Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !

Same old treason and high handed contempt for the voters.

They MUST debate the "vital" issue of euthenasia - but whether
or not there is any reason for us to stay in the clutches of the
"EU" crime syndicate is "not important".

Bliar or Howard, what difference is there ? Bugger all. !!!

Vote BNP and get these bastards out !!!

-----------
>Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:28:31 +0000
>Subject: [eurorealist] TORIES TORIES SAME OLD STORIES
>TORY PEERS JOIN LABOUR AGAINST THE PEOPLE
>
>MANY THANKS TO THOSE WHO HELPED IN THIS LOBBYING OPERATION
>
>Although we are still trying to find out everything that happened in
this
>Tory voting scandal, and because certain Lords misled some of you and
one
>internet activist spread malicious comments about our efforts, I am
>setting out below the facts as we know them so far.


>Rodney Atkinson
>
>Over 50 Peers had signed a House of Lords motion (in the form of an
>amendment to a motion before the House of Lords Liaison Committee) to
set
>up a Select Committee to inquire into the balance of economic
advantage of
>the UK membership of the European Union.
>
>The signatories to the motion included former Prime Minister Margaret
>Thatcher, the proposer Lord Moran a cross bencher, the former
Chairman of
>the Conservative Party and Cabinet Minister Lord Tebbit, the former
>Speaker of the House of Commons Lord Weatherill and the former Home
>Secretary, Lord Waddington. Other signatories included Lord Vinson
and
>Lord Stoddart of the CIB.
>
>The debate and vote was held on Wednesday 14th January. The attempt
to set
>up the inquiry was defeated by 189 to 58. The Conservative Party did
not
>vote as a party - in other words there was no whip. It seems that
almost
>as many Tory Peers voted against as for the inquiry!
>
>But there was certainly a Labour Whipped vote since on a very quiet
(non
>Government business) Wednesday circa 250 Lords voted, most of them
Labour
>or Liberal Democrat. The debate was cut short before many supporters
of
>the motion could speak and Tory Peers (in particular Lord Brabazon,
the
>Chairman of the Liaison Committee) were active in cutting the debate
short.
>
>The Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism had learned from Lord
>Strathclyde's office that there would be no Conservative Whip applied
to
>this vital vote. In other words the informing of the Houses of
Parliament
>and the public about the economic facts of British membership of the
>European Union was of no interest whatsoever to the Conservative
Party as
>a whole.
>
>Lord Strathclyde's office stated that it was Michael Howard's office
which
>had decided that there should be no PARTY vote on this matter (We are
>trying to confirm this). The Tory Chief Whip Lord Cope in a letter to
me
>admitted that the "whipping" of such a vote would have been perfectly
>possible, despite Lord Strathclyde's claim that "it would be very
strange
>to try to impose a party whip on a vote relating to the Select
Committee
>work of the House". One Peer - Baroness Miller of Hendon even said
that
>there was to be no vote at all! So much then for the well-informed
(!)
>defenders of our Constitution in the House of Lords!
>
>Instead of choosing this vital Inquiry into the economic past and
future
>of the most important relationship in the history of the United
Kingdom
>(including the possible impoverishment of the British people) the
House of
>Lords approved a Select Committee to examine Lord Joffe's Patient
>(Assisted Dying) Bill!! Perhaps their Lordships should have called it
>United Kingdom (Assisted Dying) Bill!
>
>The Crossbench Peer Lord Moran who proposed the motion rightly said
"such
>a strongly supported request on a matter of great public importance
can be
>regarded as unprecedented. It seems extraordinary that it should have
been
>brushed aside as it was by the liaison committee."

>As a Democrat Lord Moran believed that the British people deserved to
be
>given "clear and unbiased information on issues that affect all of
them
>and their children". But many Tory Peers and the Party hierarchy
obviously
>did not agree!
>
>With breathtaking arrogance of the kind we associate with communist
and
>fascist regimes the Labour Peer Lord Peston said the motion was
"simply
>absurd. I find it inconceivable we could set up a committee to do
this job
>that would get within a million miles of agreement. All it would do
is
>cause trouble," Now there is a typically fascist view of the workings
of
>Democracy all a bit too much trouble old boy!
>
>Peston went on to say that "It would be impossible to conduct an
inquiry
>of such breadth without spending a great deal of money". (compare
this to
[..]

"Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message news:e15b
> Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
> electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !

do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?

"zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
news:bcac
> "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
news:e15b
> > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
> > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
>
> do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?

Because she's Mrs Mountbatten.

"farmer giles" <giles> wrote in message
news:dn6c
>
> "zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
> news:bcac
....
> >
> > do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?
>
> Because she's Mrs Mountbatten.

MountbatHUN more like.

"Hognoxious" <hognoxious_kosher> wrote in message
news:0e4c
> "farmer giles" <giles> wrote in message
> news:dn6c
> >
> > "zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
> > news:bcac
> ...
> > >
> > > do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?
> >
> > Because she's Mrs Mountbatten.
>
> MountbatHUN more like.
>Hognoxious is an incredibly boring fat old git.
Mike.

"zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
news:bcac
> "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
news:e15b
> > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
> > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
>
> do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?

No. I generally refer to her as Frau Brenda.

In message <400fc409>, Wotan <Wotan> writes
>
>"zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
>news:bcac
>> "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
>news:e15b
>> > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
>> > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
>> > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
>>
>> do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?
>
>No. I generally refer to her as Frau Brenda.
>Good god bob - don't tell me you read Private Eye?

<Faints dead away>

"farmer giles" <giles> writes:

> "zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
> news:bcac
> > "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
> news:e15b
> > > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> > > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for the
> > > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
> >
> > do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why not?
>
> Because she's Mrs Mountbatten.

or Mrs Battenberg (Prince Philip's mother's surname) or even Mrs
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (Prince Philip's father's
surname).

Alan

"Alan R Williams" <alanrw> wrote in message
news:gfsf
> "farmer giles" <giles> writes:
>> or Mrs Battenberg (Prince Philip's mother's surname) or even Mrs
> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (Prince Philip's father's
> surname).
>

I know that you are correct, up to a point, although Prince Philip was never
a Battenberg. The name Mountbatten is of course a literal translation of
Battenberg which was his mother's family name as you say - she was Alice of
Battenberg. But he only adopted the Mountbatten name because he had to find
something to call himself when he began his courtship with Elizabeth - up to
that point he had simply called himself 'Philip of Greece'. The thing about
surnames is always debatable with royalty, because they usually take the
name of their royal title, and Prince Philip's father was Andrew Prince of
Greece. Neither Philip nor his father have a drop of Greek blood though,
being largely Danish and German in origin - but then aren't most of us!

"farmer giles" <giles> wrote in message
news:lle2
>
> "Alan R Williams" <alanrw> wrote in message
> news:gfsf
> > "farmer giles" <giles> writes:
> >
> > > "zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
> > > news:bcac
> > > > "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
> > > news:e15b
> > > > > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> > > > > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt
for the
> > > > > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
> > > >
> > > > do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not,
why not?
> > >
> > > Because she's Mrs Mountbatten.
> >
> > or Mrs Battenberg (Prince Philip's mother's surname) or even Mrs
> > Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (Prince Philip's father's
> > surname).
> >
>
> I know that you are correct, up to a point, although Prince Philip
was never
> a Battenberg. The name Mountbatten is of course a literal
translation of
> Battenberg which was his mother's family name as you say - she was
Alice of
> Battenberg. But he only adopted the Mountbatten name because he had
to find
> something to call himself when he began his courtship with
Elizabeth - up to
> that point he had simply called himself 'Philip of Greece'. The
thing about
> surnames is always debatable with royalty, because they usually take
the
> name of their royal title, and Prince Philip's father was Andrew
Prince of
> Greece. Neither Philip nor his father have a drop of Greek blood
though,
> being largely Danish and German in origin - but then aren't most of
us!
>
CERTAINLY BLOODY NOT !

I was here long before the Romans.

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt> wrote in message
news:fwgx
> In message <400fc409>, Wotan <Wotan>
writes
> >
> >"zzzzara" <zzzzara> wrote in message
> >news:bcac
> >> "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
> >news:e15b
> >> > Anybody who hoped that Mr. Heckt (ask Howard) was going to
> >> > be any less of a back-stabbing traitor with utter contempt for
the
> >> > electorate as his former boss, John Major, can forget it !
> >>
> >> do you refer to the Queen as Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? If not, why
not?
> >
> >No. I generally refer to her as Frau Brenda.
> >
> >
> Good god bob - don't tell me you read Private Eye?
>
> <Faints dead away>
> --
> Jonathan Bratt

I don't read everything. But what I don't read, I get briefed on.

"Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message news:7b77
>
> "farmer giles" <giles> wrote in message
> news:lle2
> for the
> why not?
> was never
> translation of
> Alice of
> to find
> Elizabeth - up to
> thing about
> the
> Prince of
> though,
> us!
> CERTAINLY BLOODY NOT !
>
> I was here long before the Romans.

Post evidence of your ancestry, please.

RC

"Robin Carmody" <robin> wrote in message news:j8u1
> "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message news:7b77
> news:e15b
> for the
> why not?
> was never
> translation of
> Alice of
> to find
> Elizabeth - up to
> thing about
> the
> Prince of
> though,
> us!
>
> Post evidence of your ancestry, please.
>
> RC

Yup. We want to see proof that you are a pure-bred Celt or Pict.

Ian

"Ian Bailey" <ianbailey> wrote in message
news:8c90
> "Robin Carmody" <robin> wrote in message
news:j8u1
> > "Wotan" <Wotan> wrote in message
news:7b77
>
> Yup. We want to see proof that you are a pure-bred Celt or Pict.
>
He's not a Celt or Pict, but a Neanderthal

In message <40107b77>, Wotan <Wotan> writes
>CERTAINLY BLOODY NOT !
>
>I was here long before the Romans.

Thought I could smell something rotting.