Should President Trumps state visit to Britain be banned?

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:58 pm

First topic message reminder :

I'm surprised the Queen invited him in the first place tbh. Rolling Eyes

The latest update is more than one million people have signed the petition to say he should be banned from coming here on a state visit.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sadiq-khan-demands-donald-trumps-9716177

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan - the first Muslim mayor of a major western city - has demanded Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK is cancelled.
He told Sky News: "I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump.
"I don't think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn't be clearer."
He said the ban "flies in the face of the values" the US was built on.
He added: "I'm pleased that the Prime Minister has now said she and the Government do not agree with President Trump's policy, which will affect many British citizens who have dual nationality, including Londoners born in countries affected by the ban."

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:49 pm

Syl wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The fact is, of course, that Her Majesty did not invite Trump to visit the UK on a state visit; the invitation was offered in her name.

We have, thank God, a Head of State who is above politics and who has always, throughout her long reign,
followed to the letter the true conventions of a constitutional monarchy. The Prince of Wales may well be a very different kettle of fish in that he has a reputation for endlessly interfering in political matters with his infamous "black spider" missives, but Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God, etc.,etc. is still our Queen, and as such is our legal Head of State.

The invitation was a political matter, taking into account not only political considerations but also considerations of trade (made more important by this country's wise decision to leave the demonstrably undemocratic and authoritarian European Union), economics and security.

It would have been proposed by the Cabinet Office with the approval of the Prime Minister; considered by a committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council and presented for her approval with a recommendation of acceptance.

Trump, odious a character though he may be, is the democratically elected President of the United States (Quill, it is to my great regret that we cannot meet and argue this matter in a civilized and friendly manner as befits two people with similar interests and academic qualifications) and as such is entitled to be afforded the honour of a full state visit to the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that the invitation is premature and should have been delayed for at least six months,but I fully accept that the new US administration very publicly honoured the UK with their very prompt invitation to Prime Minister May to Washington as the first international national leader to be received by Trump and that this had to be reciprocated in accordance with diplomatic convention.

As to the results of the UK internet "petition" calling for the cancellation of the invitation, this means absolutely nothing. Those who hate Trump, for whatever reason, are entitled in a free society to say so...but their freedom does not extend to controlling government policy.

And anyway, just how many of those who clicked on the petition were chanting their slogans and demonstrating in the streets when Islamic extremists murdered about 3,000 American citizens as an expression of their values and rights on 9/11?

Yes you are of course correct Mr F M....but he has been invited in her name, and a state visit will come complete with all the pomp and ceremony as all that indicates.
An official visit should have been more appropriate imo......we need to do business with the US, but do we really have to ko tow to such an odious man by giving him such a high invite?

The prospect gives me as much pleasure as it obviously gives you, Syl! One can only hope that he will not place his presidential hand on an inappropriate part of Her Majesty's anatomy.

by The Devil, You Know Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:51 pm

I can only conclude that those protesting this "ban" are in favour of honour killing, the persecution of gays and woman and religious intolerance.
or didn't they read the executive order?

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:54 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:I can only conclude that those protesting this "ban" are in favour of honour killing, the persecution of gays and woman and religious intolerance.
or didn't they read the executive order?

How do you figure that when the order is based on guilt by association

Even Israelis want clarification on this order, which would stop many of its citzens

So you are talking a pile of crap as usual

Israel is home to around 140,000 people born in the seven countries covered by the decree, including around 45,000 Iranians and 53,000 Iraqis, according to official statistics.

The majority are over the age of 65 and many fled persecution. Their Israeli passports say where they were born.

The US Consulate in Jerusalem referred a question by AFP to the US State Department, which several hours after being asked to respond was still unable to clarify whether the ban includes Israeli Jews.

The Israeli authorities were also seeking clarification, foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon told AFP.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-who-fled-Muslim-lands-may-be-swept-up-in-us-travel-ban/

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:58 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Syl wrote:

Yes you are of course correct Mr F M....but he has been invited in her name, and a state visit will come complete with all the pomp and ceremony as all that indicates.
An official visit should have been more appropriate imo......we need to do business with the US, but do we really have to ko tow to such an odious man by giving him such a high invite?

