King Charles: Australia's Future as a Republic Rests with Its People

[Lacessit]

58 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not the one suggesting I don't have to lead by example just because I'm not in the public eye. Sounds like double standards.

 

Just like name calling because of a difference of opinion. 

You're not the one answering my question either. However, that was expected.

 

Either you have strayed yourself, or you have not. If you have, it makes you a hypocrite to be talking about double standards.

 

At least I can say I have never bonked a woman married to someone else, unlike Charlie.

[chickenslegs]

I am British. I support the idea of an Australian republic, provided that a clear majority of Australians want it.

 

In the last referendum Australians rejected the idea of a republic, by a clear majority - but that was 25 years ago. I think it's about time for a new referendum.    

[jayboy]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I doubt the ANZACs who lost their lives due to British incompetence in WW1 would agree with you.

 

There's a statue of Douglas Hague in Whitehall. Only the British could commemorate a person who was one of the worst butchers in military history.

 

Tell me why Australians should respect and have affection for a dysfunctional family, harboring serial adulterers and a pedophile.

 

Boorish? As someone else said, you can't handle the truth.

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

Your avoidance of answering my question speaks volumes.

 

I was once at a golf tournament where one of my playing partners was ex-security at Buckingham Palace. He revealed Prince Philip was well-known for forcing himself on maids of honor. The Queen was apparently aware of his activities.

 

When you used the term boorish, Phil the Greek sprung to mind. An over-privileged lout who thought he could do and say anything he wanted. His genes evidently carried on.

 

Tug the forelock and grovel all you want before the altar of royalty. I have more self-respect.

 

 

[jayboy]

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your avoidance of answering my question speaks volumes.

 

I was once at a golf tournament where one of my playing partners was ex-security at Buckingham Palace. He revealed Prince Philip was well-known for forcing himself on maids of honor. The Queen was apparently aware of his activities.

 

When you used the term boorish, Phil the Greek sprung to mind. An over-privileged lout who thought he could do and say anything he wanted. His genes evidently carried on.

 

Tug the forelock and grovel all you want before the altar of royalty. I have more self-respect.

 

 

 

Your comments and questions were asinine and reflect poorly on your character, intelligence and education (and gullibility given your absurd golf club anecdote).They don't represent the views of most Australians.The ambition for a Australian republic is entirely understandable and will in my view come to fruition in my lifetime, and will be arranged in friendship and good will.

 

And for heavens sake learn how to spell Haig's name correctly.

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

Your comments and questions were asinine and reflect poorly on your character, intelligence and education (and gullibility given your absurd golf club anecdote).They don't represent the views of most Australians.The ambition for a Australian republic is entirely understandable and will in my view come to fruition in my lifetime, and will be arranged in friendship and good will.

 

And for heavens sake learn how to spell Haig's name correctly.

Personally attacking me is argument ad hominem. It means you have run out of  options for honest argument. I suggest you read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless, to understand your dishonesty.

While you are about it, read " Monash -the Outsider who Won the War" by Roland Perry. It details how the British establishment , including Haig, never acknowledged Monash's role in ending WW1 - because he was Jewish. You are obviously a snob cut from the same cloth.

Your comment about my intelligence and education is so far off the mark to be laughable. How many scholarships were you awarded on your way through primary, secondary and tertiary education? I had three.

Here's an anecdote from direct experience - the vice-regal Governor of Victoria, Sir Dallas Brooks. An avid golfer, he was described by a fawning local media as a top Victorian golfer. Which was total bullsh!t - he'd be lucky to achieve a single figure handicap, from what I saw as his caddie on a few occasions.

To me, gullibility is people accepting the carefully curated image of royalty, when they eat, sh!t and <deleted> just like anyone else.

Hopefully, when the current occupant of the throne carks it, Australians will grow up and shed an outmoded and superfluous institution.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

You speak for yourself not most Australians.

He speaks for Kiwis as well. We lost far too many in British incompetence at Gallipoli, but that went for all the allied nations there, including the British.

