[Closed] How Many Armies does the Queen have?

Quite a dynamic so and so me

So just as I said earlier then.

Just interested in asking questions and making insinuations.

Not in the slightest bit interested in answers.

Thanks for finally admitting it at least 🙄

If absolute answers were available, I would be very grateful, however, due to the nature of the legal system and the constitution, it would appear that answers are open to interpretation, which is doubtless why there is such continued debate without any definitive progress.

If there was ample transparency, there would be an accessible constitution we could consult, without having to resort to books designed to train lawyers to comply with the system (the same system that evidently several members of unaccountable elements within the government and judiciary can bypass, protected by the official secrets act)

Are you suggesting the book would provide answers which the official secrets act obscures?

Or perhaps there a simple, transparent and accessible source to answer these questions, with no grey areas?

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?

Or perhaps there a simple, transparent and accessible source to answer these questions, with no grey areas?
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?

I'm going to go out on limb and make a suggestion.

Read the book on constitutional law.

If that doesn't answer those two questions, then you've been offered access to a professional to put your questions to.

you keep saying that the book won't contain the answers you seem to need.

But basically you got a clue because you refuse to read it.

I've often wondered what the phrase "you can't educate pork" meant.

It's becoming clearer though.

I've often wondered what the phrase "you can't educate pork" meant.

That being the case, there wouldn't be much point in shelling out £25 for a book that is wholly unlikely to give any [b]real[/b] answers...

Whatsmore, it's really not accessible or transparent if you have to go to that effort to glean what information is available in these matters~ after all, the system is taxpayer funded, so we should have some means of assessing where that money is going, the nature of activities it's being used for and in who's interests it's being spent.

With simple statements relating to real world facts such as this:

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.

And questions such as these:

How many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

How many Monarchs of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth Realms and Crown Dependencies?

And even little snippets of legal jargon such as:

Her Majesty's Government

It's fairly easy to surmise that the Monarch is a bit more than an extremely well paid mascot.

And that's before you factor in the info that brought me to resurrect this thread:

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)

So yes, this may be one of the rare times we can agree... educating pork is a tricky prospect, not matter how tangy your apple sauce

That being the case, there wouldn't be much point in shelling out £25 for a book that is wholly

unlikely to give any real answers.

..

You keep saying that 🙄

How do people educate themselves normally ?

A really [b]good [/b]way, is to read lots of things written by experts and professionals in the field of interest, then form ideas based on what you read.

A really [b]bad[/b] way, is to make your mind up based on Internet twaddle, then ignore anything else that doesn't agree with your pre existing ideas, And even avoid reading things that may ruin them.

I actually thought you were interested in learning about stuff. Clearly you aren't.

Answer to question a is none
Answer to question b is no the fact that the queen does not have authority over any armies or intelgence agencies does not mean Blair is the only one to blame for the Iraq war.
We do need to define our terms in regard to "authority over" though.
Try Mathew 8:9

Thing is JHJ, even if the answers don't convince you, you will have the chance to see how the State defines itself. It's clear you currently have no real idea what the legal limits of the "HM" bit of (say) "HMS Victory" actually means. If you actually read the book about the British constitution you'd be in a much better position to see where the elite are overstepping their authority, and where they're actually acting within closely defined legal (or otherwise) limits. Without that knowledge it's easy to dismiss your concerns, you owe it to yourself and those you seek to defend to educate yourself.

I don't suppose you'll bother, it's probably too much effort compared to watching another YouTube video, but you should be aware that not doing so is seriously compromising your position. Know your enemy.

You may have a point mogrim, but as actions such as the 10 year legal battle mentioned above show, they don't always operate within the rules:

Grieve said it was crucial that, under the British constitution, the monarch was not seen to be biased towards any political party, or to become entangled in political controversies. He maintained that the prince’s ability to carry out his duties as monarch would be undermined if the letters were made public because he would not be able to recover his position of political neutrality.

That is before you factor in the secrecy of the Privy Council, or the Queen's meeting's with the Prime Minister.

Everyone seems to be hypnotized by the mysteries of the constitution, when the practical facts are pretty plain to see

I'm sorry to say crankboy's answers don't tally with what is written in the constitutions of the various Monarchies for which the Queen is head of state, furthermore, instances such as Charles' letters draw more questions about just how closely the Royals follow the rules, though no doubt their secrecy law comes in handy.

they don't always operate within the rules:

Possibly, but as you refuse to actually learn what the rules are.