The prospect gives me as much pleasure as it obviously gives you, Syl! One can only hope that he will not place his presidential hand on an inappropriate part of Her Majesty's anatomy.

Should President Trumps state visit to Britain be banned? - Page 2 1oDjw7

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:58 pm

OOOOH....it came out too big. Razz

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:01 pm

Syl wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The prospect gives me as much pleasure as it obviously gives you, Syl! One can only hope that he will not place his presidential hand on an inappropriate part of Her Majesty's anatomy.

Syl... try using the image button on the toolbar above... 2nd one on the left of the youboob button... put 500 and 500 in size bits and paste link in url bit...

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:02 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not all from the countries listed are banned now either... was just on ITV News...

Try reading the link I gave for you to have a wider and more objective perspective...

The left wing media like to lie you know...!?

You are regurgitating again

I have read the article from the media

You are just spamming the thread now.

Try this one...

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/

by Guest Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You are regurgitating again

I have read the article from the media

You are just spamming the thread now.

Try this one...

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/

I read the media link thanks

Again you screwed up as bad as Dean

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:08 pm

Syl wrote:OOOOH....it came out too big.

In view of the exalted status of the, er, anatomical feature under discussion, would you care to re-phrase that comment, Syl?

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:09 pm

Thanks Tommy....I will do that in future. Cool

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:11 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Syl wrote:OOOOH....it came out too big.

In view of the exalted status of the, er, anatomical feature under discussion, would you care to re-phrase that comment, Syl?

Hahaha....I wont make that mistake again. Laughing

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:14 pm

Syl wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

In view of the exalted status of the, er, anatomical feature under discussion, would you care to re-phrase that comment, Syl?

Hahaha....I wont make that mistake again.

...or to paraphrase great grandma Victoria - "We are not abused..."

by Bella Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:16 pm

by Syl Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:16 pm

Lol....I have a feeling Trump will not dare to take hold of the queens hand (like he did with Maggie May) much less any other part of her.

This conversation is making me a bit queasy now. pale

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:21 pm

Syl wrote:Lol....I have a feeling Trump will not dare to take hold of the queens hand (like he did with Maggie May) much less any other part of her.

This conversation is making me a bit queasy now.

All I can say is that it's a damn good job that Maggie May was not sporting the same mpressive Budget Day cleavage that had poor old George Osborne's tongue hanging out while he was trying to deliver his speech!

Gawd knows where his digits would have finished up!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/17/theresa-may-breasts-home-secretary-cleavage-budget-sexism-westminster

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:42 am

I thought May, not the queen, invited him

The invitation to make a state visit, which will involve lavish displays of royal pageantry and a banquet hosted by the monarch, was conveyed by Prime Minister Theresa May when she visited Trump in Washington last week.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/brits-sign-antitrump-petition-to-stop-president-visiting-uk/news-story/305884f4b876dcf3aa937791927755d2

THE Queen will be hoping a petition to prevent Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK will persuade parliament, after a tweet from the new President emerged that embarrasses Kate Middleton.

Back in 2012 Mr Trump took to Twitter to discuss a story at the time where the Duchess of Cambridge was papped sunbaking topless.

Donald J. Путин Америки
✔ ‎@realDonaldTrump

Who wouldn't take Kate's picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!

The images were published in France, but not the UK. But that didn’t stop the now President encouraging paparazzi photographers from making a bit of extra cash.

The issue of paparazzi images and the Royals is particularly sensitive in the UK, after Princess Diana was killed in a car accident while being chased by photographers.

At the time of Diana’s death, Donald Trump also commented that he could have slept with her.

Shock jock Howard Stern asked him: “Why do people think it’s egotistical of you to say you could’ve gotten with Lady Di? You couldn’t gotten her, right? You could’ve nailed her.”

“I think I could have”, Trump replied.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:52 am

Microsoft working with Washington State on suit against Trump immigration order

Microsoft Corp said it has been cooperating with the Washington State Attorney General's Office, which is suing in federal court to stop President Donald Trump's order restricting immigration from several Muslim countries.

