ForumGarden

It's the blonde one not the red haired tearaway one - Edward? Or is that the vampire guy? William? . Anyway, one of the Brit Royals is currently visiting the Colonies being simpered over by a carefully chosen crowd, and giving local pollies photo opportunities in what must be an Election Year. There's a big pic in today's newspaper of him graciously losing a ping pong match in Redfern, the inner city suburb of Sydney where many disadvantages urban aborigines live.

Most Australians are quite embarrassed about having a foreign Royal as Head of State. As one law professor commentator wrote today - our Head of State is not elected, but grabs this by birthright unless he's a girl (with a younger brother), or marries a Roman Catholic (he can marry a Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc just not a Roman Catholic). So our Head of State is already out of tune with our laws on gender and religious equality. And he can't speak the language either..

It's the Celebration day of our Nationhood on 26 January. Australia Day. I hope he won't have the gall to stick around for that.....



Long live the Republic of Australia!!!!!!

Attached files

Photo op

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



A photo op (sometimes written as photo opp), short for photograph opportunity (photo opportunity), originally referred to an opportunity to take a memorable and effective photograph of a politician, a celebrity, or a notable event. Among amateur photographers, the term is used to refer to any opportunity to take good photos.

The term was coined by the administration of US President Richard Nixon. William Safire credited its coinage to Bruce Whelihan, an aide to Nixon Press Secretary Ron Ziegler. Ziegler would say Get 'em in for a picture, and Whelihan would dutifully announce to the White House press room, "There will be a photo opportunity in the Oval Office."

The term has acquired a negative connotation, referring to a carefully planned pseudo-event, often masqueraded as news. It is associated with politicians who perform tasks such as planting trees, picking up litter, and visiting senior citizens, often during election cycles, with the intent of photographers catching the events on film, generating positive publicity.

Among nearly ritual photo ops are those when participants of a summit get out of their cars, shake hands or kiss, or sign a document. Formal, pre-planned photography sessions in the White House date back to the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt's press secretary advised photographers to avoid taking photos of the President in a wheelchair.

Another usage of the term refers to a pre-arranged opportunity to make a photo in a memorable surrounding, e.g., in an amusement park, a zoo, after a show, etc.

Did you see how excited the New Zealanders were to see him ? Twelve people turned up a the airport ...........The media wrote up slogans on A4 paper and handed them to people to hold up in front of the cameras. How sad .

So pammy are you all hot and bothered and excited to have some rich dude come and tell us what a great job we are doing running our country?

OOOOOhhhhh he gets to have lunch with Delta Goodrem...woopeee. Not. and he played table tennis with his new indigenous friends. Yeehah Not!

Well, as Prince Charles said - they aren't paid to do it. Certainly not by you (or am I wrong on this? I have not heard that you pay for the Royal Family).

Last time you tried, you split on the forms of Republicanism you wanted. Nothing happened. You couldn't agree.

And while this major constitutional storm happened, that has cost thousands of lives in countries and political systems where the disagreements get out of hand, what happened?

Nothing.

Change your government as you wish. It is your right and your duty.

But don't **** on the people and system that has given you peace and security in your internal affairs since your foundation.

I'm a bit miffed. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Do you know what a system is worth, that allows you to have these arguments without civil war?

Clodhopper;1283584 wrote: Well, as Prince Charles said - they aren't paid to do it. Certainly not by you (or am I wrong on this? I have not heard that you pay for the Royal Family).

Last time you tried, you split on the forms of Republicanism you wanted. Nothing happened. You couldn't agree.

And while this major constitutional storm happened, that has cost thousands of lives in countries and political systems where the disagreements get out of hand, what happened?

Nothing.

Change your government as you wish. It is your right and your duty.

But don't **** on the people and system that has given you peace and security in your internal affairs since your foundation.

I'm a bit miffed. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Do you know what a system is worth, that allows you to have these arguments without civil war?


Yes, we had a referendum on becoming a Republic, Clodrunner. in 1999. It was run by a very clever politician who'd made no secret of the fact that he was a monarchist. Most of the population of this country (90% of all Australians and a majority of both sides of Parliament) was in favour of having an Australian as head of State, but then PM, Mr Howard divided the vote by making controversial issues out of details. It was brilliantly done, and cost a fortune - intentionally making a repeat financially prohibitive.