You will never know.

Go on jive one of my answers one of the constitutional rules show how they don't tally in your own words.....

If we have to go in circles, so be it:

The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is a position vested in the British monarch,[1][2] currently Queen Elizabeth II, who as Sovereign and head of state is the "Head of the Armed Forces".[3] Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the "ultimate authority" of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch

Australia's constitution vests the power of decision making with the Queen, in conference with the Governor-General.

It is generally accepted that the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Federal Executive Council, comprised of all ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

This applies to decision making "for the execution and maintenance" of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, otherwise known as the "executive power" provision.

The extent to which the executive government can legally exercise its powers independent of Parliament continues to be the subject of significant debate.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

The Crown also sits at the pinnacle of the New Zealand Defence Force. The governor-general is Commander-in-Chief and under the Defence Act 1990 is authorised to "raise and maintain armed forces",[39] consisting of the New Zealand Army, Royal New Zealand Navy, and Royal New Zealand Air Force. The sovereign's position as Head of the Armed Forces [40] is reflected in New Zealand's naval vessels bearing the prefix Her Majesty's New Zealand Ship (His Majesty's New Zealand Ship in the reign of a male monarch), and in the requirement that all members of the armed forces swear their allegiance to the sovereign and his or her heirs and successors.[41] The Governor-General commissions officers to command the forces;[33] Saluting of these individuals by soldiers is, besides a sign of personal respect, an indirect salute to the monarch and her authority.

The simple answer to 'How many armies does the Queen have?'

or

'How many armies does the Queen have authority over?'

is:

LOTS

It's when you start looking into who the Queen delegates the dirty work to that things start getting complicated...

So basically you can't answer in your own words and the answer is that none of my responses fail to tally with the written constitutions you refer to . I just made the mistake of reading your comment on the other thread re the two children killed by the IRA alongside Mountbatten I am sorry but you are a tragedy exploiting scum bag and I will seek never to respond to you again.

'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."

That's quite a strong reaction...

I prefer Orwell:

'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'

or perhaps more relevant given your stance:

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it'

telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act

Although you prefer posting pictures and innuendos.

That's because the Official Secrets Act holds many of the relevant truths back.

Who decides what should be kept hidden by the Official Secrets Act?

On whose behalf and in who's interests do they make those decisions?

I'm sorry, you are posting pictures and innuendos because you don't want to risk prosecution under the Official Secrets Act ?

Tell you what you are right the Queen owns it all, runs it all, they are covering it all up Iraq was really about hussain not liking corgis and saying Charles was dim.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barbados-plans-to-remove-the-queen-as-head-of-state-almost-400-years-after-british-colonisation-10128601.html

When can we expect one of the Queens numerous armed forces to invade and sort these upstarts out?

Have they not got the script?

Dear jhj, so now we're on page 16 and you are still regurgitating the same rubbish that you started with despite many responses detailing what is wrong with your basic premise and worldview.

Some have been sarcastic, others purely matter-of-fact but all pertinent and to the point. So much so, that even a child could understand.

Nothing has changed. Nobody takes you seriously. You are wilfully persisting in ignoring all the responses.

Why do you persist?

A definition of insanity is to repeat the same action but each time expect a different result. You are a champion in this, at least.

Speaking of people ignoring responses, it's odd how time and again I'm attacked, yet time and again I'm on the money:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/1400-children-were-subjected-to-appalling-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham/page/14

I appreciate it's frustrating that there is no real transparency on the issues I've raised, but that isn't my doing~ no one has come up with satisfactory answers as to in whose interests the intelligence services work~ as an example, lets look into the case of MI5 involvement in procuring children from care homes to be raped by MPs... on whose behalf was this done?

Surely these issues require some degree of accountability, or do you think taxpayers money is well spent on such endeavors?

If there was the "transparency" that jhj is calling for, like if there was a website with all the answers in easy-to-understand video form, we'd then be into "[i]you can't believe that, because the voiceover is done by the lizards[/i]".

Which is basically where we're at with all official, legal and academic accounts of how the British constitution, government, civil service and reptilian pedophile rings operate at present.

He's got a point about the Official Secrets Act though. I reckon there should be a referendum on which of the many secret facts are kept secret.

🙂

Like many on this thread BigDummy, you profess to have a handle on matters~ any chance you could answer this:

no one has come up with satisfactory answers as to in whose interests the intelligence services work~ as an example, lets look into the case of MI5 involvement in procuring children from care homes to be raped by MPs... on whose behalf was this done?

