Wednesday, November 18, 2009



British Labour Party candidate who described the Queen as 'vermin' and a 'parasite who milks the country' is forced to apologise

We read:
"A Labour candidate has been forced to apologise after describing the Queen as 'vermin' and a 'parasite'. Peter White, who is standing in next year's local elections, posted the republican diatribe on the social networking site Facebook.

Last night Mr White was forced to issue a humiliating apology by Labour high command, and was threatened with deselection as election candidate.

The comments met with a furious reaction from other visitors to the web page, and Mr White later deleted his comments. But they had already been saved by Mr Rosindell.

Mr Rosindell said: 'People are absolutely furious that someone in such a position would publicly describe the Queen as vermin and a parasite. It is outrageous: a disgusting thing to say about the head of state. 'If he is republican, he has the right to state his case. But the use such foul and nasty language against the Queen is simply offensive. Even most republicans respect the fact that she has been an excellent head of state.'

Source

He has every right to say what he thinks but this was just plain dumb. The Queen is very highly regarded in Britain. He is just handing the election to his political opponents with comments like that. All British political parties support the Monarchy, even the Scottish Nationalists.

25 comments:

Bobby said...

Well, for once I meet a british national I respect, I agree with him, the Queen gets a lot of money from the taxpayers, specially to maintain Buckingham Palace. Not to mention all the man hours british police and military have spent protecting the royals during public events. How can this be allowed in a democracy? You're either a free citizen or you're a subject of the Queen.


It's just shameful how millions of british citizens would worship a Queen, a King, and the litter of Princess Diana, Harry and William.

Anonymous said...

Leave it to a redneck to tell the British how they should live.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the Buckingham palace and other historical landmarks and monuments would have to be kept in good condition anyway. Who cares whether that cost is in the budget under 'queens allowance' or 'palace maintenance'? That said I would think there are both 'Queens allowance' and 'palace maintenance' in there but how much extra does the Queen cost - I have no idea.

Bobby said...

"Leave it to a redneck to tell the British how they should live."

---Let's see, I may be a redneck but I'm a FREE CITIZEN unlike the british subjects of the crown, my Air Force isn't called the Royal Air Force, my country doesn't have funny men with big hats that the tourists take pictures of, I don't bow for no monarch, I have no monarch on my currency and while the Kennedy's are almost like royalty in this country, I don't pay for their lifestyle.

So between the "subjects of the crown" and free citizens like me, I'm damn proud to live in America and I have no respect for the old red coat enemy.

As for Buckingham Palace, the french have a little palace called Versailles, the government pays for it and it's a museum that belongs to all the people.

Maybe it's a european thing, these people are insecure unless they have a fuhrer telling them what to do. It is up to us Americans to show the inferior british the error of their ways.

Bobby said...

"Leave it to a redneck to tell the British how they should live."

---Let's see, I may be a redneck but I'm a FREE CITIZEN unlike the british subjects of the crown, my Air Force isn't called the Royal Air Force, my country doesn't have funny men with big hats that the tourists take pictures of, I don't bow for no monarch, I have no monarch on my currency and while the Kennedy's are almost like royalty in this country, I don't pay for their lifestyle.

So between the "subjects of the crown" and free citizens like me, I'm damn proud to live in America and I have no respect for the old red coat enemy.

As for Buckingham Palace, the french have a little palace called Versailles, the government pays for it and it's a museum that belongs to all the people.

Maybe it's a european thing, these people are insecure unless they have a fuhrer telling them what to do. It is up to us Americans to show the inferior british the error of their ways.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, you say you wouldn't bow to a monarch, yet your president goes around the world bowing to everyone and anyone. And, in case you hadn't noticed, we here in the US have our own "royalty". Well, we have lots of so-called celebrities and politicians who think they are.

As for Mr. White and his remarks, stupidity is no excuse for bad manners. If the Brits can't show respect for their queen, they shouldn't have one.

Bobby said...

"Bobby, you say you wouldn't bow to a monarch, yet your president goes around the world bowing to everyone and anyone."

---Obama is NOT my president, buddy, he's our national embarassment. The fact that he bowed to the jap emperor (which wasn't even necessary according to modern rules of protocol) shows that he's a traitor to the American spirit of freedom and independence.


"And, in case you hadn't noticed, we here in the US have our own "royalty". Well, we have lots of so-called celebrities and politicians who think they are."

---Celebrities aren't supported by the taxpayers, they earn their money through their work. If people want to pay $50 to see Britney Spears touch her crotch that's more commendable than financing the lifestyles of the royals through unfair taxation. At least Britney dances her ass off and deliver a spectacular show. What has Prince Harry accomplished? I know, he dressed like Hitler for a costume party, perhaps he should get a nobel peace price.


"As for Mr. White and his remarks, stupidity is no excuse for bad manners. If the Brits can't show respect for their queen, they shouldn't have one."

---The Queen deserves no respect, she was born into priviledge and has never done an honest day work in her entire life. As for bad manners, I think it's horrible manners when a bunch of royals get special treatment that the common british man doesn't get.