I add here that it is almost impossible to change the Australian Constitution, which is an Act of the British Parliament. In Australia, national referendums are polls held to approve government-proposed changes to the Australian constitution. Voting in a referendum is compulsory, in the same way that it is compulsory to vote in an Australian general election. 44 referendums have been held in Australia as of 2008, of which only 8 have been carried.

The constitution specifies (Section 128) that amendments to itself must be approved by a referendum. A bill containing the amendment must first be passed by both houses of parliament or, in certain limited circumstances, by only one house of parliament. If the bill has only been passed in one house the Governor General (the Queen's representative) must then decide whether or not to submit the referendum to the people (this is done on the advice of the Prime Minister). If approved, it is then submitted to a referendum. If the bill is approved by an absolute majority of both houses, the constitution provides that it must be submitted to the electors within 2 to 6 months of passage.

In order to pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting throughout the country, as well as separate majorities in each of a majority of states (4 of 6).

One of the very few successful bids to change the Constitution was to give Aboriginal Australians the right to vote in 1967.

So if you introduce any kind of controversy, doubt, paranoia etc.. a powerful and clever polly can scupper a referendum.

I make no comment about the English Royal Family as Kings and Queens of England. I'm sure they're very worthy. Who cares who pays them? Isn't the Queen one of the richest women in the world?

Sure, the Australian legal and parliamentary systems were originally based on English models, rather than say on French models if they had planted their flag first - but our Parliament now is Australian. We've built our own system on the earlier one. And ditto, in the law. It's a long time since colonial days.

BUT I'm an Australian. Like the majority of the country now I have no English blood in me, and no personal historical ties to the "old country". (Well I married a Brit, but he's an Aussie now and agrees). We're the other side of the world. Our culture has completely diverged from that of England. We're proudly patriotic, and view foreign royals as welcome visitors but as an embarrassing anachronism if they try any proprietorial moves here.

In my opinion, Elizabeth II will be the last English Royal head of our armed forces. I sincerely hope so. I can't imagine why you're miffed. England used this land to dump it's unwanteds - loads of London Cockneys and a bunch of brawling Irish.. thankyou!! It made a first layer of white population. The rest of us riff raff - and the original inhabitants or those who were not exterminated by those first fleets - have come from everywhere and made our own country, a multinational mishmash as unEnglish as say, France. We're probably closer to being an Asian land now.





---

Referendums in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure, Australia bases its legal and parliamentary systems on British models, rather than say on French models if they had planted their flag first - but our Parliament now is Australian. We've built our own system on the earlier one. And ditto, in the law. It's a long time since colonial days.

BUT I'm an Australian. Like the majority of the country now I have no English blood in me, and no personal historical ties to the "old country". (Well I married a Brit, but he's an Aussie now and agrees). We're the other side of the world. Our culture has completely diverged from that of the British Isles. We're proudly patriotic, and view foreign royals as welcome visitors but as an embarrassing anachronism if they try any proprietorial moves here.




South Africa made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence. America rebelled. State after state has left the old empire.

If you want to go, GO! Your business.

Our culture has completely diverged from that of the British Isles


Rubbish. The continuous cultural exchange that's been going on all through my lifetime shows that. Or is it one way? Has it been that Aussies just turn up here and enrich our cultural life? No Brits go the other way? Oh. You married one. Are you saying that he added nothing to Australian life? That we are not connected?

Do as you wish. From what you have said, no Briton has stopped you.

Just don't take the **** out of a young lad who doesn't deserve it for doing his duty.

Clodhopper;1283600 wrote: South Africa made a Unilateral Declaration of Independence. America rebelled. State after state has left the old empire.

If you want to go, GO! Your business.



Rubbish. The continuous cultural exchange that's been going on all through my lifetime shows that. Or is it one way? Has it been that Aussies just turn up here and enrich our cultural life? No Brits go the other way? Oh. You married one. Are you saying that he added nothing to Australian life? That we are not connected?