Failing that, perhaps you could explain why MI5 have covered up abuse by politicians over several terms of government, with different elected administrations...

I do not follow these things as closely as you do.

If indeed members of MI5 procured children from care homes to be raped by MPs, I am very sceptical that this was a part of their day job. I would not expect to find something in the MI5 manual that said "if an MP says "I'd like kilogram of fresh ham please", that means he wants to rape a kid, go and kidnap one from an orphanage". It was not part of their official mission, as an organisation. So I assume the answer would be roughly as follows:

MI5 did not, as an organisation, kidnap children from care homes so that they could be raped by MPs. However, some MI5 officers were pedophiles or were jolly chummy with the famous pedophiles of the time, and of all the pedophiles and their chums, it was the MI5 people who were best placed to do such kidnapping as was necessary.

I entirely admit that it would shake my world-view to its foundations if someone actually demonstrated with something other than a shit YouTube video and some self-refencing blogs that the Queen had personally ordered MI5 to kidnap kids for her and her chums to rape, but presumably that won't come out in any enquiry ever, because the conspiracy just goes too deeply into the heart of the British establishment.

HTH 😉

Out of [i]vague[/i] interest, because I'm struggling here. The nearest I can come to the allegation that MI5 procured boys for the Elm Guest House is that Anthony Blunt raped them, which isn't [i]quite[/i] the same thing.

The commentators in the non-fact-checked sector whose accounts I've skimmed so far say the actual procuring was done by The Jews.

Anyway, I'm sure you've all got it covered.

I appreciate it is very hard to comprehend~to be fair, when I 1st started researching all this a couple of years ago, I was skeptical, but at the same time, there were so many instances of similar allegations, it was hard to completely dismiss.

The way the information is provided in the news, in dribs and drabs, there seems to be several separate instances of similar abuse, however, once you look a little deeper, many are linked

Elm Guest House is but one piece of a far far wider network, albeit the one the establishment most wants to obscure, no doubt due to:

[img] [/img]

And of course the fact that the Queens head of Royal Protection, Commander Michael Trestrail was among those at the Guest House: whether that links to allegations of a [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-family-member-was-investigated-as-part-of-paedophile-ring-before-coverup-excop-says-10126864.html ]member of the Royal Family[/url] (not [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/prince-andrew-named-in-us-sex-lawsuit/page/7 ]Prince Andrew[/url]) being involved in the paedophile ring is at this stage debatable

If you want more of an insight, [url= http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/elm-guest-house-scandal-how-child-abuse_5191.html ]this video (and attached transcript)[/url] has an interview with one of the social workers involved in the case

[url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/253517687/ELM-GUEST-HOUSE-Mary-Moss-Leaked-Documents-authenticity-unverified#scribd ]These documents[/url] are typed copies of handwritten ones [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21068494 ]collected by police as evidence in January 2013[/url] they were posted online by Mary Moss who feared yet another cover up

It has been linked to [url= https://soundcloud.com/gypsumfantastic23/ken-mi5 ]Kincora[/url] in Northern Ireland (many abusers at Elm Guest House were linked to Northern Irish politics) and [url= http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/kincora-children-trafficked-throughout-uk-claims-former-resident-richard-kerr-30997734.html ]children were trafficked between the venues[/url]

There is also reference to [url= https://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/after-dark-british-intelligence/ ]Kincora in these videos interviewing high profile government and intelligence figures of the era[/url]

Elm Guest House is also linked to abuse at Dolphin Square, [url= http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5464/leon-brittan-was-under-met-probe-over-claims-of-child-sex-abuse ]The Carlton Club[/url], [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31908431 ]Coronation Buildings[/url], Military Bases and internationally to Amsterdam among others...

The extensive supply network from care homes was(is?)a nationwide affair:

[img] [/img]

Though not every part of that statement can be verified, there is undoubtedly significant truth in it~ we are of course all well aware of the extensive access Jimmy Savile had to not only institutions across the country, but also his remarkable access to Government and Royalty, on top of that [url= http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westminister-paedophile-ring-care-home-paedophile-linked-politicians-abuse-parties-1477339 ]John Allen who ran several care homes in North Wales[/url] and across the UK, [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1396256/westminster-child-abuse-claims-of-new-murders ]was supplying children to VIPs in Dolphin Square[/url]

Furthermore, [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-notorious-paedophiles-centre-nationwide-4727494 ]John Allen and Michael Carroll, who ran care homes in Lambeth, were linked[/url]:

Two notorious paedophiles were at the centre of a nationwide network of abusers which allegedly included both Labour and Tory politicians, a Mirror investigation has found.