Microsoft said it was providing information about the order's impact "in order to be supportive. And we'd be happy to testify further if needed," spokesman Pete Wootton said in a statement.

this is why we want a Microsoft Skynet and not an Apple or google one. Razz

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:52 am

Former Iraqi ambassador to US banned

Lukman Faily, a former Iraqi ambassador to the US, was in the US just last week and planned to travel to Washington soon for a conference on fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

He says he contacted the US embassy in Baghdad on Sunday to determine if he would be affected by Donald Trump's executive order.

“I was told I am included in the ban,” he told CNN. “The irony as well is that I also hold British passport and I was told that because I am an Iraqi I cannot come to the United States of America.

“It reflects to me the chaotic situation in Washington. As an Iraqi there is a betrayal because it tells us that we are according to this law we are potential terrorists unless proved otherwise while we are having this common fight together, while we have the soldier's blood spilled together in the fight against Isil,” he said.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:55 am

Most British protest ever Razz

https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/826136887358275584/photo/1

by Syl Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:55 pm

veya_victaous[b] wrote:I thought May, not the queen, invited him

The invitation to make a state visit, which will involve lavish displays of royal pageantry and a banquet hosted by the monarch, was conveyed by Prime Minister Theresa May when she visited Trump in Washington last week.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/brits-sign-antitrump-petition-to-stop-president-visiting-uk/news-story/305884f4b876dcf3aa937791927755d2
THE Queen will be hoping a petition to prevent Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK will persuade parliament, after a tweet from the new President emerged that embarrasses Kate Middleton.

Back in 2012 Mr Trump took to Twitter to discuss a story at the time where the Duchess of Cambridge was papped sunbaking topless.

The images were published in France, but not the UK. But that didn’t stop the now President encouraging paparazzi photographers from making a bit of extra cash.

The issue of paparazzi images and the Royals is particularly sensitive in the UK, after Princess Diana was killed in a car accident while being chased by photographers.

At the time of Diana’s death, Donald Trump also commented that he could have slept with her.

Shock jock Howard Stern asked him: “Why do people think it’s egotistical of you to say you could’ve gotten with Lady Di? You couldn’t gotten her, right? You could’ve nailed her.”

“I think I could have”, Trump replied.

Theresa May invited him on behalf of and with permission from the queen Veya.
I think a state visit has to come from the head of the royal family.
If May had invited him personally that would be an official visit, which would not have all the pomp and ceremony of a state visit.

by HoratioTarr Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:33 pm

Political relations between America and Britain are more important here than personal feelings. That's what it all boils down to.

If everyone in this country really cared, they'd have signed that petition. But they didn't. Because in reality, the majority don't give a shit whether Trump comes here or not.

As for Trump being a sexist old groper, seems to me he's keeping up a tradition in the face of that notorious womanising cheat and bastion of hypocrisy, JFK, and 'There's no salty stains on my blotter' Clinton whose Presidential Trombone was either in a perpetual state of tumescence or in some secretary's gob.

You voted them in, don't forget.

All those theatrical luvvies climbing on the bandwagon at the movie awards did my head in too. People who get paid millions for pretending to be other people. Go out and get a fucking real job in the real world, you prats, then your opinions might just have a ring of selfless authenticity about them.

by Guest Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:44 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:Political relations between America and Britain are more important here than personal feelings. That's what it all boils down to.

If everyone in this country really cared, they'd have signed that petition. But they didn't. Because in reality, the majority don't give a shit whether Trump comes here or not.

As for Trump being a sexist old groper, seems to me he's keeping up a tradition in the face of that notorious womanising cheat and bastion of hypocrisy, JFK, and 'There's no salty stains on my blotter' Clinton whose Presidential Trombone was either in a perpetual state of tumescence or in some secretary's gob.

You voted them in, don't forget.

All those theatrical luvvies climbing on the bandwagon at the movie awards did my head in too. People who get paid millions for pretending to be other people. Go out and get a fucking real job in the real world, you prats, then your opinions might just have a ring of selfless authenticity about them.