[Old Croc]

The 1999 referendum was rejected purely because the proposed model stated that the President would be elected by Parliament not the people. This varied little from the way the GG is still chosen to this day and was against the popular will. Many no voters believed there would be another referendum within a reasonable time to amend the model. The public were hoodwinked!

The rigging came about by the duplicity of the supposed pro-republic leader on the convention, Malcom Turnbull. He would later join the conservatives and become their PM for a time.

Despite lawfully having to remain neutral in a referendum the PM, Howard, held a party for all the monarchists (and Turnbull) at the official residence, where they quaffed $1000s of taxpayer funded top quality wines reserved for state occasions. 

 

The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia.

The question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bi-partisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998. - Wiki

[Patong2021]

On 10/15/2024 at 2:10 AM, RuamRudy said:

Likewise, you can rely upon the docile, pliant, cap doffing, servile right to maintain the undemocratic status quo. 

 

What exactly is undemocratic? Australia's Governor General is the signing entity on legal acts and is appointed by the  duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.  The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

On 10/15/2024 at 3:27 AM, Brian Hull said:

Bring on the Referendum. These is no place in the governing of Australia for its citizens to show deference to a foreign head of state. Bring on The Republic of Australia.

 

What deference is shown? Australian official behaviour has been more along the line of rudeness and pettiness.

When the President of China visits Australia, the Australian government officials and business leaders were following over themselves to show their deference. They couldn't kiss enough  Chinese posteriors.

 

On 10/15/2024 at 5:19 AM, RuamRudy said:

We are not all snivelling, boot licking sheep. Whilst still a minority, more and more brits are questioning why we have this grotesque and utterly disfunctional family as our unelected and unaccountable head of state. 

 

Who knows, but your position is that of an arrogant foreign colonial occupier of Australia. You obviously do not even know the history of Australia and the relationship the Crown has with the aboriginal people. The Crown signed treaties with the aboriginal people long before Australia was a nation and has a duty to the First Australian people. You have made the assumption that your position is paramount and has greater validity than that of the First Australian people who do not share your position.  

 

In the 1930's the  First Australian people had sought to petition King George V, to invoke his moral duty to protect them against the policies of the colonial people, to ensure that they had representation.   They were protecting themselves against occupiers like you.  In 1938, the Australian Government decided not to send the petition to King George VI (George V had died in 1936). It argued that no 'good purpose' would be served by doing so.  The Crown over the decades has acted on behalf of the First Australian people and enjoys a position of favour with them such that the First Australian people  place as much value on their relationship with the Crown, if not more, than they do with the Australian state and federal governments. 

Your position ignores the fact that you are in effect once again interfering with the rights of the First Australian people. It is the usual attitude of  knowing what is best for then under the guise of social progress. If Republicans really cared about the principals they claim, they would first seek the approval of the First nation people.

 

 

 

The Australian behaviour is  really low class and rude.  It is quite a contrast between the polite anticipation and happiness to share hospitality that Samoans are expressing at the upcoming visit. It is the Samoans who are showing how to be polite, while maintaining their sovereignty and independence.

 

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He speaks for Kiwis as well. We lost far too many in British incompetence at Gallipoli, but that went for all the allied nations there, including the British.

 

You don't speak for Kiwis - and you Gllipoli reference is irrelevant.

[jayboy]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Personally attacking me is argument ad hominem. It means you have run out of  options for honest argument. I suggest you read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by R H Thouless, to understand your dishonesty.

While you are about it, read " Monash -the Outsider who Won the War" by Roland Perry. It details how the British establishment , including Haig, never acknowledged Monash's role in ending WW1 - because he was Jewish. You are obviously a snob cut from the same cloth.

Your comment about my intelligence and education is so far off the mark to be laughable. How many scholarships were you awarded on your way through primary, secondary and tertiary education? I had three.

Here's an anecdote from direct experience - the vice-regal Governor of Victoria, Sir Dallas Brooks. An avid golfer, he was described by a fawning local media as a top Victorian golfer. Which was total bullsh!t - he'd be lucky to achieve a single figure handicap, from what I saw as his caddie on a few occasions.

To me, gullibility is people accepting the carefully curated image of royalty, when they eat, sh!t and <deleted> just like anyone else.