Detectives suspected 16 years ago that the children's home abuse ring spanned the country and involved hundreds of victims.

Official documents show paedophiles John Allen, 73, and Michael John Carroll, 66, were friends when they were abusing youngsters North Wales and London respectively in the 1980s.

Their links can be revealed on the day Allen was jailed for life for sexually abusing 19 children he was paid to look after.

Margaret Thatcher's former aide Sir Peter Morrison is suspected of abusing boys in Allen's care in Wales while a former minister in Tony Blair's government is currently being probed over his alleged visits to Carroll's Angell Road children's home in Lambeth, south London.

Both men were protected by the authorities who ignored Allen's victims for years and allowed Carroll to remain in charge of the home despite knowing he was a convicted paedophile.

[img] [/img]

There are further links from [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1442551/was-man-murdered-for-exposing-paedophile-ring ]Lambeth[/url] to [url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/nov/19/childrensservices.childrensministry ]Islington[/url], then on to [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html ]Jersey[/url]...

That's enough to be getting on with for now

Like a few, I suspect I to find the 'slightly bored/irritated school teacher' tone of your constant questioning of others point of view more than a little dull. Would it be possible for you to succinctly lay out your theory of what all this "evidence" actually means? In your own words? Your own thoughts of what this means? Rather than say; a copied and pasted bit of someone else's website?

I'd like to know your world view in short, at the moment you seem to have questions, but seem unsatified by the answers that you seem already to know a version of what those answer need to be ( if you see what I mean) your stance has no logic behind it? ( without trying to be prejorative, apologies)

Or, to misquote the medical student adage "if you hear hooves, think horses, not 4 eyed psychic alien lizard men employed by the secret police and involved in a worldwide conspiracy"

What do I think?

I think:

a) it's disgusting that these things have been allowed to happen

b) Why have they been allowed to happen?

c) Why all the lost files in the Home Office?

d) Why the constant fluff ups as regards the government inquiry into abuse? (it's been called independent, but the whole time, the Home Secretary has been calling the shots~ i.e. the person in charge of the departments that will have to be investigated)

e) Why did MPs recently [url=www.exaronews.com/articles/5530/how-mps-voted-on-move-to-change-official-secrets-act-over-csa]vote against[/url] an [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0116/amend/seriouscrimeaddednames.pdf ]amendment to the Serious Crimes Bill which was specifically with regard to allowing disclosure under the Official Secrets Act to the child abuse inquiry?[/url]

So yep, I've come up with more questions again... not my intention, but these are the questions we should all be asking Her Majesty's Government, unless of course you're comfortable with their record of care thus far...

a) yes it is
b) because peophiles exist, and they are devious and manliputive, often hiding in plain sight, and seeking out roles and careers that put them in positions of trust around vunerable children
c) people lose things all the time and the home office is no different
d) a mix of cover up by peophiles in places where they can influence it, and people not doing their jobs properly
e) I don't know, perhaps they didn't pay attention to what they were voting about?

Question for you: are any of those answers unreasonable? ( not true or false, just reasonable or not)

In all fairness, your answers are reasonable, though d) would suggest you believe there is currently paedophiles in power influencing the government's 'independent' inquiry.

Hmm, 'the government's independent inquiry' we're verging on paradox territory again

If there are paedophiles influencing the inquiry, how high in the hierarchy do they go?

For example, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/30/re-written-letter-child-abuse-inquiry ]who has the authority to redraft letters between the head of the inquiry and the Home Secretary?[/url] and why hasn't Theresa May called this into question since it's been revealed [url= http://exaronews.com/articles/5523/leon-brittan-ipcc-investigates-claim-of-cover-up-for-top-tory ]police investigations into Leon Brittan were shut down[/url]

To avoid ending on another question, I've give a short summary of my view:

There's some well dodgy shit going on, not just historically, but here and now

And, thankfully, you're here to make sure it gets the publicity it needs by waffling on about it on a poky little bike forum.

Yep, I've got it covered 😉

Skids n wheelies all the way!!

