JUST FOR A LAUGH

jke an

joke j

titanic

axe

tom

 

Image

After the Speech

Image result for cartoons of royals

Image result for cartoons of trump impeachment

joke2p
Maybe a big enough distance for you, mate, but I’d prefer if you found a home on Pluto.

Thanks to John and Tom…and Twitter

47 thoughts on “JUST FOR A LAUGH”

  1. It should be crystal clear to all Scots now that they cannot have Tory rule from London and devolution.
    These are mutually exclusive concepts.
    This,of course,is how British Labour designed the system.
    If they had truly wanted a federal sytem,they would have built in safeguards to protect the devolved administrations from the outset.
    But they didn’t and we must assume that they did so deliberately,to paraphrase a certain British Labour peer.
    The too feart Scots are going to have to decide whether they want Scots to run Scotland and I don’t mean the Goves and Foxs of this world or leave it up to England’s Tories.
    Sorry,not feeling much like laughing today.
    Probably down to the puncture I couldn’t fix on my bike yesterday.
    Apologies.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Puncture or no puncture, you are right.

      The Tories didn’t want devolution at the time and voted against it.

      They took part in the elections in Wales and Scotland becasue there were a few cushie jobs in it.

      It hampers them running everything their way. I suspect that they think that a majority of 80 should allow them to do whatever they want all over the islands.

      Now NI, Wales and Scotland have voted not to accept the withdrawal, they must be plotting how to get rid of our democracy that doesn’t accord with theirs.

      But everytime they come the hardman, they do themselves even more harm.

      Hope you get your bike fixed.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. I agree that there are a lot of Scots who are too feart. I also think that there are a great many who just don’t care and don’t pay attention. They could talk in great detail about the latest episode of Love Island or have a strong opinion about Megan Markle but couldn’t tell you who the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. These are the folk who would only cotton on that something was amiss when they were stood against a wall, staring at a row of men with guns pointed at them while hearing the words ready, aim and fire.

      There’s a lot of them about and as far as I’m concerned they’re the most frustrating of all the obstacles we face in our fight for separation. As well to howl at the moon as hope for any change there though.

      Good cartoons by the way. I’d forgotten the West Asian fable so thanks for reminding me of it. I’ve saved it in my stuff worth remembering folder.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Loads of people who know absolutely nothing about politics, who never bother voting and who complain when the tax goes up or the benefits go down, the pension age rises or the bin men start coming once every two weeks.

        I remember meeting this guy when I was door knocking. He was one of these guys who had reached 30 and never worked. He complained that the SNP were useless and that working (huh?) people should vote Labour. This was just as Labour were bringing in draconian benefits changes, which the Tories would make even worse.

        Duh.

        Or the lad I was talking to in the gym not long after that, who complained that the SNP should do something about the benefits system and that was why he wouldn’t vote for them.

        Duh.

        That seems to chime with the West Asian Fable.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. Greig: “I agree that there are a lot of Scots who are too feart. I also think that there are a great many who just don’t care and don’t pay attention.”

        I was surprised to learn about the failure of the Scottish referendum of 1979:

        Wiki: “The government returned to the issue of devolution in November 1977. Separate bills for Scotland and Wales were published and support from the Liberals was obtained. In spite of continued opposition requiring another guillotine motion, the Bills were passed.”

        “The [Scotland Act 1978] was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted “Yes” in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.”

        “A second referendum to create a devolved legislature in Scotland was held in 1997 under a newly elected Labour government, which led to the enactment of the Scotland Act 1998 and the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999.”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yep, that was a sneaking thing to do.

          I suppose it backfired on them, because the proposed assembly would only had been some sort of advisory body with little or no real power.

          Almost undoubtedly not worth having.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Tris……Greig’s comment prompted me to look at a little history……of people not paying attention, and (in the case of the failed referendum of 1979 for example) not caring enough to actually vote.

            I see your point of how the 1979 vote may have been in fact a positive thing, although it delayed the establishment of a Scottish Parliament for about 20 years.

            My first thought had been that ironically, considering the Scottish referendum of 1979, the Independence referendum, and the Brexit referendum, the voters of the UK (by voting “wrongly”…or perhaps failing to vote) manage to screw up every opportunity they have to determine public policy. (I thought that was more of an American trait. 😉 )

            However, Scotland did vote “right” on Brexit.

            Interesting that efforts regarding a devolved Scottish parliament had gone on for a long time (Wiki says).

            Wiki: “Initial Scottish proposals in the [1707] negotiation over the Union suggested a devolved Parliament be retained in Scotland, but this was not accepted by the English negotiators.”