Hopefully, when the current occupant of the throne carks it, Australians will grow up and shed an outmoded and superfluous institution.

 

 

I'm afraid this confused rant simply confirms my original impression.

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

I'm afraid this confused rant simply confirms my original impression.

I'm afraid you are not an Australian. You're just a British sycophant who was indoctrinated at an early age, and are incapable of critical thinking.

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

What exactly is undemocratic? Australia's Governor General is the signing entity on legal acts and is appointed by the  duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.  The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

 

What deference is shown? Australian official behaviour has been more along the line of rudeness and pettiness.

When the President of China visits Australia, the Australian government officials and business leaders were following over themselves to show their deference. They couldn't kiss enough  Chinese posteriors.

 

 

Who knows, but your position is that of an arrogant foreign colonial occupier of Australia. You obviously do not even know the history of Australia and the relationship the Crown has with the aboriginal people. The Crown signed treaties with the aboriginal people long before Australia was a nation and has a duty to the First Australian people. You have made the assumption that your position is paramount and has greater validity than that of the First Australian people who do not share your position.  

 

In the 1930's the  First Australian people had sought to petition King George V, to invoke his moral duty to protect them against the policies of the colonial people, to ensure that they had representation.   They were protecting themselves against occupiers like you.  In 1938, the Australian Government decided not to send the petition to King George VI (George V had died in 1936). It argued that no 'good purpose' would be served by doing so.  The Crown over the decades has acted on behalf of the First Australian people and enjoys a position of favour with them such that the First Australian people  place as much value on their relationship with the Crown, if not more, than they do with the Australian state and federal governments. 

Your position ignores the fact that you are in effect once again interfering with the rights of the First Australian people. It is the usual attitude of  knowing what is best for then under the guise of social progress. If Republicans really cared about the principals they claim, they would first seek the approval of the First nation people.

 

 

 

The Australian behaviour is  really low class and rude.  It is quite a contrast between the polite anticipation and happiness to share hospitality that Samoans are expressing at the upcoming visit. It is the Samoans who are showing how to be polite, while maintaining their sovereignty and independence.

 

I guess it's about time the Saxons started petitioning for the return of their lands stolen by the Normans. What a fatuous argument.

 

Every royal visit costs a fortune in security, accommodation and logistics. Just because the Samoans are simple, does not mean we have to be.

 

We have enough problems of housing affordability and COL without wasting money on superfluous visits by royalty, who just view us as a break from the monotony of British weather.

 

Isn't it time you grew up?

[RuamRudy]

52 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

 

Your description suggests Charles Windsor is someone who takes instruction and works tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden. I think that's more the stuff of his press office than reality. 

 

But regardless of his dedication to the less fortunate, the days of kings being brave, strong and fearlessly leading from the front are long gone. If he is all that's standing between equality of opportunity and repression of Australia's First People then there is something fundamentally wrong in your society, and he and his mother have failed in their duty to correct it. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

The 1999 referendum was rejected purely because the proposed model stated that the President would be elected by Parliament not the people. This varied little from the way the GG is still chosen to this day and was against the popular will. Many no voters believed there would be another referendum within a reasonable time to amend the model. The public were hoodwinked!

The rigging came about by the duplicity of the supposed pro-republic leader on the convention, Malcom Turnbull. He would later join the conservatives and become their PM for a time.

Despite lawfully having to remain neutral in a referendum the PM, Howard, held a party for all the monarchists (and Turnbull) at the official residence, where they quaffed $1000s of taxpayer funded top quality wines reserved for state occasions. 

 

The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia.

The question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bi-partisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998. - Wiki

I concur that the terms of having the President chosen by parliament had an effect but I think the reason it didn't get up is that  people simply thought if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. Only a small percentage I'd say had been particularly pro the British Royalty but I think many thought may as well stick with what we've got. Royals for most people I think were regarded as  kind of benign and the Governor General in recent times - putting aside 1975 - did what needed to be done.  I voted for the Republic for what it's worth. 