[i]There's some well dodgy shit going on, not just historically, but here and now[/i]

Quite possibly, it could be a massive organised directed conspiracy to procure children to satisfy the repacious needs of a secretive elite, or it could through a series of human failings, manipulations, incompetences and just plain old looking the over way" that just appears to look like a organised conspiracy.

The first critical question of any debate is not necessarily whether one of those options is true or false, but whether they are at least reasonable answers to the question. If one decides they are indeed reasonable then to get at the truth you need to be open to suggestions and answers from both viewpoints, no?

Fair comment, which of those options would this suggest (nabbed from wwaswas's post on the Rotherham thread):

IPCC to investigate allegations of historic corruption relating to child sexual abuse in the Metropolitan Police

1) Allegation of a potential cover up around failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offences in South London and further information about criminal allegations against a politician being dropped.

2) Allegation that an investigation involving a proactive operation targeting young men in Dolphin Square, was stopped because officers were too near prominent people.

3) Allegation that a document was found at an address of a paedophile that originated from the Houses of Parliament listing a number of highly prominent individuals (MPs and senior police officers) as being involved in a paedophile ring and no further action was taken.

4) Allegation that an account provided by an abuse victim had been altered to omit the name of a senior politician.

5) Allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring, in which a number of people were convicted, did not take action in relation to other more prominent individuals

6) Allegations that a politician had spoken with a senior MPS officer and demanded no action was taken regarding a paedophile ring and boys being procured and supplied to prominent persons in Westminster in the 1970s.

7) Allegation that in the late 1970s a surveillance operation that gathered intelligence on a politician being involved in paedophile activities was closed down by a senior MPS officer.

8 ) Allegation that a dossier of allegations against senior figures and politicians involved in child abuse were taken by Special Branch officers.

9) Allegations that a surveillance operation of a child abuse ring was subsequently shut down due to high profile people being involved.

10) Allegations of child sex abuse against a senior politician and a subsequent cover-up of his crimes.

11) Allegations that during a sexual abuse investigation a senior officer instructed the investigation be halted and that that order had come from ‘up high’ in the MPS.

12) Allegation of a conspiracy within the MPS to prevent the prosecution of a politician suspected of offences.

13) Allegations against a former senior MPS officer regarding child sex abuse and that further members of the establishment including judges were involved. It is claimed that no further action was taken.

14) Allegation that police officers sexually abused a boy and carried out surveillance on him. Further allegations of financial corruption in a London borough police force.

A further two referrals of a similar nature have been received from the MPS and are currently being assessed.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-investigate-allegations-historic-corruption-relating-child-sexual-abuse-metropolitan

I allege that it suggests that there are a lot of allegations.

[i]Fair comment, which of those options would this suggest[/i]

You missed my point. On [i]this thread[/i] we (the people debating) cannot know "the truth" because 1. there has been no investigation of these allegations so people taking this at face value cannot argue the point and 2. That investigation probably won't satisfy you because the same people running the inquiry also ran the paedophile ring.

So.

The ONLY resolution is one of reasonableness. Is it reasonable to imply that there could [b]only[/b] have been organised directed ring of paedophiles gathering vulnerable children for members of the Royal family and others within a secretive Elite. OR it could also be reasonable to argue that paedophiles act like this anyway (manipulative, misdirection, influential of subordinates and so on) [b]because[/b] that's how criminals act anyway (because they know their actions are illegal and do their damnest to cover it up)

If either argument is reasonable, then we have a debate, if you decide that either one of those possibilities isn't reasonable, you can't.

See?

BTW, you failed this test already 😆

[i]Your own thoughts of what this means? [b]Rather than say; a copied and pasted bit of someone else's website?[/b][/i]

Stop copying and pasting. Have you no arguments that will stand up without the words of others?

BTW the last point is important. You think these C&Ps that you throw around liberally like confetti support your case. But in reality they undermine it at every turn, because it's not your thoughts, it's just some-one's fluff. You're just regurgitating the thoughts of others, like an empty vessel clanging. Nodding along, like the toy dog on the back shelf of a car.

Thoughts, arguments, theories...no more circular questioning Please?

Take your cherished theories and expose them to the noon day sun, Analyse them critically, do they stand up? Is your theory the ONLY answer?

I agree with you to some extent nick, when we polarize issues too much, we miss out on the broader picture~both your example arguments are reasonable and both could fit in to the same outcome.