            “In May 1913 the House of Commons passed the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill 1913 (also referred to as the Scottish Home Rule Bill) by 204 votes to 159. The bill was supported by Liberals and opposed by Unionists. It did not proceed further due to the outbreak of the First World War.”

            Then the Scotland Act 1978, which provided that an elected assembly would be set up in Edinburgh provided that a referendum be held on 1 March 1979.

            Then the Scotland Act of 1998.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scottish_devolution

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Yes. The commitment of successive Westminster regimes to democracy has been at best lukewarm. It never seems to occur to the idiots that they themselves succeeded in losing Ireland thanks to their intransigence, stupidity, ill-treatment, abuse and murderous behaviour toward them. They’re doing the same, at least in principle, to Scotland now: talking down to us, treating us with contempt, ignoring us, laying down the law for us regardless of what the law actually is – ach, no point in going on with that. I look forward to hearing the First Minister on the subject of the independence referendum later this month. Not long now.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Ed…..And presumably, Parliament’s intransigence, stupidity, etc, lost them their North American colonies too. Except for Canada of course, because Canadians are wusses by nature and didn’t have the gumption to join the revolution. So now Canada still suffers the indignity of monarchy, and has been reduced to a sanctuary for disaffected Princes.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Oh well, it’s not as if the monarch has any real effect on the political life of Canada, Danny: unlike American presidents, the Head of State has no executive power. (Maybe I shouldn’t be taking what you said too seriously, Danny, but I’ve had this sort of argument with a couple of other Americans in my time!) The Head of Government is the person who counts in Canada. Also, the Canadians aren’t paying for the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas – we are. So Betty and Phil, Chuck and Camilla, the egregious Beatrice and Eugenie and the many, many other parasites on the body politic don’t cost them anything, so they can’t object to them on those grounds. The royals are usually out of sight and out of mind, and I’d guess most Canadians don’t think about them at all – in other words, Canada is de facto a republic already.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  1. Ed…..I’m mostly joking. Making fun of the Canucks whenever the opportunity arises is fun, and a nice counterpoint to the superior attitude that Canadians sometimes adopt toward the 800 pound gorilla to the South. 😉

                    I’m a little more serious about monarchy. Maybe the English can’t bring themselves to ditch their monarchy, but it’s beyond human understanding why sensible countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and countless others, can’t bring themselves to ditch the English Monarch as their hereditary Head of State……even if they don’t wield any real political power.

                    We will never eradicate the scourge of hereditary monarchy from the face of the earth as long as we continue to make the excuse that it’s OK since they’re only figureheads. In particular, I have ZERO sympathy for the European countries who maintain their ancient monarchies and declare that it’s OK since their Kings and Queens don’t wear crowns and ride around in horse drawn carriages. We’re told how they wear normal clothing and run around town like regular people. Such monarchical poppycock!….IMHO.

                    As for the Canadians being wusses, you’ve probably seen Canadian protest signs 😉

                    Liked by 1 person

            2. Yes, Danny. The fight back started after the 1707 carry on.

              Of course, ordinary people in these days had no say at all.

              Those who mattered were the Lords (who got money and lands in England for their co-operation, they Church, which in those days was important, and which was allowed to stay in existence. The Church was pretty much responsible for education too. Then there was the law. Important people like solicitors, advocates and judges didn’t want to have to learn a whole new legal system, so it was kept separate.

              The ordinary people were’t important enough to be asked, but they didn’t like it.

              https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/mob-unrest-and-disorder-for-scotland/

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Tris…….A very interesting read!
                The subject of petitions reminded me that the First Continental Congress of 1774 tried a petition of grievances in response to parliament’s “Coercive Acts”, which were for the purpose of punishing the colonists after the Boston Tea Party.

                There were later proposals for petitions of grievance, but by the time of the Second Continental Congress in 1775, a successful resolution to take up arms was passed. No doubt about it, the English understood guns and bullets better than they responded to petitions. 😉

                https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-petitions-english-king-to-address-grievances

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Actually, that is true. A Conservative MP in parliament suggested that the Northern Irish people got a better deal out of leaving because, well, they were likely to take to arms.

                  The Brits don’t like the cold steel!

                  I wonder if Nicola has read that!

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Tris……I’m always careful not to engage in rhetoric that would seem to condone violence, which I do not. Nevertheless, I’m always safe in recounting historical facts.

                    So let me ask which major former colonies of Mother England are NOT today monarchies, with the British monarch as Head of State? Namely…..the United States, the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic of India. And what do they have in common? They confronted the British with cold steel and revolutionary violence. Others that immediately come to mind……Canada, Australia, etc……who played nice with Mother England, are still monarchies who bend their knees to the British throne.