Do as you wish. From what you have said, no Briton has stopped you.

Just don't take the **** out of a young lad who doesn't deserve it for doing his duty.




Jeez, Mate, obviously I've got up your blueblooded British nose.

Sure people cross pollinate, country to country, enrich each other's cultural life. Lots of Aussies go to Britain, and France, and Germany, and America and Canada and Asia etc etc... and lots of visitors from those countries come here.. The world is small. That's not the same as saying we have a special relationship.

I and 90% of Australians failed last time to do as we wished. So we'll just have to wear this anachronism for the time being. America had little choice but to rebel. After that Britain was more careful to back off, making violent revolution much less necessary.

I don't know what you mean by taking the p*** out of a young lad who is doing his duty... Bully for him. The fact that he's doing his duty, doesn't mean we don't want to be a Republic. VERY SOON !!!!

I'm sorry Aussiepam and Fuzzy.

Go for it.

But be kind to young Bill. He has no real choice. He's been fed duty in a way none of us are. It's great for us, because it keeps the Top Job out of the hands of politicians. It's probably not so good for raising kids if you happen to be unlucky enough to be born a Royal.

Oh, and I'm a bastard mongrel, so you can take that blueblooded comment and shove it.

Clodhopper;1283603 wrote: I'm sorry Aussiepam and Fuzzy.

Go for it.

But be kind to young Bill. He has no real choice. He's been fed duty in a way none of us are. It's great for us, because it keeps the Top Job out of the hands of politicians. It's probably not so good for raising kids if you happen to be unlucky enough to be born a Royal.

Oh, and I'm a bastard mongrel, so you can take that blueblooded comment and shove it.


I have no intention of being either kind or unkind to "Young Bill". He's irrelevant here in Australia, that's all. I don't wish him ill at all - in fact, he's a visitor here, and Australians have a well earned reputation for being hospitable. So I sincerely hope he's enjoying the sunshine and gets to take time off his busy schedule to go to the beach.

I must say you, Clodhopper, would have been just about the last person in this forum I'd have expected to feel seriously annoyed at. Nor did I ever expect to be on the receiving end of your ill humour. Anyway, I have a thick skin.



The three Australians who are regular FG posters speak a similar language to you. Fuzzy, mrsK and I are all from different areas and probably backgrounds and I wouldn't presume to speak for them. But it seems clear that the British and American majorities in here have little time for or understanding of our diversity, just how non-British, non-American etc we are.

Many countries these days are looking at what it is to be a citizen. As Australia Day approaches, it is natural for us to do this too. I'm proud to be what I am and where I am. And we Australians don't need your permission - kindly given or not - to "go for it".

It's one thing to criticise it's quite another to have an agenda.

I just figured you out pam ... I'll say no more. just interesting. thanks for the info though

maybe you'd prefer to live in haiti...........that's french, is it not? oh sorry that came to nothing too. bugger!

fuzzywuzzy;1283609 wrote: It's one thing to criticise it's quite another to have an agenda.

I just figured you out pam ... I'll say no more. just interesting. thanks for the info though

maybe you'd prefer to live in haiti...........that's french, is it not? oh sorry that came to nothing too. bugger!


So what's that supposed to mean????? And you've figured me out have you???? Please have the courtesy to explain! And the Haiti reference???? - bad taste to put it very mildly. I had a sponsored foster child there for more than ten years. Don't know whether she's alive or dead. There's no news. If you wish to kick me too, please do it more plainly.

just getting you used to what you think you're up for....not nice is it?



so don't make those remarks . You know better.

The whole point of a Royal Family is to avoid having an elected Head of State. If you elect a Head of State you give a mandate to the office holder to legitimately express political opinions, the position becomes one that's independent of any check and balance Parliament provides. An unelected Head of State, on the other hand, is politically impotent.

Besides, isn't this the same Head of State that's the Head of State of Canada too? I'd have thought that would endear the office to Australians as a symbol of amity. There's a lot of baby in that bathwater.

I must say you, Clodhopper, would have been just about the last person in this forum I'd have expected to feel seriously annoyed at. Nor did I ever expect to be on the receiving end of your ill humour. Anyway, I have a thick skin.