That appears to be where much of the misunderstanding throughout this thread has come from~ I haven't said the Queen is the sole authority, but at the same time, she does evidently have a degree of authority. The extent of that authority is debatable, because despite constitutional law, there is some areas which are veiled in secrecy.

Beyond that, there is also the fact that there has evidently been several transgressions of laws by high officials and potentially even members of the Royal Family.

From another angle, when you look at the Global surveillance network and the 5 Eyes Alliance, it's reasonable to look into common factors which align the various governments involved. The simple fact remains that 4 of the 5 governments have the Queen as their head of state. The influence her role plays is debatable, but given development of the network has spanned several changes of elected government, whilst all the while the Queen has continued to reign, it's not unreasonable to question her authority and involvement in such matters.

In much the same way it's entirely reasonable to question the extent of her knowledge of high level paedophile rings, given her regular meetings with Prime Ministers throughout the period abuse has occurred and been covered up. That alone is cause for concern, but the close relationship between her family (especially Prince Charles, the future king) and Jimmy Savile gives yet more reason to examine what we're being told to this day.

I had a comment lined up, went get another quote to add to it, but the page refreshed when I came back.
To be honest, I think this just about sums up the prevailing feelings of the majority on here:

[img] [/img]

OK, to take but one bit of that, The secret meeting between the Queen and the PM...It could be secret because they are discussing the cover up and manipulation of abuse of children, OR it could be that the thoughts and opinion of two people having a private meeting are none of your damned business anyway, and that if the meeting weren't secret they would be able to say what they wanted.

FWIW, I think you place too much emphasis and influence at the queens feet. I tend towards the thought that she's a highly paid, motivated waving machine...

But if the Queen and Prime Minister were, as is quite possible, debating the merits of giving a knighthood to members they knew were implicated in abuse, on a system funded by the public, it would seem a bit churlish to suggest it's none of our damned business...

Taking it further, say for example the Queen debated with the Prime Minister the best angle to take in the wake of the Jimmy Savile Scandal, getting safe hands recruited on the abuse inquiry, or even potentially discussing with the Prime Minister what measures could be taken within the media to quell suspicion~ after all, the Queen appoints members of the BBC Trust and David Cameron is well connected in media circles.

That may or may not be the case, but it's not entirely unreasonable~ after all, though some sources have reported on allegations that a member of the Royal Family was involved in the paedophile ring, there has been no reports on the matter by the BBC, or in any media owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Again, they might have discussed it. They probably didn't (again, it's one of those "truths" that on [i]this thread[/i] we can never get to the heart of. People make mistakes, they don't know everything, they sometimes (shock horror) "look the other way"

Thing is, we have, for better or worse an "Establishment" A group of largely unconnected but interdependent people. And for better or worse no written constitution, sometimes that helps, sometimes it doesn't. At least it keeps Big Dummy's mates in gainful employment trying to interpret what it all means (to the relief of us all, no doubt) I think the truth will "mostly" out. That's what tends to happen. If the govt. of the day does something heinous, then eventually a largely unapologetic judiciary that's as independent as it needs to be (given the constraints of the establishment) will do something about it.

Do innocents get hurt along the way? Yes they do, all the time, ask the families of the 96...But mostly justice is served. It's not perfect, and it never will be, but mostly it gets there in the end*

*Unless the ****ers croaks first. The ****er.

Are my thoughts on this.

oh, another one

If we're to take the queen at face value (as you do) Then square this particular circle for me. She is, by all accounts, a deeply religious person, devout and a true believer in the sacrament.

Would it not present something of an internal conflict then, that she might have to do something about, if she knew (for instance) that there was a high level illegal paedophile ring in existence?

Let's take a look at the claims she's a deeply religious person~that being the case, why is her government (and family) so deeply involved in the arms trade?

Furthermore, as has already been covered in this thread, she retained authority over the right to invade Iraq~it would be very naive to think she didn't discuss the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan with Tony Blair in detail beforehand...

Perhaps 'Thou shalt not kill' is excused by proxy?

Of course, religion itself doesn't escape such scrutiny, as an example the Vatican has military orders, such as the Knights of Malta... Tony Blair, George Bush (Jr+Snr), Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rupert Murdoch and Jimmy Savile are among notable members.

The fact that the Pope has just accepted the resignation of the UKs highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal o'Brien due to sexual misconduct is also worthy of note:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Furthermore, the colonial basis of the wealth of both the Monarchy and the Vatican also calls into question just how pristine their religious purity is.