I disagree strongly that Turnbull was not honest in his desire for a Republic and he is still is the same.  Do you have evidence for that? He did come across more arrogant in his youth which probably didn't help things in the public opinion stakes but in my opinion he is sincere and  mellowed into a good politician. Well better than others such as Abbott or others but that's not hard. 

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I concur that the terms of having the President chosen by parliament had an effect but I think the reason it didn't get up is that  people simply thought if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. Only a small percentage I'd say had been particularly pro the British Royalty but I think many thought may as well stick with what we've got. Royals for most people I think were regarded as  kind of benign and the Governor General in recent times - putting aside 1975 - did what needed to be done.  I voted for the Republic for what it's worth. 

I disagree strongly that Turnbull was not honest in his desire for a Republic and he is still is the same.  Do you have evidence for that? He did come across more arrogant in his youth which probably didn't help things in the public opinion stakes but in my opinion he is sincere and  mellowed into a good politician. Well better than others such as Abbott or others but that's not hard. 

Perhaps you have missed Peter Hollingworth, who was forced to step down from the office of Governor-General after the scandal of him enabling pedophile priests became public.

 

Hollingworth still enjoys an ex-Governor-General's pension and entitlements costing the Australian taxpayer half a million dollars, along with three or four other ex-Governors still living.

 

Then there are the pensions of the State Governors, and the reversionary pensions paid to surviving spouses. It's a high price to be paying for a function that is as useful as tits on a bull.

 

IMO Turnbull was way too smart to be in the Liberal Party, as evidenced when he took the British Government to the cleaners in the Spycatcher case. Abbott and Morrison hated him, simply for being there. He would have done better joining Labor.

 

Turnbull is a multi-millionaire, conservatively estimated to be worth $200 million. Abbott and Morrison scrape around for jobs in the UK and US, looking for sinecures. They are unemployable in Australia.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

[Patong2021]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I guess it's about time the Saxons started petitioning for the return of their lands stolen by the Normans. What a fatuous argument.

 

Every royal visit costs a fortune in security, accommodation and logistics. Just because the Samoans are simple, does not mean we have to be.

 

We have enough problems of housing affordability and COL without wasting money on superfluous visits by royalty, who just view us as a break from the monotony of British weather.

Isn't it time you grew up?

 

This has nothing to do with the inter European fights, where one European colonial expansionist force  fought with another in Europe.  Your colonial arrogance is on display when you call the proud and dignified Samoans "simple". They are  behaving as polite and civilized hosts, welcoming a foreign head of state as well as the head of the Commonwealth of which they are a long time member.

 

The money you claim is wasted, will be quickly recouped through the business it will generate by way of boosting local commerce and tourism. Australia will also be getting free promotion around the world. Consider the Crown as one of the world's oldest influencers.

 

The fact remains that the First People of Australia have had a longstanding relationship with the  Crown that precedes the existence of Australia. No Australian has the moral right to throw that relationship aside and to dictate to the First Nations how their longstanding  treaties and relationship will be managed. 

 

10 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your description suggests Charles Windsor is someone who takes instruction and works tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden. I think that's more the stuff of his press office than reality. 

 

But regardless of his dedication to the less fortunate, the days of kings being brave, strong and fearlessly leading from the front are long gone. If he is all that's standing between equality of opportunity and repression of Australia's First People then there is something fundamentally wrong in your society, and he and his mother have failed in their duty to correct it. 

 

That is your interpretation.  The Sovereign does act on the instruction of the Australian government. Whether or not he works tirelessly is your narrative. You can go and lecture the tens of thousands+ who will come out to welcome the King. 

The fact is that the Crown has acted on behalf of First Peoples and takes its role seriously. The role is still obviously needed since the Republicans have completely ignored the views and stated positions of the First People. Unlike the Australian occupiers, the King will receive a polite and hospitable reception from the  First People of Australia.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your description suggests Charles Windsor is someone who takes instruction and works tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden. I think that's more the stuff of his press office than reality. 

 

But regardless of his dedication to the less fortunate, the days of kings being brave, strong and fearlessly leading from the front are long gone. If he is all that's standing between equality of opportunity and repression of Australia's First People then there is something fundamentally wrong in your society, and he and his mother have failed in their duty to correct it. 

