[Closed] How Many Armies does the Queen have?

I'm having a Chinese takeaway.

Makes you think, doesn't it......

Hmm... Sweet AND Sour

Paradox!!

[img] [/img]

@aracer
[img] [/img]

Hang on, that's only one. Surely this is a paradox?

[img] [/img]

Pff, keep up scotroutes~if Junky is right and WE the people hold the true power...

[img] [/img]

(but in that case, which ducks are MI5 and who do they work for?)

Whoosh!

@scotroutes [img] [/img]

I liked yours scotroutes
disappointed the "unsinkable rubber ducks " missed.

Nice self-parody, jhj.

Hey! I can joke about it too! I can also keep asking the same question ad neauseum whilst ignoring all previous answers! Wow! Look at me...

[img] [/img]

Dat Ass!!

Edinburgh defence anyone?

I don't understand why we're posting pictures of rubber ducks, but here is a picture of a Brittanic rubber duck, ruling the waves

[img] [/img]

Back OT I think its a landing craft and she is invading somewhere

[img] [/img]

Talking of the Edinburgh Defence, I once stopped 2 Neds from mugging a bloke in the spot middle left on this picture, he ran away, then I had to deal with them both myself... one of them ****ted me in the face, then regretted it.

[img] [/img]

Anyhoo, why is Holyrood Palace right next to the Scottish Parliament?

And why [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-the-queen-is-above-politics-and-will-not-influence-referendum-9722972.html ]just after the Queen said she wasn't going to get involved[/url] in the independence debate, [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-queen-breaks-silence-on-referendum-debate-9732198.html ]she did anyhoo[/url]

So then you live[d] in edinburgh..who could have guessed...not me anyway

Any specialist knowledge on bearings then as we all used to know a fella JUST LIKE YOU

Is that the delicious aroma of a Junky conspiracy theory I smell baking?

😀

No, just you farting about, as usual.

Its only a conspiracy if there is more than one person involved so I think that is somewhat unlikely.

So either you are being deceitful and you have previously been banned from here or its just a coincidence you have views like him and live[d] where he did.

Anyhoo, why is Holyrood Palace right next to the Scottish Parliament?

You'll have to ponder that one...

Has the postman ever given me eye surgery on the cheap?

What are the variables that dictate whether a sealed or shielded bearing is better for the application?

Who is Commander in Chief of the Rubber Duck Empire?

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=XcHYI9PxyFRaPrQExdrCoZ9IwD5Cl94SYq5OFfuui6naZHhHVhMO271oPDVukjBHxPJxUydeisCi7wZmtjlZXA%3D%3D[/img]

Why does a duck?

Why are anthills in the woods in Wales?
Why does the wind blow when trees are shaking about?
Why oh why do a lot of right-handed men have larger muscles in their right arms?
Why do the tides affect ships trying to get into harbour?

Why? Why? Why?

Why does a duck?

So we've already mentioned Prince Charles' Black Spider Memos and the Crown/Her Majesty's Government's continued blocking of their publication as the attorney general has said releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being neutral.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/20/prince-charles-letters-supreme-court-judgment-due ]The Supreme Court is to publicize it's verdict next week[/url]

What strikes me is this (from link above):

For 10 years, the government, with the support of Charles, has been resisting a freedom of information request by the Guardian to see the letters sent by the prince to ministers in which he sought to change policies.

If Her Majesty's Government has been resisting the FOI request for 10 years, that would mean that there has been 3 Prime Ministers in that time and 2 elected administrations in the House of Commons (though it is arguable whether the current coalition was elected by the populace)

How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty's Government as a whole and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?

How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty's Government as a whole and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?

Go on, how many ?

Good question that neal, it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking...

"How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty's Government as a whole?"
very little and lots (it's a paradox)
"and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?" circa 45 depending on how you count departments.

Good question that neal

I didn't ask it, you did.

And what makes you think it's a "good" question ?

Doesn't seem particularly "good" to me, it's just a question.

Here's another for you......

"How many MP's regularly wear hats ?"

... it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking...

Is it ?

Or is it just something that you don't know.

So you are suggesting that means something secretive and "dark" is going on.

If you are actually bothered, how hard have you tried to find out the answer ?

"How much influence does the House of Commons have on Her Majesty's Government as a whole?"
very little and lots (it's a paradox)
"and how many departments remain unaccountable to the public?" circa 45 depending on how you count departments.

Thanks crankboy, yet more paradox!!

Can you give me some sources to pursue please?

... it seems the transparency around such issues is somewhat lacking...

If anyone can point me in the direction of a complete breakdown of all departments of government, who they work for (including intelligence services and the Privy Council etc) and their public accountability, I'd be very grateful.

So you are suggesting that means something secretive and "dark" is going on.