                    My standard historical comment in this regard is that when confronted with guns and bullets, the English fold like a cheap suit. 🙂

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Well, I heartily agree, Danny. When violence happens it’s people like me who are hurt, not people like them.

                      Long time since a king got an arrow in his eye.

                      But yes, you’re not wrong.

                      Liked by 1 person

  2. Some crackers there today, just the laugh I needed on a freezing morning …
    Btw I have it on impeccable authority that the Doggie Advice Centre is actually staffed by cats (shudder!) but keep it to yourself unless you want to cause a cataclysmic catastrophe …

    Liked by 3 people

  3. England’s long farewell to Scotland.
    The only thing that changes is the date, the englandland empirists remain rooted to their exceptionalism.
    Take India as an example.
    In 1858 after the Indian Rebellion control of the country was transferred from the East India Co to Victoria 1. She and albert became imperial. The coinage changed to include the imperial title. She required that her Indian Subjects were to be treated the same as her other subjects, badly.
    On her death in 1901 edward7 became imperial as well but in response to england’s viceroy’s delivery of a proclamation of slow political reform some difficulties with loyal troops in Afghanistan. His death in 1910 was met with no grief displays.
    He was replaced by george5 and at his imperial coronation it saw some local Indian royalty didn’t show respect.
    The First world war got a promise of Dominion Status for India and troops fought in France but there were uprisings in 1915-6 with the leader being brought to trial for waging war against the emperor, he was cleared by the defense that he was allowed to have legitimate criticisms against the raj.
    The Amritsar Massacre followed in 1919, followed by another imperial proclamation on devolved government with edward8 to visit, george got renamed Robber of India.
    Nehru signalled that India would become a Republic in a document in 1931. The tories formed the Indian Empire society to keep nationalism at bay and in 1935 a new consultative document was released that didn’t allow the natives to participate. The new viceroy, lord linlithgow, victoria’s godson, arrived to organise the coronation of edward8, the plan was kept for george6 but abandoned in 1938 due to the costs.
    AnywaY IN 1946 George 6 dropped the imperial title and along comes the new viceroy, mountbatten, to mess up the independence of India into a religious partition, no federalism.
    Sounds like for Scotland the empirists are still using the same script.
    I hope we don’t have to wait as long as the Indians for our freedom.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. It’s an inglorious story, is it not… And that’s before you start on how the Brits treated Africans and indigenous people’s in Australian, New Zealand and Canada.

      I’m surprised that the queen’s uncle had time to mess up the partition of India, in between chasing lads around.

      And they’re making a fuss about Andrew?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Dave……Excellent account of English mismanagement of India!
      As I recall, Churchill’s imperialism and racism led him in the course of his career to write some very embarrassing things about India and Indians, and the British empire generally.

      I keep explaining to people that by mismanaging its far flung empire, England is directly responsible for almost every geopolitical evil in the world today. People are not paying nearly enough attention to English evil IMHO, and entirely too much attention to the American variety. 😉 There’s also the inconvenient fact that the other European powers probably treated their subject peoples worse than the English did.

      George V did really love the empire thing, and with Queen Mary put on a big show at the Delhi Durbar of 1911……the only Imperial Durbar that a British King/Emperor or Empress attended.
      (Only the Viceroy attended the “Proclamation Durbar” of 1877, celebrating the accession of Queen Victoria as Empress of India.)

      George V wore the Imperial Crown of India, specially made for the occasion and never used again. It’s now with the Crown Jewels in the Jewel House of the Tower. It cost £60,000, which was borne by the India Office, and the Republic of India would like to have it.

      No one puts on a show like the English!

      Liked by 1 person

          1. It must have cost an absolute fortune, Danny. Somewhere near £10 million for the crown alone. Worn once and now kept in London.

            It was paid for out of Indian funds so basically the Brit stole it. Presumably the British royal family stole it.

            Still, Andy has to be kept in teenagers; his daughters have to be kept in holidays, dresses and drink; Kate has to have her dresses. shoes and hats… Charlie in private jets…I mean it doesn’t come cheap

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Tris….

              Looks like the British position back to the time of Clement Attlee has been that as long as India and Pakistan are still in the Commonwealth, the Indian crown should stay in London.

              Wiki:
              “It has not been used since George V returned from India. On 15 August 1947, the Indian Empire was dissolved and the Dominions of India and Pakistan came into being. George VI and his British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, agreed that “as long as the two new Dominions remained in the Commonwealth, the crown should be retained among the Crown Jewels, but if at later date one or both were to secede it might be contended that, in view of the fact that it had been purchased out of Indian funds, the crown should be vested in some Indian authority”. Whilst neither Dominion still exists, their Indian and Pakistani successor states are both still in the Commonwealth.”