Wow you just went out of your way to try and tell people not to be hypocritical, angry and pedantic, whilst being pedantic and angry yourself. As seen people have a right to express their views as to why thy think something is wrong and there is a very good reason for this. Such pressure can bring about change, especially in a western democracy. This is what you are failing to grasp. The more unpopular Trump becomes, the more and more his close allies will desert him, because at the end of the day this always boils down to peer pressure.

Do you really think Trump would lose a close ally, like the UK, because people are being outspoken against him, when he needs every ally he can get at the moment? Its the UK with Brexit coming up that really needs him, so why would remainers want to help that happen? Its not just that he is sexist, racist etc but clearly dangerous of descending the US into complete discord throughout the country. You may bow down to people, others do not want to do so, when it comes the President of the most powerful country in the world. I would rather he comes and has his ego ripped to shreds with people on the streets booing him at every turn. He would absolutely hate it and it would harm his prestige.

by Syl Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:52 pm

You can still do business with people without rolling over and being a doormat.
Let him come....just don't get out the fancy bunting and the best silver. Cool

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:31 pm

Hmmm, I'm not sure that banning him is a good idea. Half of Europe is already pissed off with us, so we don't need to lose another "friend".

by Original Quill Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmm, I'm not sure that banning him is a good idea. Half of Europe is already pissed off with us, so we don't need to lose another "friend".

So, rescind Brexit if you're worried about what they think. Wink

Besides, no one in Europe gives a shit about Trump. Hell, no one in America does, either. Razz

by Raggamuffin Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Hmmm, I'm not sure that banning him is a good idea. Half of Europe is already pissed off with us, so we don't need to lose another "friend".

So, rescind Brexit if you're worried about what they think. Besides, no one in Europe gives a shit about Trump. Hell, no one in America does, either.

I think you missed the point Quill. We don't want to lose any more allies. It's nothing to do with what Europe thinks.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:39 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, rescind Brexit if you're worried about what they think. Besides, no one in Europe gives a shit about Trump. Hell, no one in America does, either.

I think you missed the point Quill. We don't want to lose any more allies. It's nothing to do with what Europe thinks.

I'm just saying, Brexit is a separate matter. And you are overestimating the popularity of Trump. Banning him may make you more popular.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:51 pm

Of course the president of the United States should be made to be most welcome here...

by Miffs2 Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you missed the point Quill. We don't want to lose any more allies. It's nothing to do with what Europe thinks.

I'm just saying, Brexit is a separate matter. And you are overestimating the popularity of Trump. Banning him may make you more popular.

Why should we ban him? He is the elected president.

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:26 pm

nicko wrote:Did not Obama ban all Iraq's from the USA in 2011?

No
not all Iraqis
those that had a green card or had already been vetted where fine
really he jut stop process Iraqi refugee claims or green card requests.

Not like trump at all
there were cases where People that where legally residents of the USA for years and had green cards etc that where being denied entry returning from holidays

by veya_victaous Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:30 pm

@syl
Interesting, many articles suggest there is long running animosity between the British royals and trump. But I guess the Queen would put nation first queen

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:50 pm

Syl wrote:Lol....I have a feeling Trump will not dare to take hold of the queens hand (like he did with Maggie May) much less any other part of her.

This conversation is making me a bit queasy now.

I did wonder about the hand holding while they were going down those couple of steps...

Looked to me that it was him who gestured for a bit of a helping hand to steady him while navigating the steps... Maybe he was wearing some really heavy body armour under his clothes...?

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:51 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:Did not Obama ban all Iraq's from the USA in 2011?

No
not all Iraqis
those that had a green card or had already been vetted where fine
really he jut stop process Iraqi refugee claims or green card requests.

Not like trump at all
there were cases where People that where legally residents of the USA for years and had green cards etc that where being denied entry returning from holidays

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/

by Original Quill Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:54 pm

Daren't he do this with the Queen?

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:Did not Obama ban all Iraq's from the USA in 2011?

No
not all Iraqis
those that had a green card or had already been vetted where fine
really he jut stop process Iraqi refugee claims or green card requests.