[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/mi5-child-abuse-cover-up-allegations-home-office ]This weeks news surrounding MI5 covering up for Cyril Smith and the wider scandal certainly raises questions...[/url]

Anyhow, the weekend approaches and you seem a bit grumpy neal...
maybe this will cheer you up:

[img] [/img]

Anyhow, the weekend approaches and you seem a bit grumpy neal

Not in the slightest, the sun is out and I'm perfectly happy.

But talking down to people or telling them they sound angry does seem to be your favourite way of avoiding what people say, so I'm not surprised you are doing it again 🙄

"The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information. There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not."
Jive I read this at work and thought of you. Evidence of the establishment closing ranks ???

On a less ad hom note any standard text on constitutional law should answer 90% of your genuine questions . Simples point no government dept does nor should answer to the public they answer to their heads (civil service/executive) who answer to their minister (legislature/executive) who answer to cabinet who answer to parliament who sort of answer to or at least need to retain their respective constituencies.

How did you get on with the Book that was recommended about constitutional law ?

That would have answered the last burning question that you cared so much about surely.

Sorry neal, I'm a touch confused; this is my last burning question:

[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/mi5-child-abuse-cover-up-allegations-home-office ]This weeks news surrounding MI5 covering up for Cyril Smith and the wider scandal certainly raises questions...[/url]

Would a book on constitutional law give a full breakdown of accountability of the various intelligence services and furthermore, any relation they may have to the military?

Sorry neal, I'm a touch confused;

That's because you are pretending to not understand my question, in an attempt to avoid answering it.

You know perfectly well what I am referring to.

So. Did you buy the book that would answer your questions.

And if not, why not.

You claim to want to know the answers, but only seem keen if they are going to suit what you already believe.

Off at a tangent, but I wonder how the recent revelations tie in with the disappearance of Lord Lucan? There have always been rumours he was aided by other members of the establishment to flee either to Australia or South Africa, as well as being granted a new identity. Given what we now know took place at the time these stories seem less of a conspiracy theory. No doubt there are still plenty of worms to be found in the freshly opened can.

Resurrecting a thread with a Lord Lucan reference ?? Brilliant !! Much applause.

Wasn't Lord Lucan something to do with today's eclipse?

So. Did you buy the book that would answer your questions.

And if not, why not.

If it's a book on constitutional [b]law[/b] there may be a few problems trying to get to the bottom of my queries...

The intelligence services and to some degree certain figures within the political elite are clearly above the laws of the land, so even if there is a theoretical obligation within the constitution, the practical application of those laws is certainly questionable.

Though I suppose it may give some indication of who in the system would have sufficient authority to authorize such interventions by MI5 to prevent pursuing cases of VIP paedophile rings...

That is of course, unless there are other forces at work within the system such as Freemasonry, or non accountable elements of Her Majesty's Government such as the Queen's weekly meetings with the Prime Minister.

I'm still curious by whom and on whose behalf Fiona Woolf's letters regarding her relationship to Leon Brittan were edited when she was appointed as chair of the inquiry into child abuse...

[img] [/img]

I'm sure it's a very good book, but I'd be extremely surprised if it could answer that

Unsurprisingly, you keep changing the question.

The questions you seemed to care so much about earlier in the thread would have been answered in the book suggested (or the follow up questions to the author) a great offer, but you don't actually want [b]real[/b] answers apparently.

But you don't seem to care about it enough to buy the book. When you get offered an answer, You just ignore it and change the question (as you have now done)

I don't know why anyone bothers with you really. You aren't interested in answers clearly.

People bother because it is entertaining to see what mad stuff comes out next.. well that is why I read these threads, the comedy value.

The questions you seemed to care so much about earlier in the thread would have been answered in the book suggested (or the follow up questions to the author) a great offer, but you don't actually want real answers apparently.

Here are the original questions:

a) Just how many armies and intelligence services does the Queen have authority over?

b) Does this mean that Tony Blair isn't the only one to blame for the Iraq War?

Can you define [b]real[/b] answers please, as I'm sure any adult knows, though laws attempt to give clarity to real world application, all too often, there is a wealth of legal jargon, which often strays considerably from practical realities, especially when, as I've noted above, the agencies and individuals involved have blatantly been acting outside the law as it is applied to the majority.

For example, would the author be able to give me full details of how Freemasonry affects the legal system, the military, the intelligence services and/or Her Majesty's Government?

[i]People bother because it is entertaining to see what mad stuff comes out next.. well that is why I read these threads, the comedy value.[/i]

it's proper genius stuff isn't it 😆

Thanks 😆

[img] [/img]

For example, would the author be able to give me full details of how Freemasonry affects the legal system, the military, the intelligence services or Her Majesty's Government?

That wasn't the question you wanted an answer to.

Obviously it is now, because (what a shocker!) you've changed the question again.

ffs, you quoted your own questions, and changed them, within the same post!

Sorry if you can't keep up with [b]real[/b] responses neal...

Quite a dynamic so and so me 😉