Do you remember when one of Diana's son, Harry or William joined the military and went to Afghanistan but they wouldn't let him fight because God forbid he would die or get hurt? Do you think it's fair for the british taxpayer to finance the thousands of pounds it costs to train just one soldier only to see such soldier not do his duty? Why should the monarchs not fight and die for their country if they join the military? Frankly, they are no different than army deserters, the only difference is that in America we punish deserters while in England they make excuses for them.


England is filled with foolishness, take the House of Lords, those "gentlemen" don't even run for office, their titles are inherited yet they can overrule any decision by the House of Commons.

While in America we're free, in England you can become a Sir if the Queen chooses. That's why Elton John is known as Sir. Elton John. He's a great singer, no doubt, but does he deserve a title that elevates him above others?

In America we earn our titles not by kissing the ass of the monarchy or by being born into it but through hard work. In America we can become MD's, JD's, phd's, MBA's, CEO's, etc. But in England you could be the richest person in the country and if the Queen doesn't like you, you'll never get to be Sir.

So in a way, the royals are parasites, they suck money from the taxpayer and contribute nothing. Buckingham Palace is just like Versailles, the tourists will come with or without monarchs.

I rarely give credit to the french, but it was their french revolution that gave them freedom and inspired our own founding fathers to tell King George to go f-ck himself.

It's so sad that so many Americans today actually respect England and their silly monarchy, I can't even believe that we welcome the monarchs with open arms everytime they visit. Tell me, are we a british colony? Do we have colony-envy? I know I don't.

Anonymous said...

C'mon. Be nice.

Anonymous said...

No Bobby, Osama bin Barack bin Laden is your president. You elected him in (according to your own high court, which refused to investigate complaints of election fraud) free and fair elections.
According to your own laws he is therefore your president.
Of course if you don't like that you can always do what you have told other people to do in countries with governments they don't like, and that is rise up and overthrow the guy in a coup d'etat and establish a freely elected democratic government instead.

But that's another case. This one is simply a wannabe government official foulmouthing the Queen, one of the most respected and revered people in the country.
That not only makes him look bad, it makes his entire party look bad, which will have consequences at the polls. Thus his party tells him to apologise, anything else will loose them votes in the next election. Everyone knows that what the man states is the actual position of that party, but it can't be their official position as that would be bad for their coffers and power.

Anonymous said...

"Frankly, they are no different than army deserters, the only difference is that in America we punish deserters while in England they make excuses for them."

The real difference is that in America you wouldn't see the son of a top level politician in the military in the first place. And you would definitely not see them in combat if they by some mistake (= daddy's voters happen to be patriots) got there.

Anonymous said...

Bobby - are you ignorant or just prejudiced, as you ought to know that the Queen is just a figure-head. She doesn't decide who gets titles or anything much at all, it is the elected government under the Prime Minister which holds all the political power and they advise the Queen accordingly. It is just tradition to call the people her subjects but they are as much free citizens as anyone is free in a modern democracy. It is also just tradition to call it "Her Majesty's Government" etc. What does it cost to run a presidency? Probably about the same as modern constitutional monarchy such as various european countries have. However you obviously admire bloody revolutions, when you cite the French.
PS. The majority in the House of Lords are appointed by the elected political parties and they cannot hold up legislation from the House of Commons indefinitely; they can just review it and maybe ask for some reconsideration.

Anonymous said...

Bobby - you are also ignorant of history as the American Revolution preceded the French one, so how could the Founding Fathers have been inspired by the French Revolution? It was actually the other way round!

jonjayray said...

Tourism is a huge part of the British economy and the Monarchy plays a large part in that

As a tourist attraction it is usually rated excellent value for the money

Anonymous said...

Does anyone here take Bobby seriously anymore? What a clown.

Bobby said...

"No Bobby, Osama bin Barack bin Laden is your president. You elected him in"

----I did not, I voted for McCain. The liberals and independents elected him, he's not my president, he's just a negro in the White House, no different than the man who cleans the toilets at the White House except that at least that man is doing something useful while Obama is nothing more than a pretty boy with popularity. Call him what you want, but he'll never be my president, and I'm sure people in the army aren't fighting for him, they fight for freedom, for America, for principle, but never for that traitorous fool.



"Bobby - are you ignorant or just prejudiced, as you ought to know that the Queen is just a figure-head. She doesn't decide who gets titles or anything much at all,"

---You're wrong, she's not a figurehead when it comes to titles. It's not the House of Commons that votes to make you a Sir or a Duque, it's the Queen who makes that decision.


"It is just tradition to call the people her subjects but they are as much free citizens as anyone is free in a modern democracy."

---Slavery and segregation where also traditions in America yet we got rid of them. Besides, the brits aren't free, in Britain you can go to jail for so-called "hate" speech and guns are totally outlawed unless you're a cop or security guard. In England you are indeed a subject of the state.


"It is also just tradition to call it "Her Majesty's Government" etc."