Not like trump at all
there were cases where People that where legally residents of the USA for years and had green cards etc that where being denied entry returning from holidays

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/

And

like it say REFUGEES it even in the link
NOT ALL CITIZENS of Iraq which is what Trump has done

And to think, they let you vote to destroy your nations economy Cool

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:31 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

No
not all Iraqis
those that had a green card or had already been vetted where fine
really he jut stop process Iraqi refugee claims or green card requests.

Not like trump at all
there were cases where People that where legally residents of the USA for years and had green cards etc that where being denied entry returning from holidays

http://conservativetribune.com/obamas-state-dept-refugees/

2. Trump ban v Obama's 2011 ban
It is claimed Donald Trump's travel ban is similar to what Barack Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. However, Obama responded to an actual threat, whereas Trump issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. Obama's actions have been described as a "refugee application slowdown".

Obama did not ban Iraqis on a wholesale basis and Iraqis continued to be allowed to enter the US but at a slower rate. The key issue here is that restrictions in the past have reflected actionable intelligence. There is no evidence that these banned countries are the sources of an extra threat level to the US.

3. No. of people affected by ban
Donald Trump's administration has said only 109 people out of 325,000were affected by the travel ban. However, this figure doesn't take into account people trying to board planes, people detained once their flight landed and visa holders. With this in mind, it's been suggested the figure is close to 90,000.
Tens of thousands of people will be affected immediately and more as the 120 days wear on.

4. Trump is fulfilling a campaign pledge
Donald Trump actually promised a total ban on Muslims coming into the US and "extreme vetting". The former is illegal under the US constitution. But his opponents failed to comprehend just how ignorant he is on the legal system of his own country.

5. The seven countries were identified by Obama administration as sources of terror
This claim by the President on Sunday is so misleading as to be comical. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, the rest came from the Lebanon, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates.
None of these countries are on the banned list - nor is Pakistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda have bases or Tunisia - the biggest supplier of fighters to Islamic State. Belgium or France which are the home countries of numerous terrorists behind recent attacks are also not on the list.

6. White House to ask foreign visitors for social media info and mobile phone contacts
This is reported by CNN. Such a move would be pointless as actual terrorists don't wander about with their phones carrying secret contact information.

7. No attacks have come from any of the seven countries highlighted in recent years
Not true. Plots have been foiled that do involve people who have connections with these countries.

8. Travel ban will make the US safe again
The United States is relatively safe from terrorist attacks especially those perpetrated by foreigners. Right-wing extremists probably pose as much of a threat as other "home grown" or "lone wolf" Islamic terrorists. And in any case, the term "terrorist" has a fluid meaning. Does it only now apply to Muslims? Are white supremacists who use violence not terrorists?

The travel ban, focused on Muslim majority countries, will not make America safer. It will expose the US to the continued charge of hypocrisy and double standards which are part of the cause of anti-American feeling around the world, especially in those parts of the world where the US is conducting military operations.
It's not possible to claim to be a country that sees all people as equal under the law - and then showing that this is not the case.

Those who have helped the US in their wars in Iraq in particular will feel deeply betrayed. Combine that with pre-existing fear and hatred for the US and the spread of fundamentalist Wahhabi ideology - recruitment to extremism is bound to grow.

When al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks it intended to create a clash of civilisations between the Islamic and the Western worlds.

That is what Osama bin Laden got in 2001 - and what Donald Trump has continued to deliver, just like Barack Obama and George W Bush before him.

http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-travel-ban-fact-checked-how-the-claims-measure-up-10749909

by Guest Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:16 am

Miffs2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm just saying, Brexit is a separate matter. And you are overestimating the popularity of Trump. Banning him may make you more popular.

Why should we ban him? He is the elected president.

Agree

by Syl Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:07 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@syl
Interesting, many articles suggest there is long running animosity between the British royals and trump. But I guess the Queen would put nation first

In reality I doubt the queen has any say in political matters, she does what she is told to do.
I think wheeling her, and all the pomp and ceremony of a state visit out for him will be for reasons the ordinary man in the street wont know.
Money and power, agreements and promises will be the deciding factor here not friendship.

