latest portrait of the queen
NanSu Uyeda
said she looks either like jack nickolson hamming it up or one of her
corgi's having a stroke. can't wait to see this latest picture. i
remember one a few years back, that was terribly un flattering to her.
does she set for these portraits or what? does the artist use a picture
and just cut loose? from what i've read about her, she has a keen sense
of humor. i guess she will need it with this latest onslaught. nansu.
Steve Brooks
"NanSu Uyeda wrote
This is presumably the Lucien Freud portrait..All I can say is - if you
wanted a purely representational picture this is not the artist you would
commission it from. The Queen's advisors will have been well aware of this.
--
SB
Default
The Telegraph seems to be very optimistic. Seeing as that tends to be a
pretty pro-Royal paper (As they all should be) I would imagine there's a
little more to the painting than meets the casual observer. Indeed, she
does look kind of mischeivious in the picture. If you look at her eyes
rather than her chin, then you see an entirely different picture of her.
To be honest, it's already acting as more than a portrait but as a
jumping block to thoughts about the Monarchy. I've been reading in
various places that several MPs are probing around the issue of whether
to abolish the Monarchy or not, using the Queens 50th Jubilee as an
"ideal" opportunity to launch a rather ironic Royal Commission
investigating her political, legal and Real Life responsibilities.
To be honest, I think those in favour of a democratically appointed head
of state shouldn't just stop the buck there. If you're in favour of
"More power to the people" then I think we should go right down and have
democratically elected judges, teachers, doctors etc. In fact, all
public service employees should be elected! Let's see the vote on who
should be our street's democratically elected dustman!
In point of fact, voting figures have demonstrated that the public want
less power than they ever have done. The last election had one of the
lowest voter turnouts for many years. This goes to demonstrate that if
the public can't be arsed about who gets to actually decide the policies
in this country (Though why the hell they should have voted for any
Government who thinks that it's acceptable to contravene the European
Human Rights Act even after only a few years since it was brought into
British Statute (By them!) simply because they think Johnny Foreigner
may be a terrorist, I have no idea.. (The Lords tried their damndest,
bless 'em, but that dastardly Parliament Act meant those democratically
elected Draconian weasle scum politicians could force their damnation of
human rights through with only minor changes)) then why the hell should
they give a shit about electing a Head of State who probably won't be
half as good at his/her job as the Queen anyway?
Get a reality check, people.
John
Simon Jones
"NanSu Uyeda" <uye...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9114-3C...@storefull-2113.public.lawson.webtv.net...
It's by Lucien Freud. It is exactly how you'd expect a Lucien Freud picture
to look like. Only more flattering than usual.
Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Anybody who knows anything about
the artist shouldn't be surprised.
Simon.
--
* Sorry, no taglines today.
keena...@btopenworld.com
http://keenafilms.users.btopenworld.com
Steve Brooks
"Default" wrote
[Monarchy]
> To be honest, I think those in favour of a democratically appointed head
> of state shouldn't just stop the buck there. If you're in favour of
> "More power to the people" then I think we should go right down and have
> democratically elected judges, teachers, doctors etc. In fact, all
> public service employees should be elected! Let's see the vote on who
> should be our street's democratically elected dustman!
Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
> In point of fact, voting figures have demonstrated that the public want
> less power than they ever have done.
Or that they've realised that voting under our system doesn't represent a
significant amount of power.
--
SB
John Duffey
<IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
Why not?
Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
enough at what he's being asked to do?
To be honest, having democratically elected anyone is a bad idea.
There's just no way that the public can be expected to reliably choose
anyone, be they a doctor, teacher, nurse or politician.
John, who thinks the whole system is a bloody joke and therefore tries
to have as little to do with it as possible.
Simon Jones
"John Duffey" <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3c263287....@news.argonet.co.uk...
> >Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
>
> Why not?
Because doctors get to be doctors because they have learnt stuff and proven
(supposedly) to other people that they can do it.
Politicians, on the other hand, just have to pretend for long enough that
they're good enough to do it, doesn't matter whether they actually can or
not.
> John, who thinks the whole system is a bloody joke and therefore tries
> to have as little to do with it as possible.
See above.
Steve Brooks
"John Duffey" wrote
. "Steve Brooks wrote:
> >Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
>
> Why not?
>
> Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
> able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
> enough at what he's being asked to do?
