesty’s GovernMENTAL health professional?

But seriously though, I’m fine and dandy… quite happy for the most part~ perhaps my analysis of the world we live in doesn’t fit in with what you (or I) was taught in school, but that is not to say that I’m wrong.

So thanks all the same for your concern, but I think it would be better placed focused on the current plight of our planet, it is after all the only one we’ve got right now…

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Makes me think I’ve not drunk enough to comment on this thread…….

perhaps my analysis of the world we live in doesn’t fit in with what you (or I) was taught in school, but that is not to say that I’m wrong.

Some news, people can learn post being in school, also it might be worth considering you might be wrong…

When I went with an ex to renew her Dutch passport they had a painting of their Queen on the wall, guess that’s another fake democracy.

There would be a point where people like Murdoch wielded more power than the Queen (and his press make a very political tool for whoever he decides to help) with the ability to influence voters. I guess in your world he is wasting his money as ultimately the Queen controls everything including whats shows at Her Majesty’s Theatre

The world is after all a stage…

You have a point there Mike~

The problem seems to be that people are failing to distinguish between absolute power and overall authority.

I don’t for a moment claim that the Queen seeks to influence every last detail of the dominions she rules, however, someone has to have authorized the extensive surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowden… given that the Queen presides over most of the nations involved, it would be a bit naive to imagine that she was ignorant of its creation.

Whether or not it was at her direct command or under the advice of Privy Councillors, we are unlikely to know in the near future…

Similarly, the Chilcot report (John Chilcot is a Privy Councillor) will only be focusing on government officials, though links I’ve already provided in this thread suggest that the Queen was certainly involved in decisions relating to the invasion of Iraq… going by the legal battles necessary to reveal such documentation, we are once again unlikely to know the full extent of her involvement; either in terms of the UK government, or any of the other commonwealth realms over which she presides…

even these 2 are sceptical

She must have, can’t not have, would have etc. is just speculation

Amazing how nothing came out of Edward Snowdon or Bradley/Chelsea Mannings leaks on that considering the detail they went to.

Sometimes speculation is necessary~ if we had full transparency, things would be different.

Snowden’s revelations are generally regarding the operational side of the system, not the structure by which it came into being

I am right along-side JHJ with most this stuff. But “really” the Queen !!!

I reckon the Illuminai, Freemasons, Rothch—s Bin-Ladens and Bush clan are running the world quite happily without her say so.

Speculation or making stuff up and shouting about it hoping that it becomes a myth/fact?

As I’ve said in other places the danger of a conspiracy is once declared it never goes away, no matter how much evidence against there is always the “Thats what they want you to think” “What if they are all lying” “Well they would keep that hidden” which in the end is just clutching at straws.

Your evidence doesn’t prove anything, your extrapolating from single events to grand conspiracies. While it’s nice to think that everything that is bad in the world is down to a global group of very powerful (possibly lizard) people sometimes you have to also consider that there are just some bad people everywhere.

Speculation or no, it is reasoned:

you can dismiss it because it poses inconvenient questions that make you uncomfortable, but that is not really a satisfactory response.

The problem seems to be that people are failing to distinguish between absolute power and overall authority.

I don’t for a moment claim that the Queen seeks to influence every last detail of the dominions she rules, however, someone has to have authorized the extensive surveillance network exposed by Edward Snowden… given that the Queen presides over most of the nations involved, it would be a bit naive to imagine that she was ignorant of its creation.

Funniest thing I have read in ages…that feeder line to that punchline paragraph.

Speculative its not even that good.

you can dismiss it because it poses inconvenient questions that make you uncomfortable, but that is not really a satisfactory response.

Thats you that is

that is exactly what you do when folk point out you have no evidence you dont go …oh yes good point you go on a about speculation being good [ but only if is supports your view obviously] , change the subject, ask something else or then accuse others of being unable to to deal with inconvenient questions.
your lack of what you do and they way you think everyone else does it makes me thing the poster above was correct re your health which is why i have largely given up engaging on these threads

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/sep/05/conspiracy-theories-science-belief-secret-plots

You must have all the answers then Junky?