We voted Brexit to gain back control of our country....now it seems we are sucking up to a man who wants to control the world...on his terms.

by Syl Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:09 pm

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Miffs2 wrote:

Why should we ban him? He is the elected president.

Agree

I think most people object to the state visit, not the fact he has been invited.

by 'Wolfie Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:00 pm

CONSIDERING that all a petition to the Parliament really does, initially, is to have the matter discussed in your House of Commons -- what's the odds that the official Trumpster visit is 'done and dusted' by the time they get through debating those issues anyway ???

As for "embarrassing the Queen", surely various members of the Royal Family themselves are quite capable of doing just that over the years, without any outside help -- Prince Phillip, the late Queen Mum, Princess Margaret, Prince Charles, Prince Phillip, Diana, Fergie.. queen

by nicko Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:46 pm

No one "embarrasses our Queen, she's had many years experience of meeting hundreds of dictators,bigot's, murderers ect. They don't phase her at all.

by Original Quill Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:52 pm

Miffs2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm just saying, Brexit is a separate matter. And you are overestimating the popularity of Trump. Banning him may make you more popular.

Why should we ban him? He is the elected president.

I don't recommend banning him, either. I have nothing against the visit. I'm just saying, banning might make Britain more popular. Numerically, the man has no support...just a sprinkling of reflexive conservatives around the world.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:48 pm

nicko wrote:No one "embarrasses our Queen, she's had many years experience of meeting hundreds of dictators,bigot's, murderers ect. They don't phase her at all.

One of the more sometimes unfortunate by-products of diplomacy is that Heads of State are required, when it is considered expedient by government either to solicit favour or, of equal importance, to try to exert influence, to host their opposite numbers at the highest level of honour, a full State Visit.

Trump is undoubtedly the current Head of State of one of our traditionally closest allies and is, like his predecessors, entitled to a State Visit to the UK(albeit, IMO, a bit too soon).

You're certainly spot on about the Queen not being fazed by any of it...after all she had to host the obnoxious Nicolae Ceausescu, the positively evil Robert Mugabe and the highly unpopular (certainly in the eyes of many servicemen) Hirohito of Japan, and it's a racing certainty that she will deal with Trump's presence in London with the same level of dignity, courtesy and expertise.

by nicko Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:48 pm

I wrote Phase, that,s from Star Trek isn't it? Phaser's?

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:59 pm

[quote="nicko"]I wrote Phase, that,s from Star Trek isn't it? Phaser's?[/quote

I wasn't meaning to correct your spelling, Nicko...just applying the relatively modern English (late 19th century) verb "to faze" meaning to discompose, ruffle or agitate.

Her Majesty zapping Trump with a phaser if he misbehaves does conjure up a wonderful scenario, though!

by HoratioTarr Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:38 pm

Syl wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@syl
Interesting, many articles suggest there is long running animosity between the British royals and trump. But I guess the Queen would put nation first

In reality I doubt the queen has any say in political matters, she does what she is told to do.
I think wheeling her, and all the pomp and ceremony of a state visit out for him will be for reasons the ordinary man in the street wont know.
Money and power, agreements and promises will be the deciding factor here not friendship.

We voted Brexit to gain back control of our country....now it seems we are sucking up to a man who wants to control the world...on his terms.

The jury's out on Trump for me. On the surface, I don't like him, but then all I perceive about him is coloured by the media. Actions will speak louder, in time. So let's wait and see. He's that wealthy, I doubt he'll be in anyone's pockets, and that bull headed I don't think he'll be anyone's puppet. I'm personally sick to death of puppet leaders...so let's hope he does the right thing by the world and proves everyone wrong.

We voted Brexit to regain control, as you say, and we'll see other countries follow suit in time. The EU will collapse.

by nicko Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:48 pm

No problem Fred !

by Tommy Monk Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:11 pm

https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Eah1niD0dqs

by HoratioTarr Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Eah1niD0dqs

Answers on a postage stamp, please!
lol!

by Tommy Monk Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:03 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Eah1niD0dqs

Answers on a postage stamp, please!

Probably see more answers on a pinhead...

by Sponsored content