Blackpool Jags Posted June 19, 2010 Report Share Posted June 19, 2010 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100619/tuk-murray-quick-to-defend-wayne-rooney-6323e80.html In a press conference ahead of the start of Wimbledon, he added: "It should be personal preference. I'll have to wait and see. I'll have a chat with the guys. I don't want to be bowing and the person I'm playing with walk straight past or the other way around. You obviously need to have an agreement before you go on. I'll have to speak to the organisers about it." Pretty straightforward question from my perspective: NO CHANCE! Just glad, really, he's seriously thinking about snubbing this utterly asinine convention. What is it about her that dictates conventional deference? Has she hit upon a solution to global conflict or discovered a cure for cancer or something? Of course not. She's a physically and intellectually normal individual, and an inordinately privileged one at that. So, if AM was to canvass my opinion, which of course he won't, I'd simply advise him to dispel any notion of a sycophantic contortion of the body in front of this grey individual. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100619/tuk-murray-quick-to-defend-wayne-rooney-6323e80.html In a press conference ahead of the start of Wimbledon, he added: "It should be personal preference. I'll have to wait and see. I'll have a chat with the guys. I don't want to be bowing and the person I'm playing with walk straight past or the other way around. You obviously need to have an agreement before you go on. I'll have to speak to the organisers about it." Pretty straightforward question from my perspective: NO CHANCE! Just glad, really, he's seriously thinking about snubbing this utterly asinine convention. What is it about her that dictates conventional deference? Has she hit upon a solution to global conflict or discovered a cure for cancer or something? Of course not. She's a physically and intellectually normal individual, and an inordinately privileged one at that. So, if AM was to canvass my opinion, which of course he won't, I'd simply advise him to dispel any notion of a sycophantic contortion of the body in front of this grey individual. The end. Spot on imvho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 I would crawl around on my belly, averting my eyes from her glory whilst dribbiling my seed all over her shoes. That's the protocol at these dos isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 20, 2010 Report Share Posted June 20, 2010 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100619/tuk-murray-quick-to-defend-wayne-rooney-6323e80.html In a press conference ahead of the start of Wimbledon, he added: "It should be personal preference. I'll have to wait and see. I'll have a chat with the guys. I don't want to be bowing and the person I'm playing with walk straight past or the other way around. You obviously need to have an agreement before you go on. I'll have to speak to the organisers about it." Pretty straightforward question from my perspective: NO CHANCE! Just glad, really, he's seriously thinking about snubbing this utterly asinine convention. What is it about her that dictates conventional deference? Has she hit upon a solution to global conflict or discovered a cure for cancer or something? Of course not. She's a physically and intellectually normal individual, and an inordinately privileged one at that. So, if AM was to canvass my opinion, which of course he won't, I'd simply advise him to dispel any notion of a sycophantic contortion of the body in front of this grey individual. The end. i know this is a given anyway but YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes off with all your heads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 i know this is a given anyway but YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes off with all your heads What's wrong with you ? Why do you do this to yourself ? Are you a medieval peasant of some kind ? Don't you live in the 21st Century with the rest of us ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alx Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Poor Andy will get slaughtered again by our southern comrades for this. Privatise the royal family, that'll save some money for the public purse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Man Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Bowing to a foreign queen, why would anyone do that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 What's wrong with you ? Why do you do this to yourself ? Because she is great and a nice person to boot :worshippy: Are you a medieval peasant of some kind ? No, are you? Don't you live in the 21st Century with the rest of us ? She has done more for UK than Labour ever will come on Davie you know you like her to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Poor Andy will get slaughtered again by our southern comrades for this. Privatise the royal family, that'll save some money for the public purse. I'd go for that, especially if it was carried out under the TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings; Protection of Employment) Regulations. This means that she could still be employed, by the new company, as a queen for around 12 months, then be redeployed as something like a project manager with her 'earnings' protected for up to two years, then be put onto the rate for the new job. She might then decide to take early retirement on a 'gold-plated' pension and be given a leaving do, at which she could be given something from the job to keep, like a crown or a horse maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'd go for that, especially if it was carried out under the TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings; Protection of Employment) Regulations. This means that she could still be employed, by the new company, as a queen for around 12 months, then be redeployed as something like a project manager with her 'earnings' protected for up to two years, then be put onto the rate for the new job. She might then decide to take early retirement on a 'gold-plated' pension and be given a leaving do, at which she could be given something from the job to keep, like a crown or a horse maybe. We need a spitting tea emoticon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'd go for that, especially if it was carried out under the TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings; Protection of Employment) Regulations. This means that she could still be employed, by the new company, as a queen for around 12 months, then be redeployed as something like a project manager with her 'earnings' protected for up to two years, then be put onto the rate for the new job. She might then decide to take early retirement on a 'gold-plated' pension and be given a leaving do, at which she could be given something from the job to keep, like a crown or a horse maybe. You are a bitter wee soul Blackpool Jags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 You are a bitter wee soul Blackpool Jags I resemble that remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I resemble that remark. at least you are honest........ unlike most labour MPs damn, sorry could not help myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 come on Davie you know you like her to You're not that very far off the mark. I've got no real problems with the Queen. I just think it's a bit anchronistic to have a Monarch as Head of State. What we need is a Scottish Socialist Republic. Led by President Sheridan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 You're not that very far off the mark. I've got no real problems with the Queen. I just think it's a bit anchronistic to have a Monarch as Head of State. What we need is a Scottish Socialist Republic. Led by President Sheridan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy davie Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I'd love him to Wayne Bridge her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I'd love him to Wayne Bridge her. do you mean being an obnoxious scouse git Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I despise the royal family. Why should we bow to anyone just because of an accident of birth? Just exactly what is it that makes them better than anyone else? One of the main reasons I never followed in my Dad's footsteps into the RAF is I could never, ever swear allegance to the old sow. I'd happily behead the lot of them. Parasites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnus68 Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 You're not that very far off the mark. I've got no real problems with the Queen. I just think it's a bit anchronistic to have a Monarch as Head of State. What we need is a Scottish Socialist Republic. Led by President Sheridan. Eh ? Making up words is not allowed when you're picking the bones of people's punctuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) I despise the royal family. Why should we bow to anyone just because of an accident of birth? Just exactly what is it that makes them better than anyone else? One of the main reasons I never followed in my Dad's footsteps into the RAF is I could never, ever swear allegance to the old sow. I'd happily behead the lot of them. Parasites. so do you like them or not grant ? just realised you could be talking about most MPs with that as well and stop being so bitter even if france are so crap Edited June 22, 2010 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Scruff Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 You're not that very far off the mark. I've got no real problems with the Queen. I just think it's a bit anchronistic to have a Monarch as Head of State. What we need is a Scottish Socialist Republic. Led by President Sheridan. Completely agree. Except for that bit about Scottish Socialist Republic, and the Sheridan thing. Other than that, yes. Wouldn't behead them. But quite gladly see them disappear into obscurity. No, he shouldn't bow. Not out of any political statement; it's just completely unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Scruff Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I despise the royal family. Why should we bow to anyone just because of an accident of birth? Just exactly what is it that makes them better than anyone else? One of the main reasons I never followed in my Dad's footsteps into the RAF is I could never, ever swear allegance to the old sow. I'd happily behead the lot of them. Parasites. So you'd happily behead someone because of 'an accident of birth'? Interesting mindset... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrantB Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 so do you like them or not grant ? just realised you could be talking about most MPs with that as well and stop being so bitter even if france are so crap Difference is, MP's are elected and accountable. And can be tried in a court of law (I'm looking at you Jim Devine) So you'd happily behead someone because of 'an accident of birth'? Interesting mindset... Not for an accident of birth. For the fact that they have leeched off the state for their extravagent lifestyles. For that, they had a choice. Anyway, I was being sarcastic, French Revolution and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnus68 Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 FTQ and everything that goes with that.. I want my country back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.