Coronavirus Thread

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zipper730 said:
@Gnomey
Why are people saying that wearing a mask dangerous? If masks were dangerous, wouldn't doctors be kicking off like flies?
Click to expand...
Wearing a mask per see is not dangerous. But if you don't know how to operate them, chances are that you'll be the next centre of a micro outbreak. And I myself find the false sense of security quite dangerous for the ignorant mass.
 

Clearly, you don't understand the vital role the Queen provides. It is not the job of the Queen to lead the country; that's the job of the Prime Minister and his/her elected government.

The reigning monarch provides vital checks and balances in the British political system. In the UK, military officers hold the Queen's Commission which empowers them to disobey any illegal orders issued by politicians. Similarly, the court system is headed by the Crown which helps ensure the courts are not subverted by the politics of the day.
 
Marcel said:
Wearing a mask per see is not dangerous. But if you don't know how to operate them, chances are that you'll be the next centre of a micro outbreak. And I myself find the false sense of security quite dangerous for the ignorant mass.
Click to expand...

Looking at the protests in Austin, TX, over the weekend, it would appear that the ignorant masses don't even want to consider wearing a mask.

I'll keep wearing one, thanks!
 
buffnut453 said:
Looking at the protests in Austin, TX, over the weekend, it would appear that the ignorant masses don't even want to consider wearing a mask.

I'll keep wearing one, thanks!
Click to expand...
Well then I hope you know how to take them off and how to dispose them. I also hope you change them regularly and never touch them. And if you still keep your distance and wash your hands even while wearing your mask. Then by all means, wear them.
 
buffnut453 said:
Looking at the protests in Austin, TX, over the weekend, it would appear that the ignorant masses don't even want to consider wearing a mask.
Click to expand...
Austin supposedly represents the "intelligentsia", the best of Texas. If they're "ignorant masses", I shudder for the rest of the state. But then again, I always have.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
Started with the Magna Carta, and it's been a slippery slope ever since. You don't have REAL power unless your name is Adolph or Josef or Mao.
Click to expand...
Really?
The thing with QE2 is that she works very much behind the scenes. Just because the power wielded isn't overt, doesn't mean its not there. When it does need to be displayed, then it is.

So, when a Commonwealth country went through a Government shutdown (which occurs frequently in some countries), she (through the Governor-General) dismissed the Prime Minister, and forced a new election. No real power? being able to dissolve an elected government, without there being a major constitutional crisis is hardly no real power.
 
When and where was this please? I'll gladly research!
 
TheMadPenguin said:
When and where was this please? I'll gladly research!
Click to expand...
Australian Constitutional Crisis - 1975. Its the only time its had to be done.
You might also want to look up Royal Assent as well - nothing gets passed into law without her (or her representative's) O.K. But this hasn't been withheld for so long that people don't consider it. From what I understand, she works at a much more 'unofficial' level to prevent her from having to withhold assent.
 

The Queen has much less power than Kings and Queens of several centuries ago.

The Monarchy has not been able to levy taxes for ~900 years. Only Parliament can do that. If the monarch wanted more money (eg for a war), he/she would have to call Parliament and ask them to levy additional taxes.

And then there was the civil war in the 17th century, which was between Royalists and Parliamentarians over whether the monarch or Parliament had the right to legislate. The Parliamentarians won. Now the monarch has no legislative power, beyond the (theoretical) ability to block legislation.
 

I am unsure as to whether the Governor-General can block legislation in Australia.

As to the Constitutional Crisis, some would describe that as a coup backed by the CIA. Certainly there were things that the Whitlam government were trying to do that would not please multi-national companies, such as buying back mining leases so that it would go towards the common wealth.

The crisis stemmed from the opposition blocking funding bills in the Senate (Blocking Supply) which would make the government unable to function. Once it was rejected twice, Whitlam could have gone to the Governor-General and sought a double-dissolution election, which meant that all representatives and all senators were up for election, and which the Governor-General could not refuse.

When he did go to the Governor-General it was to be sacked.

Since then the convention (so far unbroken) is that the Senate would not block supply (some funding can be blocked, but I think the main funding of the government cannot).

There are, apparently, correspondence on the matter between the Queen and the Governor-General held in the UK that have not been made public, despite several requests over the years.
 
While this sideline into British and English constitutional history is fascinating, and does show the benefits of separating the head of state from the head of government, and may be relevant to how the UK responds to political crises, I'm not sure how it applies to the particular corona virus causing the current pandemic.

The countries that seem to have done best are those where the people with expertise in those countries' public health departments have been able to see their recommendations implemented as country-wide public policy (the exception seems to be Sweden, where it seems the public health authorities may not have had the best ideas). Pretending it doesn't exist or pretending that it can be shoved down to local governments hasn't worked.

Of course, public health experts change recommendations based on new data. This is the basic tenet of the scientific method: if something's not working, one changes it. Analogy: if you're driving on some back road in Maine and a moose is standing in the middle of it, you don't stay the course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Any info abou this thread?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Gnomey
  • Locked
How about a pet thread?
Replies
1
Views
2K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
  • Locked
Banned thread
Replies
2
Views
3K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Shall we bring back the Lurverly Ladies Thread???
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
19K
Pisis
R
Bf-109 Performance Threads
2 3
Replies
42
Views
16K
Heimatschuetzer_262
H
Menu
Log in
Register