              Regarding an India connection to another crown……the crown of the British Queen Consort……it has set in it the 105.6-carat Koh-i-Noor diamond which India and/or Pakistan DO want back.

              The Koh-i-Noor was either a gift to Queen Victoria, or (perhaps more likely) simply stolen by the British. The British position here seems to be that they’re going to keep the diamond because if they returned everything they stole during the days of empire, there would be nothing left in the British museum.

              https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/koh-i-noor-diamond-britain-illegally-india-pakistan-afghanistan-history-tower

              Liked by 1 person

        1. It always sticks in my craw that when they put on these royal hootenannies there’s always some twit unctuously greasing on about how the royals “bring the country together” – provoking in my mind the usual questions, i.e., which country? Whose country? And “Aye, right”.

          As distasteful as the richest woman in the world – if she’s not, she can’t be far off it – sitting in front a bunch of overprivileged and overpaid political hacks and drones dolled up to the nines in megaexpensive Ruritanian pantomime costumes, with Herself wearing an impractical and well-nigh unwearable hat worth more than 99% of her “subjects” will see in a lifetime – droning on about how we must all tighten our belts and forego wage increases, wait years longer for our pensions and pay more for this, that and the other.

          Mind you, it’s been years since I had TV and longer still since I watched a Queen’s Speech or that Christmas Day thing she does, so maybe it’s changed since then.

          Aye, right.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Don’t forget that she always ends up saying that she has tried to live her life according to the teachings of Christ (who seems also to have sat there with a gold piano behind him when he was delivering the loaves and fishes.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. LOL……I’m wondering if the public relations expert at the palace who advised that a gold piano would make a beautiful background for the Christmas speech is the same guy who advised Andy on the BBC interview. 😉

              Liked by 1 person

              1. You have to wonder about the advisors, who’d, you’d think, might be slightly in touch with reality. Gold pianos…. pffff.

                On the other hand, Airmiles was advised NOT to do it, but being royalo, he knew better… although clearly, that’s another myth.

                Liked by 1 person

  4. I have to wonder about Neil Oliver, as in what on Earth is the matter with him? He seems so blinded by rage against the SNP that it doesn’t occur to him that New Zealand is another relatively small nation that is no longer dependent on the Crown, and doing pretty well for itself. Sheer silliness. I wonder who’s keeping his presidential seat warm in the meantime over at the National Trust for Scotland? Is he emigrating for good? (And it would be good, I think, though more for the rest of us than for him.)

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Yes, the 1979 referendum: even I had difficulty voting for it, the package on offer was so lousy. It’s no surprise to me that the turnout was so low; it was, as Tris said, not worth having. I persuaded myself to vote for it only because I thought it might lead on to better things – not least when it became clear to everyone that Westminster was systematically giving us the opposite of what we wanted. Then we got Thatcher, who gave us the opposite of what we wanted, and buried the idea of Scottish Home Rule for what I imagine she imagined was for ever.

    Poor old Keir Hardie. The only thing he might have approved of in the contemporary Labour party was the restored Scottish Parliament on which we voted in 1997 – when more of were still smarting from the wounds Thatcher had inflicted on us. But that’s rather a long time ago now, and there’s a huge chunk of the population who have no direct memory of those years.

    Delay is one of Their tactics: ignore it long enough and it’ll go away, and it will if the people who remember their behaviour from before pop their clogs and They can try the same tricks again on a new generation of credulous fools. I don’t think the First Minister can hold off any longer before setting a date this year for the referendum; I imagine it’s part of the game plan to give Boris and his nasty little pals time to realise that the political cost of refusing a §30 agreement for the result to be legally binding would be higher than he may want to pay, as it would convert the chances of a Yes vote from very likely to a near certainty. The polls say, as I understand it, that 70%* of Scots, independistas and supporters of the Union combined, think the decision to hold a referendum should be ours to make, not Boris’s.

    * That remaining 30% would include, I expect, most Tory voters; Ludgers who are among Labour’s 60% of supporters who think that international solidarity means between Bonnybridge and Bootle rather than Perth, Paris and Paderborn, as long as no Catholics are involved; other Labour supporters who believe in the Federalism Fairy; LibDems who think an independent Scotland will never introduce a land value tax – does that bring us up to 30%? Ideas, people?

    Like

      1. Ooft! I like it that Kezia’s partner has enough of a sense of humour to come back with “Hardie har har”. Could she be the real reason Kezia dropped out of leading the Labour Branch Office? She had a new, SNP partner who made her see the light?

        It would be kinda heartwarming to think so. Sort of “for every sinner who repenteth…”. (Checks Bible verse in his vast store of erudition, sorry, handy internet search engine, and finds) Luke 15:7 – “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.