You seem to fail to understand what constitutional means in the context of the monarchy.

 

"If he is all that's standing between equality of opportunity and repression of Australia's First People"

 

Seriously. I suggest you go do some research before coming out with <deleted> like that.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Your description suggests Charles Windsor is someone who takes instruction and works tirelessly and selflessly for the betterment of the poor and downtrodden. I think that's more the stuff of his press office than reality. 

Do you actually know anything about him at all, or just making it up?

 

https://www.kingstrust.org.uk/about-us/history

It all began in 1976, when His Majesty King Charles III, when he was His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, had a bold idea.

Having completed his duty in the Royal Navy, His Majesty became dedicated to improving the lives of disadvantaged young people in the UK. He founded The King's Trust (formerly The Prince's Trust) to deliver on that commitment.

[still kicking]

And you know all that being a Kiwi

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, still kicking said:

And you know all that being a Kiwi

Pathetic!

[Old Croc]

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The fact remains that the First People of Australia have had a longstanding relationship with the  Crown that precedes the existence of Australia. No Australian has the moral right to throw that relationship aside and to dictate to the First Nations how their longstanding  treaties and relationship will be managed. 

British settlement

When British settlers began colonizing Australia in 1788, between 750,000 and 1.25 million Aboriginal Australians are estimated to have lived there. Soon, epidemics ravaged the island’s Indigenous people, and British settlers seized their lands.

Though some First Nations people did resist—up to 20,000 people died in violent conflict on the colony’s frontiers—most were subjugated by massacres and the impoverishment of their communities as British settlers seized their lands. Researchers have documented at least 270 massacres of Aboriginal Australians during Australia’s first 140 years, and though the term “genocide” remains controversial, people related to the continent’s first inhabitants are widely considered to have been wiped out through violence. 

National Geographic

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

British settlement

When British settlers began colonizing Australia in 1788, between 750,000 and 1.25 million Aboriginal Australians are estimated to have lived there. Soon, epidemics ravaged the island’s Indigenous people, and British settlers seized their lands.

Though some First Nations people did resist—up to 20,000 people died in violent conflict on the colony’s frontiers—most were subjugated by massacres and the impoverishment of their communities as British settlers seized their lands. Researchers have documented at least 270 massacres of Aboriginal Australians during Australia’s first 140 years, and though the term “genocide” remains controversial, people related to the continent’s first inhabitants are widely considered to have been wiped out through violence. 

National Geographic

While that is true, given the descendants of the people doing the wiping out are still in Oz, one suspects that is not going to influence them much.

[Old Croc]

20 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

What exactly is undemocratic? Australia's Governor General is the signing entity on legal acts and is appointed by the  duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.  The King, through the Governor General is in effect an appointed public servant who has no authority and does as he is directed by the Australian government. His role is primarily one of civil service on behalf of charities and social service agencies. 

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the prime minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General who then commissioned the leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as prime minister to hold a new election. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.

Wiki

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

This has nothing to do with the inter European fights, where one European colonial expansionist force  fought with another in Europe.  Your colonial arrogance is on display when you call the proud and dignified Samoans "simple". They are  behaving as polite and civilized hosts, welcoming a foreign head of state as well as the head of the Commonwealth of which they are a long time member.

 

The money you claim is wasted, will be quickly recouped through the business it will generate by way of boosting local commerce and tourism. Australia will also be getting free promotion around the world. Consider the Crown as one of the world's oldest influencers.

 

The fact remains that the First People of Australia have had a longstanding relationship with the  Crown that precedes the existence of Australia. No Australian has the moral right to throw that relationship aside and to dictate to the First Nations how their longstanding  treaties and relationship will be managed. 

 

 

 

In the run-up to the 2000 Olympics  in Sydney, the civic authorities were concerned there would be problems with the mainly Aboriginal population of Redfern. Substantial incentives were offered to any Aboriginal willing to move to Wilcannia, on the Darling River in outback NSW.