---Yes, in America it's "government BY the people," our elected officials are called "public servants." You brits and your Queen worship, how sad.


"However you obviously admire bloody revolutions, when you cite the French."

---The french got their freedom, right? Freedom isn't free, you're like the liberals that think liberating Iraq was bad because civilians died.

"Does anyone here take Bobby seriously anymore? What a clown."

---Whatever, you just don't appreciate freedom, you appreciate conformity, it's a lot easier to say nice things about the Queen and get along with everyone than denouncing her for the tax-stealing bitch she is.


"The real difference is that in America you wouldn't see the son of a top level politician in the military in the first place."

---Bullshit, John McCain has children in the army. Besides, what good is for Prince Andrew to join the army if he's not going to fight? Answer me that!

Bobby's mom said...

Didn't I tell you to stop using the computer? Go outside and play like all the other boys.

Anonymous said...

Bobby doesn't know the difference between Prince Harry and Prince Andrew. He doesn't know that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution. He doesn't know that Queen Elizabeth doesn't act independently but only as Parliament advises (as she is a constitutional monarch not a politician or dictator). He doesn't know the difference between harmless traditional terminology and evil traditional practices like slavery. In short Bobby's opinions are skrewed.

Bobby said...

Fine 10:06 PM, go worship your ceremonial queen. Kneel before Prince Harry and Andrew, prove yourself a loyal subject, kiss the ground they walk on and cry like a baby the next time one of the blue blood royals dies.

You may tolerate a ceremonial monarchy, I tolerate no King but God. Off with their heads!

Anonymous said...

Bobby - you seem to have a lot in common with the Islamists in wanting people to be separated from their heads!

Bobby said...

"Bobby - you seem to have a lot in common with the Islamists in wanting people to be separated from their heads!"

---Do you smoke cigarrettes? No? You seem to have a lot in common with Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Booby said, "You seem to have a lot in common with Hitler."

When all else fails, use Godwin's Law.

Bobby said...

"When all else fails, use Godwin's Law."

---Too bad Godwin didn't come up for a law regarding people that compare you to Islamic terrorists, how convenient.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, you make it clear how much you despise the current President of your country who is the Head of State, and many americans also hated the previous President. When the Head of State represents or symbolizes the country as a whole, it is not a very happy situation and suggests a disunited and alienated citizenry. Is it not perhaps better to have a Head of State who is politically neutral and historically qualified, such as Queen Elizabeth is, and who therefore commands more respect and even affection from her/his people ("worship" is too strong a word and only reflects your prejudice)?

Bobby said...

"Bobby, you make it clear how much you despise the current President of your country who is the Head of State, and many americans also hated the previous President."

---True enough.

"Is it not perhaps better to have a Head of State who is politically neutral and historically qualified, such as Queen Elizabeth is, and who therefore commands more respect and even affection from her/his people ("worship" is too strong a word and only reflects your prejudice)?"

---Can the Queen really be politically neutral? Can a black person become Queen or King? Aren't catholics still excluded from the monarchy? What about gays?

Moreover, why should I love someone just because she or he has a title? Why should I refer to someone as "your majesty" or "your highness?" Why should the british taxpayer finance the military training of young princes who are not allowed to fight in wars?

You ever seen the movie "The King and I" which is based on the true story of the King of Siam? Do you think any man alive deserves to have his head above others at all times?

Let me give you a clearer example. In America we sing "God Bless America," in England they sing "God Save the Queen." Don't you think it's kind of sad that millions of people care more for the Queen than for each other or their country?

If I am prejudiced against anything is undeserved success. Show me one royal that did anything more crucial than being a symbol? And Princess Diana doesn't count, it's easy to give charity when you have access to the royal coffers, the media and influential donors. You want to admire someone? Admire Mother Theresa of Calcutta who spent her entire life sorrounded by filth in the dirtiest slums in India. I remember the media giving Diana credit for visiting sick people, big freaking deal, anyone can visit the sick but it takes guts to clean them up after they soil themselves, to feed them, to heal their wounds and all the disgusting things that come with nursing a patient back to health.

So you're right, I'm prejudiced against undeserved glory based on your royal birth or marriage.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, please don't compare a modern constitutional monarchy in Europe with an absolute monarchy in 19th century Siam. As said before, the King or Queen in a constitutional monarchy is a symbol of the country and respect shown to him or her signifies respect for one's country whether or not there is respect for the person of the monarch (thus "God Save the Queen" refers to the personification of the country). Queen Elizabeth does her duty as monarch and could if she wishes live privately on her own wealth and do as she pleases, as could the other royals who do official duties for the state. Likewise the elected Parliament could "fire" her, as they have some of her predecessors, including her uncle Edward VIII. Parliament can have whoever they want as monarch or abolish the monarchy as they did once before. They could also pass a law allowing a catholic to be a monarch (as the need has not arisen since the religious conflicts of the 17th & 18th centuries), though there is no law at the moment preventing a black person or a homosexual to be head of state.