My apologies.

AussiePam;1283610 wrote: So what's that supposed to mean????? And you've figured me out have you???? Please have the courtesy to explain! And the Haiti reference???? - bad taste to put it very mildly. I had a sponsored foster child there for more than ten years. Don't know whether she's alive or dead. There's no news. If you wish to kick me too, please do it more plainly.


In case anyone missed Fuzzywuzzy's apology, please read here:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... y-pam.html

Thankyou Mustang .

My last post that day was 11:23 just before I went out to lunch . I fell ill just afterwards. Went to bed around three and didn't wake up until around two or three in the morning. This person has sat with me whilst I've posted on this forum and knows my posting habits well. He asked me once (on another forum) why I put these (.............) in my posts. Some of what has been written has been copied from another forum, so in a way they are my words. They have been twisted to make it seem like I was posting. (maybe a lesson for us all)

It's one thing to criticise it's quite another to have an agenda.

I just figured you out These are my words and my sentences on another forum.



Practical jokes are not necessary on forums. And get this I was told (somehow as justification ) " the internet doesn't have real people on it anyway" Well I beg to differ. And now I'm somehow "nuts" and "can't take a joke".

fuzzywuzzy;1284571 wrote: Thankyou Mustang .

My last post that day was 11:23 just before I went out to lunch . I fell ill just afterwards. Went to bed around three and didn't wake up until around two or three in the morning. This person has sat with me whilst I've posted on this forum and knows my posting habits well. He asked me once (on another forum) why I put these (.............) in my posts. Some of what has been written has been copied from another forum, so in a way they are my words. They have been twisted to make it seem like I was posting. (maybe a lesson for us all)

These are my words and my sentences on another forum.



Practical jokes are not necessary on forums. And get this I was told (somehow as justification ) " the internet doesn't have real people on it anyway" Well I beg to differ. And now I'm somehow "nuts" and "can't take a joke".


Fuzzy, don't worry about it. We now know what happened, so I think people understand. I do anyway. Maybe that nasty person, who thinks nobody's real who types words on a screen, now realises that he/she is not real. So may I just say to that person ..................................... GET REAL YOU PIMPLE HEAD !

A joke is a joke, fair enough. What that person did was NOT a joke. Perhaps that person would just pause one moment before contemplating any repeat performance at any time in the future, and think of consequences, and put yourself in the position of a reader of your planned words, and how you would feel about reading those words.

It's not just you Fuzzy that the person affected, it was all the other participants on the thread and the guest readers that were also affected by that person's 'flaming', particularly Pam.

I only just got to see this. Fuzzy I'm glad that wasn't really you. The second post, now deleted, was very nasty.

I want to make it clear though, that these posts were addressed to me, and I did not report them or make any complaint, to moderators or to anyone else in email or other mode. I have never yet felt the need to report a post. I like to deal with my own problems and am sorry an infraction was given. At the same time, thank you moderators and other well wishers for caring.

Anyway, there is considerable discussion in Australia at present about the issues touched on in this thread. I don't usually let my political colours show in this Forum, but it's clear where I stand on this. It's also clear that chatting about the issues in this Forum is not going to be helpful, so I think it's best if we just let the thread die now.

The Prince's visit to Australia has kicked off a lot of discussion within this country. And that's where a good, relevant, healthy debate needs to be.

AussiePam;1283554 wrote:

Most Australians are quite embarrassed about having a foreign Royal as Head of State...

Long live the Republic of Australia!!!!!!


I sympathise completely!

Her Nibs is on our twenty dollar bill, all our coins, many of our stamps, and her portrait hangs on the wall in government buildings.

I went to a funeral a few years ago, and that same damn portrait was hanging on the wall in the funeral home's lobby! WTF?!!

My Canadian passport has words to the effect asking that I be granted safe and secure entrance to a foreign country at the request of "Her Majesty The Queen."

It's a freakin' humiliation!

Who would you prefer as the Canadian Head of State, Richard? How about Shawn Atleo maybe?

Or, for the Australians here, Australia's?