 

More than 20 years on, Wilcannia still resembles a war zone. All doors in the town are steel, all windows have bars. The new arrivals from Sydney were of different tribes to the existing Aboriginal population.

 

The notion of a First People of Australia as some kind of monolith is absurd. When whites arrived, there was a Stone Age collection of tribes at perpetual war with each other.

 

There are  just under a million people in Australia claiming Aboriginal ancestry. Of those, less than 5% are pure-blood Aboriginal. It's all about money.

 

Who do you think drafted the petition you posted? I am pretty sure it was not an Aboriginal. Possibly some well-meaning twit, or a lawyer smelling money. I had to laugh when I saw the addendum of addresses.

 

Have you ever visited an Aboriginal township? Murrum Bridge on the Lachlan River, Wilcannia, or Fitzroy Crossing? It's like Harlem or Soweto. Any would probably have you soiling your trousers.

 

You have probably not heard of Coronation Hill. It's a world-class deposit of gold, platinum and palladium in the Northern Territory. It would have provided thousands of jobs in development and operation for about a century. It was embargoed after local Aboriginals said it was bad luck to disturb the serpent sleeping beneath it.

 

I don't use the term Koori. That's a woke expression invented to imply a united people. I suppose they are united in the pursuit of money.

 

Governments have spent billions on Aboriginal welfare since Federation, and continue to do so. The money seems to disappear into a black hole. Any new dwelling built becomes a slum in the space of months.

 

I don't know what the solution is, but IMO it's about damn time the tail stopped wagging the dog.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:00 PM, Old Croc said:

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the prime minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General who then commissioned the leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party, as prime minister to hold a new election. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history.

Wiki

I read somewhere that John Kerr dare not show his face in Australia since. I certainly hope so.

I wonder if we will ever know who's orders he was following and I doubt it was the Queen's. Plenty of rumours but no facts.

[Old Croc]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I read somewhere that John Kerr dare not show his face in Australia since. I certainly hope so.

I wonder if we will ever know who's orders he was following and I doubt it was the Queen's. Plenty of rumours but no facts.

Kerr died in 1991. Probably of a pickled liver. He was a notorious drunk. If you think that is a rumor do a search for his infamous drunken speech at a race meeting while dressed in top hat and tails.

Of course, he consulted the queen before he sacked the elected government.  She agreed.  You're the one who spouts off all the time without facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Kerr died in 1991. Probably of a pickled liver. He was a notorious drunk. If you think that is a rumor do a search for his infamous drunken speech at a race meeting while dressed in top hat and tails.

Of course, he consulted the queen before he sacked the elected government.  She agreed.  You're the one who spouts off all the time without facts.

You were doing so well till you started with the insults.

I'm not the one insulting other posters from the safety of mummy's basement. You should see someone about your anger issues, IMO.

Edited October 20 by thaibeachlovers

[Old Croc]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:09 AM, Lacessit said:

Governments have spent billions on Aboriginal welfare since Federation, and continue to do so. The money seems to disappear into a black hole. Any new dwelling built becomes a slum in the space of months.

I worked in The Aboriginal Affairs Dept for over six years and have visited tribal group settlements all over Western Australia. I met, worked and socialized with many great indigenous people during that time.  Unfortunately, I also had to deal with some of the worst people, who had no qualms in stealing from the government and each other. On several occasions, I saw vandalized and uninhabitable govt funded dwellings. I had a job auditing government grants (not small sums) and found many cases of theft where the project was ignored and the money used for personal items such as cars for self and immediate family.  Instructions from above were that these funds were to be written off rather than forwarded to the DPP for action.

[Old Croc]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You were doing so well till you started with the insults.

I'm not the one insulting other posters from the safety of mummy's basement. You should see someone about your anger issues, IMO.

Mummy's basement!!

My mother never owned a basement (not common in Australia) and has been dead nearly as long as Kerr. 

I've been a member of this forum for nearly 20 years, have lived in Phuket and now Isaan for 15 years. I own property and residences in both places.

I think my assessment of you being somewhat short of factual opinions is not misplaced. You haven't seen my anger, you're just a lightweight know-it-all.