Responsible enough? Of course.. Educated enough? Probably not... Informed
enough? Definitely not.
> To be honest, having democratically elected anyone is a bad idea.
> There's just no way that the public can be expected to reliably choose
> anyone, be they a doctor, teacher, nurse or politician.
Democracy - at least as practised in GB-PLC - is a blunt instrument. I
still thinks it's preferable to any of the alternatives that anyone's
actually tried.
> John, who thinks the whole system is a bloody joke and therefore tries
> to have as little to do with it as possible.
If you think it's that bad you should be keen to change it.
--
SB
The Arcane Chas
serious contemplation, Steve Brooks <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> put
finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>
>"John Duffey" wrote
>. "Steve Brooks wrote:
>
>> >Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
>> able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
>> enough at what he's being asked to do?
>
>Responsible enough? Of course..
Do you really believe that? Most people, who can be bothered to vote,
don't even consider the relative merits of the candidates. They simply
vote for the party that they (and often their parents) have always voted
for.
>Educated enough? Probably not... Informed
>enough? Definitely not.
Agreed.
--
Cheers,
Chas.
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".
Steve Brooks
"The Arcane Chas" wrote
> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
> >
> >"John Duffey" wrote
> >. "Steve Brooks wrote:
> >
> >> >Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >> Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
> >> able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
> >> enough at what he's being asked to do?
> >
> >Responsible enough? Of course..
>
> Do you really believe that? Most people, who can be bothered to vote,
> don't even consider the relative merits of the candidates. They simply
> vote for the party that they (and often their parents) have always voted
> for.
True enough.. But we were talking about electing doctors here.. I was
assuming political affiliations would not be an issue.
--
SB
John Duffey
<IDontHave...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
>> able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
>> enough at what he's being asked to do?
>
>Responsible enough? Of course.. Educated enough? Probably not... Informed
>enough? Definitely not.
As with a lot of things, I'm not entirely sure I'd like to inform the
general public about a lot of things.
>Democracy - at least as practised in GB-PLC - is a blunt instrument. I
>still thinks it's preferable to any of the alternatives that anyone's
>actually tried.
Democracy in this country is one of the best implimentations of it
IMHO. The three-way power sharing thing is a very good and very safe
idea. To corrupt one is possible, to corrupt all three is quite
another. The Labour government seem to be trying as hard as they can
to give themselves all of the power and that should be regarded as
very worrying.
>> John, who thinks the whole system is a bloody joke and therefore tries
>> to have as little to do with it as possible.
>
>If you think it's that bad you should be keen to change it.
Ah, but then that would imply that I could come up with a better
system, which to be honest I don't think I can.
John
The Arcane Chas
serious contemplation, Steve Brooks <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> put
It was the "responsibility" of voters that I was doubting. :-}
Steve Brooks
"The Arcane Chas" wrote
> Steve Brooks finger to keyboard and produced the following;
> >"The Arcane Chas" wrote
> >> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
> >> >"John Duffey" wrote
> >> >. "Steve Brooks wrote:
> >> >> >Democratically elected doctors? I'm not sure that's a good idea..
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not?
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you not think that the general public is responsible enough to be
> >> >> able to judge whether a person is qualified for the role and good
> >> >> enough at what he's being asked to do?
> >> >
> >> >Responsible enough? Of course..
> >>
> >> Do you really believe that? Most people, who can be bothered to vote,
> >> don't even consider the relative merits of the candidates. They simply
> >> vote for the party that they (and often their parents) have always
voted
> >> for.
> >
> >True enough.. But we were talking about electing doctors here.. I was
> >assuming political affiliations would not be an issue.
>
> It was the "responsibility" of voters that I was doubting. :-}
Well, I think that the vast majority of the people who vote in political
elections think that they're doing the right thing. If they were to vote in
medical elections they'd try to do the same without being lead astray by
political parties. If they were also educated and informed enough to make
good decisions - then they probably would.
I am one of those deluded types who believes that people are basically good
despite all the evidence to the contrary...(With the exception of Thatcher -
naturally..)
--
SB
The Arcane Chas
serious contemplation, Steve Brooks <IDontHave...@hotmail.com> put
finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>I am one of those deluded types who believes that people are basically good
>despite all the evidence to the contrary...
LOL
How old did you say you were? :-}